Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-much-is-that-in-BTC? dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

While many pundits are trying to write the prequels to Brexit and bemoaning how the "stay" position wasn't properly communicated, the banks have forged ahead to Episode V and are quite happy to predict a recession for the UK in the next quarters. From https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/usd/5095-pound-to-dollar-exchange-rate-222311:

The British people have voted to leave the European Union, and this time they will take full ownership of any negative economic consequences - there are no bankers to blame for any negative economic impacts.

Bank of America's Ralf Preusser believes the UK is headed for recession as a result of the increased uncertainty businesses now face, noting:

"Prolonged uncertainty could lead investors - including residential investors - to postpone decisions. We think a recession in the UK will ensue, which cuts our calendar year 2017 GDP growth forecast to 0.2% from 2.3%, even with the Bank of England (BoE) stimulating."

[...] Barclays have confirmed they see GDP growth falling to -0.1% in the third and fourth quarters of 2016.

The Guardian has a slightly different Star Wars analogy, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/britain-boris-cricket-leave-lies-referendum-promises

"The pound is stable," explained Johnson, minutes before the pound was revealed to have fallen to a 31-year low, on a morning of financial activity we'll call Episode V: The Experts Strike Back.

At the time of writing [2016-06-28 @02:45 UTC], the current exchange rate has 1 GBP worth $1.331USD. One of the first hits on a search provided this 60-day historical perspective.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:11AM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:11AM (#366801) Journal

    Experts….

    The real experts are anybody who predicted that Brexit would go through. The tea leaves were too ambiguous to this yankee to attempt a prediction, and in the fallout, I see the other variables I missed.

    Uncertainty….

    The uncertainty of what? That the crops will grow next year? That the fab plants will continue to know how to make a microprocessor or eco-boost engine? That frustrated people will continue to wander about shouting Ni! at women in hijabs? (And Poles—I must admit, I'm at a loss, being from a melting pot, as to how one identifies a Pole.)

    Sell! Sell! Sell!

    And then they just didn't have the cash on hand to give to the farmer. Thus, the farmer didn't have the cash on hand to give to the ban@&#(!F(J$*#+++NO CARRIER

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by CRCulver on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:33AM

      by CRCulver (4390) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:33AM (#366832) Homepage

      And Poles—I must admit, I'm at a loss, being from a melting pot, as to how one identifies a Pole.

      Some UK neighbourhoods have shops run by Poles where things are written in Polish and the majority of customers are mainly Poles. In such neighbourhoods it's often easy to tell who is native-born and who is a Pole by what businesses people are patronizing, what language they are speaking in the street, or their body language. Even in a "melting pot" like the US, a century ago the native-born population in cities like Chicago could easily tell (and would often complain about, just like today) who was a native-born American and who was a Polish or Lithuanian immigrant.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:29AM (#366852)

        Even in a "melting pot" like the US, a century ago the native-born population in cities like Chicago could easily tell (and would often complain about, just like today) who was a native-born American and who was a Polish or Lithuanian immigrant.

        And, revealing, they were considered a different race, even italians, germans and irish were considered different races [pbs.org] until they had been here for a couple of generations.

        • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:55AM

          by davester666 (155) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:55AM (#366946)

          Yes, and treated like shit warmed over. Pretty much every wave of immigrants in America have been considered worthless criminals, right up to today's "muslims".

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:06PM (#367153)

            Do you understand that it's possible for that to be true AND that there are qualitative differences between the cultures of different immigrant groups? Muslims are uniquely insular compared to previous groups of immigrants. There's also an ascendant supremacist movement within poor Muslim communities which often turns to violence--haven't you noticed?

            Their poor reception in the west only makes it easier for these violent elements to recruit. More tolerance all around couldn't hurt. It is however a two-way street. Free speech, to give just one example, wins over religious sensibilities every time in the West and that's just something Muslims will have to accept if they want to live here. Homosexuality is of equal dignity and worth to any other expression of sexuality--and they just have to accept that, even among other Muslims.

            If you want a piece of all the West has to offer, these are just a few of the values you'll need to adopt. Many find this hard to do, and to them I say, there's the door.

      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:48AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:48AM (#366863) Journal

        Even in a "melting pot" like the US, a century ago the native-born population in cities like Chicago could easily tell (and would often complain about, just like today) who was a native-born American and who was a Polish or Lithuanian immigrant.

        Yet, in the USA, there were also communities that, after 3 generations, only spoke german. How would a (non-german speaking) local distinguish a native-born german speaker from a non-native-born german speaker?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:52AM (#366868)

          Refuse to assimilate after 3 generations -- You are not a citizen, you're a foreign invader.

          • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:59AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:59AM (#366874)

            Yeah, those amish and mennonites, totally foreign invaders.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:21AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:21AM (#366909)

              Your point is noted, but while the Amish are pretty big on firearms, they've not been ideologues whose fundamental doctrine calls for a literal world war until all are in submission to Islam (which means "submission", by the way).

              It's easier to view the problem once you decouple the propaganda of "Islam is the religion of peace" from your brain, and discover that Islam is a warlike governmental system, precisely the inverse of the propaganda. The best single-source I've found for this is the book Prophet of Doom [prophetofdoom.net], whose website is a shadow of its former self (missing the HTML and audiobook versions in addition to additional written works) after years of attack by... guess who.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:25AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:25AM (#366910)

                > Islam (which means "submission", by the way).

                Submission to who?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:07AM (#366929)

                  Not to "whom", but to what: the laws of Islam. Don't follow all the laws, and you're fair game as a member of the "House of War".

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:20AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:20AM (#366935)

                    And here I thought you had a hard-on for mexicans with that 3rd generation invective

                    > Not to "whom", but to what: the laws of Islam

                    And that's different from god fearing christians, how?
                    never mind, I'm sure you've got some circular rationalization
                    props on the passive aggressive grammar correction though, way to demonstrate your superioritay

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:31AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:31AM (#366939)

                      And that's different from god fearing christians, how?

                      The "god fearing christians" have no bearing on whether or not Islam is a sociopolitical system with a mandate for literal world conquest via war and deception. (You also seem to have forgotten that multiple ACs often participate in a thread. This AC has posted the grandparent post to this, but none others thus far.)

                • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:40PM

                  by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:40PM (#367013) Journal
                  By the members of the religion to 'the will of Allah [literally: The God]'.
                  --
                  sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:37PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:37PM (#367012)

          Smells anecdotal in that about a million people in my metro area that I knew as a little kid met that generational criteria, and none of them spoke German.

          Genealogy is fun.

          There might be some remote rural town of 200 people where an anecdote happened, but in a country of 300+ million people of which 10% are illegal aliens that means approximately nothing about the country or illegals or legal immigrants for that matter.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:43AM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:43AM (#366921) Journal

      Our society has grown highly interdependent with the EU over the last generation or so. This could (if the referendum result becomes law) cause the biggest mass migration of people and capital in history. Tens of millions of people are affected.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:08PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:08PM (#367275) Journal

        Our society has grown highly interdependent with the EU over the last generation or so. This could (if the referendum result becomes law) cause the biggest mass migration of people and capital in history. Tens of millions of people are affected.

        Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. Membership in the EU isn't required to have open trade agreements.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:44PM (#367083)

      Economists have been able for quite a while to explain the consequences of a Brexit very well and quite precisely. Unfortunately, since economists don't have a professional order like engineers or doctors, it takes years of school to learn the language in order to be able to tell if the economist is a quack.

      With this in mind, the media is doing a very poor job disentangling actual economic facts from actual economists, and BS from fringe commentators with a tie that have no credibility among knowledgeable experts in their field.

      -An economist

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:17AM (#366804)

    From the second article:

    A ComRes survey during the penultimate week of the campaign found 61% of voters declaring themselves willing to accept a short-term economic slowdown to tighten immigration controls, but 68% unwilling to see their personal annual income negatively affected at all to achieve the same.

    Yeah. You see the same thinking with the people cheering on Trump.
    He's going to hurt the people who deserve it, but I'm a good person, I don't deserve it, so I'll be just fine.

    Guess what numb-nuts. A millionaire who loses half his wealth is still going to be just fine.
    Maybe he has to wait a couple more years before buying a new BMW.
    But a regular joe who loses half his wealth will be lucky if his car isn't repossessed.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:23AM (#366807)

      I bet there's a psychology experiment that demonstrated that kindergarten children, given the choice between

      A. They get a chocolate candy bar - all their classmates get two

      B. Nobody gets any candy.

      would favor choice (B).

      That's the Trump/Brexit psychology.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:20AM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:20AM (#366844) Journal

        Isn't the test in our economy more like:

        A) Johny gets 50 cases of candy bars, the rest of the class gets to share 1.
        B) there is no B.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:24AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:24AM (#366847) Journal

          Point of clarification -- That "1" the class shares isn't a case of candy bars, it's a single candy bar.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:52AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:52AM (#366869) Journal

        The biggest trick that the banksters and their .01% friends have done is to get the majority of the population to blame the poorest in society, instead of the class of people who have taken most money out of the economy (the ultra-wealthy).

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:12AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:12AM (#366881)

          You are saying that the banksters voted 52% to leave the EU?

          Look, I totally agree that the elites have failed to live up to their social responsibilities.
          But that does not, in any way, mean that they are going to suffer more from leaving the EU than the hoi polloi will.

          • (Score: 2) by bootsy on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:43AM

            by bootsy (3440) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:43AM (#366983)

            Actually Trader's love volatility. It's when they make the most money. When everything is predictable no third parties need to hedge any risk.

            Banks as a whole may not have wanted this outcome but individuals within may have.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:47PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:47PM (#367018)

        That's the Trump/Brexit psychology.

        More like

        a) have your daughter (and son) raped by invaders

        or

        b) we say we'll take away half your wealth but nobody can explain why not having government supported invaders rape your children magically requires half your money. Other than "we say so" and "we like taking your money"

        Where is all this EU generated wealth? I mean, if taking away the EU means it takes its EU money with it, clearly it must have brought the money into the country in the first place, in order to have all this money to take away. If all the money was brought into the city of London to cause a multi-generational speculative bubble in real estate prices, I'm sure the city of london people will be really annoyed that the cash spigot was shut off, but if not one euro of the cash spigot benefited 99.9% of the population, why would they be affected and why should they care? Staying in the EU has been zero long term benefit for almost the entire country so leaving will also be zero long term problem for them.

        As the EU decays Greek style, its going to drag down the rest of the countries, so its not like the UK will be "missing out" on anything. "Oh no, I really wanted to pay an extra billion in taxes to bail out Greece" Well, they do take donations you know.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:44PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:44PM (#367084)

          You do realize no actual taxes were levied to pay for any bailouts. It's all just made up $Euro's they can print at will. The same as the $US and any other sovereign currency. The fact that this would make the Euro cheaper is an advantage. You may have noticed just about every country in the wold decreasing their interest rates in order to to lower the value of their currencies in a race to the bottom with everybody else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:26PM (#367114)

        First of all, they could have listed to their dentist. They are protecting their classmates.

        The no-candy choice is exactly what happens in monkey experiments.

        The smart choice is to offer your classmates a deal. If you like candy, choose B only if your classmates will each give you one of their two. Now you end up with 30. Alternately, you could choose something other than the candy. Maybe you could have your classmates do your homework, give you toys, suck your cock, eat your pussy, beat up your brother, key the teacher's car...

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:21AM (#366845)

      So, the Pound drops in price relative to other currencies.

      Guess what that means? More foreign spending because their money is worth more! Yay!

      Devalued currency is only bad for banks and (dumb) elites who don't diversify only have their investment in a single currency. Long term investment in the currency, land and products of UK is still fine.

      Protip: All wars are fought for bankers. [youtube.com] Private central banks seek to control currency minting so they can control economies. This is why governments should have the right to print currency, so they can bring themselves out of recessions easily rather than have banks become more powerful, elites buying up the country side for cheap, and governments forced to accept whatever currency regulation the banks want. Sadly, none in the west do -- and those in the Euro Zone certainly are under the thumb of the centralized banking cartels with their currency manipulation schemes.

      The elites' weapon of mass destruction is currency manipulation. If they won't let you print your own currency then give them the finger and start bartering. Ebay and Craig's List, FTW.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:43AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:43AM (#366859) Journal

        Or maybe it's the different way around, and tge pound is worth less because people are investing less in GB, thus needing less of the currency. Low pound will help exports, but imports are more expensive. Exports are hurt otoh by companies moving out leaving Britain with less to export.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:48AM (#366862)

          Bingo. Now that the UK will have less access to euro markets, there is more incentive for manufacturing to move out of the UK. Any factory that was on the margin is now looking at a future in the red. Buh-bye!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:57AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:57AM (#366872)

            Except that's what already happened.

            You see, businesses want to sell to the UK people. But they want to build elsewhere.

            They want to sell into well off places and do their slave labor in poverty stricken places.

            With the UK out of the EU they are will be free to institute trade tarrifs. This makes it more expensive to exploit poor foreign workers while selling into the better off places (and devaluing local made goods). So, it makes it cheaper to manufacture in the UK if you want to sell to the UK.

            This makes it better for the UK people and brings jobs back into the nation. In the EU this can't happen because of the fucked up free trade deals, that benefit only elites and bankers.

            Has it been so long that you totally forgot about how tariffs work?

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:04AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:04AM (#366876)

              > Except that's what already happened.

              Typical black and white analysis.
              It has happened to some factories and now it is going to happen to even more factories.

              > This makes it better for the UK people and brings jobs back into the nation.

              Only for goods consumed within the UK. Kiss all those export based jobs good-bye. And simultaneously kiss those cheap foreign goods goodbye too. Double whammy.

              Maybe, if everything goes right, 20 years down the road, things will start looking up again. But betting on an outcome that requires near perfect handling of all crisis during a downturn is magical thinking.

              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:55PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:55PM (#367022)

                Kiss all those export based jobs good-bye.

                I might have missed something in the discussion, but you are pondering a theoretical rise in the pound in which case you're correct, or the real world drop of the pound in which case you have it backwards?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:19AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:19AM (#366907)

              They want to sell into well off places and do their slave labor in poverty stricken places.

              I see... Now it makes sense. Britain is deliberately becoming poor in order to get more jobs in the future. Great idea. It's some way to go because they have to get even poorer now to make up for the disadvantage of not having direct access to the EU market, but I'm confident they will manage.

            • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:22AM

              by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:22AM (#366959) Journal

              All EU member states are obliged to implement the EU Working Time Directive [wikipedia.org] in their laws.

              That says that workers have a right to refuse to work more than 48 hours per week, without backlash. And some holiday decrees.
              It's part of the Health and Safety laws.

              Now that the UK goes out of the EU, in 2 years time or less the UK companies are no longer bound to this law.
              IF the UK people vote for the Tories or the UKIP, which they most probably will.

              So it is more profitable for the company owners to polish their whips and wait at most 2 years. And the coming recession might mean that they can lower the wages, as well.

              The UK is out from under the yoke of the slave-driving EU! Yay! Freedom!
              (that was sarcasm btw)

              • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:00PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:00PM (#367027)

                If the majority of UK want it that way, shouldn't they have it that way?

                I suspect the reverse.

                There will be a lot of political "fun" over the next months ironing everything out.

                Will working time be like the USA model of local building codes where in theory every dumpy municipality in the country (like 10K of them) COULD have different rules but in practice other than the finest hairs of details they're all about the same and all mostly sane, or will it be like water rights in the USA where there some geographic scientific impact but mostly a steaming pile of corruption and historical precedent (or like concealed carry state laws, which are all over the map)?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:39AM (#366854)

      But a regular joe who loses half his wealth will be lucky if his car isn't repossessed.

      Howso? The currency value drops, Joe is still earning the same amount of Pounds for his work, and paying the same amount of Pounds for his car note and groceries. What happens is that the car becomes more valuable relatively to the money. Inflation may raise the price of imported goods. So, the answer is to give Joe a wage increase so that he can buy the same groceries as before.

      Alternatively, if the country has the ability to print currency, then they can just start jobs programs building infrastructure and paying people with printed currency. This boost the economy as those workers buy more things with the money they received.

      This is the problem with globalization. Without much globalization the country is more self sufficient and currency price changes don't really hurt them because most of the goods and services within the country are in the same monetary unit. EU used the Euro to create a single currency for participating nations, but then they also created a bunch of regulations to control which goods and services come from where and manipulate the economy that way -- to the detriment of the UK.

      So, it's like this: The UK being raped by the EU while in the EU and helpless to do anything about it. OR, the UK being raped by bankers while not in the EU, and able to send the corrupt fuckers to the gallows, create new monetary policy, and Make Brittan Great Again.

      As TFA insinuates: The temporary economic hit is purely political. No trade deals have changed at all, and the EU Parliament could even ignore the referendum (at risk of causing riots). Point being, economically nothing has changed. There's no economic reason such as supply and demand for the current drop in the Pound. Bankers are selling lots of their holdings in Pounds to manipulate its price. Bankers want more control, and have it under the EU, so they'll punch back in the way they usually do, via economic recession. Protip: Neither the Bank of England nor the US's Federal Reserve are owned by their respective governments. They are private centralized banks and in bed with the EU bankers, no doubt.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:18AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:18AM (#366884)

        > Howso? The currency value drops, Joe is still earning the same amount of Pounds for his work, and paying the same amount of Pounds for his car note and groceries.

        Facts not in evidence.
        You think his groceries weren't low-cost imports?
        You think he's going to keep his job when the factory leaves the UK?
        You think his loan rates aren't affected by printing currency?

        You simply have no concept of how interconnected the modern world is. But what you don't know can hurt you.
        Console yourself that you are no longer being "raped by the EU." For all the good it will do.

        • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:22PM

          by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:22PM (#367237)

          Well, a lower pound makes it less likely his factory will leave the UK.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:24PM (#367279)

            Only if a sufficient amount of raw materials are locally sourced. Otherwise the cost of those raw materials is effectively increased by that lower pound. Wanna bet that a significant minority, if not an outright majority, of raw materials are imported to the UK?

            • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:25PM

              by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:25PM (#368111)

              Huh, no. The components of cost would be in (1) raw materials and (2) costs of running the factory (including paying off same, etc.). But a better division would be (a) costs in euros and (b) costs in pounds. Imported raw materials would fall into column (a), So might some other things, like financing being paid back in euros or something. Other factors fall into column (b), esp. labor and expected factory profit. Column (a) is the same cost. Column (b) is now cheaper. Hence factories in Britain are now cheaper.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:17AM (#366805)

    The game of chicken ended with everyone in a big pile of scrap metal. Scotland is thinking about vetoing the exit (also about leaving UK to rejoin EU as fast as possible). Can you imagine Scotland saving the day?

    Because I doubt EU is going to drop stubbornness and start working for the European Humans. They would blindly continue working for European Big Business (VW fined? HAHA!), and even for Foreign Big Business and other Nations (illegal renditions? that should be dealt as treason... but no, better send the message citizenship and territory can be ignored), and wondering why Humans are acting like cornered animals.

    EU, scared about Brexit? About increasing populism all over the place? Start caring about Humans. NOW. Or don't come crying when you slide into hell later.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:40AM

      by q.kontinuum (532) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:40AM (#366919) Journal

      Would be nice if the EU would be taking the right consequences from Brexit. But I'm afraid the opposite will happen. EU as it currently is will be strengthened. All sceptics will be pointed to the Brexit fuckup and be silenced. It might take some weeks/months to sink in, but that will probably happen.

      --
      Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:33AM

        by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:33AM (#366981) Journal

        I'm sorry that I can't come up with a good example, but in many ways the social aspect of the EU has been held back for years by the large influence of the UK, with its neoliberal Tory and neoliberal Blairite Labour governments.

        Oh yeah, one example is that the EU (or maybe it was the ECB) really really wanted to reform banking, in the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

        But guess who did their stinking best to prevent that? The UK, where the City of London Corporation ahs a special person *IN PARLIAMENT* to make sure that the government doesn't pass laws that are detrimental to the bankers.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:43AM (#366942)

      Scotland cannot veto the exit. They can not vote for it, and that may be enough to prevent it going through, but they have no power of veto.

      • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:48AM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:48AM (#366986) Journal

        They have 54 MPs in the Commons. Northern Ireland have 18. So, yes, if the English (533) and Welsh (40) all vote in favour of leaving, we are stuffed.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:45PM

        by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:45PM (#367016) Journal
        It's not that clear cut. The act that introduced devolution explicitly granted the Scottish Parliament the responsibility for enacting laws in compliance with EU rules. It also placed some limitations on Westminster on what laws could be passed that affected Scotland without consulting Scotland. There is currently a Parliamentary subcommittee looking into whether this would require undoing devolution before Westminster having the power to undo EU membership.
        --
        sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:43PM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:43PM (#367014) Journal

      Can you imagine Scotland saving the day?

      Maybe it's their turn to be capital of the UK. Westminster can be a devolved English Parliament and Holyrood can be the British Parliament.

      --
      sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:21AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:21AM (#366806)

    The banksters are assuming that they will never go bankrupt again. Same point of view as the 'trading models' they used before 2008 GFC. So knowing that, one can start to immediately see the flaws to their argument.

    They forget that the British people gave out, on average, 40,000Pounds per person, to bail out the banks. Why did the banks go bankrupt? See line 1. 1.4trillion pounds was printed, handed over, and promptly spent by the 1%. The CEO's of those banks got infront of parliament and basically made the argument: "my shareholders chose me to run the bank, the bank is bankrupt. My responsibility is to those share holders who voted me to this job and told me what to do."

    Meanwhile the London Lord Mayor has already started stroking the fires of alarmism, pointing out that the banks control that city, and that city can move to the EU. Again, ignoring the obvious question: whos going to bail out the banks? Germany?

    The media right now are on the side of banksters and banksters worry about themselves and the rich people who vote them into their positions of power.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:38AM (#366917)

      Now dont miss the fact it *IS* going to suck there for awhile. But to use the british pound exchange rate is a best disingenuous. The banks control that pretty much. They are the single largest consumer of money (yes money does follow supply and demand).

      Also that 30 year low is also a bit disingenuous. It fell off a cliff in 2008. When it went from 2 dollars to ~1.40. It never really recovered and has been languishing in the 1.40 to 1.70 range for 8 years . This just put more pressure on it to go lower yet. The euro was ready for a technical breakout in a pretty classical funnel pattern.

      Remember the *banks* control the money supply. They size of the money supply controls what the value of a currency is versus another currency. The EU banks are probably deliberately sticking it to the UK. They have *nothing* to lose and much to gain. Remember the UK is one of the larger contributors to the EU. They pay in pounnds and that must be converted to euros. That large exchange is going to change. If the leave dudes were right to the tune of 380 million a week (with a bunch coming back and getting exchanged again). Meaning not only was there a huge demand there (which is now gone). There was an artificial demand. Meaning the real value of the pound is starting to show. Woopsie, as you pointed out the banks printed and devalued money to soften 2008. They hid it in sending money to the EU and the EU sending it right back. Creating a false bubble.

      whos going to bail out the banks? Germany?
      Considering they basically told Greece to stuff it and suck it up? Probably not.

  • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:26AM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:26AM (#366809) Journal

    Only two need to be asked:

    1) Who will profit most in the short term from a Brexit?
    2) Who will profit most in the short term from the UK staying in the EU?

    Answer those and you can likely predict the outcome of this whole mess.

    Am enjoying watching politicians of every stripe try desperately to distance themselves from having to make any statement about the mess they've created.

    And media expressing shock and alarm that some of the things said during the campaign were UNTRUE!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:38AM (#366811)

      > 1) Who will profit most in the short term from a Brexit?
      > 2) Who will profit most in the short term from the UK staying in the EU?
      > Answer those and you can likely predict the outcome of this whole mess.

      You are wandering off into conspiracy theory.

      (1) At best you can only say who thinks they will benefit. Nobody can know the future.
      (2) Even if someone thinks they will be benefit one way or the other, all that means is that they will push for the result that they think benefits them. It does not mean they will succeed.

    • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:16AM

      by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:16AM (#366978) Journal

      [dons tin-foil hat]

      1. Rupert Murdoch's in-law's hedge fund (see my other posting [soylentnews.org], I'm not kidding, I read this today)

      [removes tin-foil hat]

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by black6host on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:39AM

    by black6host (3827) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:39AM (#366812) Journal

    I figured Brexit would win. If I'd had money, and I was interested in investing in other people's misery, and that's a big if, I would have bet on it.

    I feel sorry for the UK right now. They've got a tough row to hoe. And, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they didn't invoke Article 50, thereby staying in the EU. I think once people saw what happened many of them might be thinking: "Oh shit".

    Good lesson for us here in the U.S.A. You can take that how you like as I have no wish to start a political flame war.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:01AM (#366824)

      > I think once people saw what happened many of them might be thinking: "Oh shit".

      Nearly 4 million UK signatures on the "brexit do-over" petition so far. [parliament.uk]
      The Leave guy kinda set things up by saying that a 52-48 result (in favor of remain) shouldn't really count. [mirror.co.uk]

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:31AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:31AM (#366830)

        Nearly 4 million UK signatures on the "brexit do-over" petition so far.

        ... and of those, only ~400,000 seem to be from inside the U.K.

        https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4puc6z/with_regards_to_the_petition_today/ [reddit.com]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:04AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:04AM (#366835)

          Don't have to reside within the UK to be a UK citizen.
          It makes sense that UK ex-pats would be the most motivated to keep the UK in the EU.
          But conspiracy!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:45AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:45AM (#366861)

            Ten to One expats vs locals? Mate, that's some conspiracy-tier shit right there.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:51AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:51AM (#366867)

              Or word of the petition hit the ex-pat community first because they care a lot about it, so early votes were mostly from them.
              But nope, conspiracy!

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:00AM (#366875)

                You're the one claiming there's a conspiracy.

                No one else is claiming that. We're just saying that most of those votes do not count and are not representative of the UK residents.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:09AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:09AM (#366878)

                  > You're the one claiming there's a conspiracy.

                  WTF?
                  You linked to a reddit thread claiming a conspiracy.
                    "The Ministry of Truth Has Spoken"
                    "Makes all data in json suspect"
                    "it straight up looks like they cooked the numbers"

                  Thanks for confirming you aren't playing with a full deck.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:06AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:06AM (#366902)

                    You linked to a reddit thread

                    No he didn't.

                    I did.

                    Yes, sometimes it's confusing keeping track of all the ACs, but contrary to popular opinion we are not all of a single hive-mind. It is also noteworthy that the use of the word "conspiracy", contrary to your apparent belief, does not by itself negate the appearance of foul play which may involve more than one person and thus in fact be a conspiracy [thefreedictionary.com] by definition.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:27AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:27AM (#366912)

                      Your post added no new information to the discussion.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:56PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:56PM (#367091)

                        Neither did yours or mine :)

      • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:26PM

        by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:26PM (#367238)

        It surprises me that a simple majority would be all that was required for a decision of this magnitude. I think a 2/3 or 3/4 majority to change the status quo in a permanent, far-reaching, international way makes sense.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday June 29 2016, @04:16AM

          by dry (223) on Wednesday June 29 2016, @04:16AM (#367392) Journal

          Quebec had 2 referendums on leaving Canada with the second one being even closer then this, 51-49 to stay before the federal government passed the Clarity Act which IIRC requires 60% so it is not unprecedented and seems to be the default with referendums. OTOH, BC had a referendum on changing the voting procedure and the threshold was 60% (ended with 59% for) so when governments don't want a referendum to change the status quo, they can set it up so it is unlikely to pass.
          Constitutions at least usually have a clear amending formula but even then Canada debated for 50 odd years on how to amend ours and Quebec never did sign on when the 7/50 formula (7 out of 10 Provinces containing 50% of the population) was pushed through. And the Provinces seem to have defaulted to leaving amendments to simple 50/50 referendums so it's possible to amend with less then 50%.
          The UK is weird as before the EU and I guess soon again, Parliament is Supreme, so Parliament can change any Constitutional document by majority vote, though if the people are against it, a new Parliament will be voted in which can change it back. Probably the real reason to leave the EU, can't legislate a police state if the courts can refer to a Bill of Rights and override the government.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:53AM

      by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:53AM (#366945) Journal

      I just now read an article in de Volkskrant about it: (in Dutch)

      http://www.volkskrant.nl/economie/hedgefonds-crispin-odey-casht-door-brexit~a4328706/ [volkskrant.nl]

      "Hedgefonds Crispin Odey casht door Brexit"

      So this mr. Crispin Odey the hedgefundie shorted everything bank-related just before the Brexit, and he earned 220 million ₤ because he gambled that it WAS an unexpected brexit not a more likely bremain

      Normally, I find it a bit demeaning when newspapers give "conspiracy theory" type details about the personal lives of dodgy people, but listen to this & weep:

      "Odey, geboren in Yorkshire, was ooit getrouwd met Prudence Murdoch, de oudste dochter van mediatycoon Rupert Murdoch."

      How accurate are the prediction models of Murdoch's newspapers, w.r.t. pushing the appropriate buttons on the British voters who read his tabloids? Or is that a cynical thought of me?

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:15AM (#366827)

    might be overstated. That probably will lower the GDP a little bit in the short term, but they'll recover soon enough.

    The bigger effect is the dismantling of the common trade market, starting with the Brits. Guys, that's a massive loss. Pretty much every economist agrees that trade is beneficial to GDP and job creation. Anything that increases trade (and not an unequal agreement brought about by force), that tears down barriers to trade, generally helps both nations, although there usually will be winners and losers within each country - e.g. steelworkers in the USA haven't done so well.

    Immigration can be seen as an extension of trade; with a few exceptions (that are always discussed ad nauseum by the resentful right wing), the immigrants help their host countries by making increasing the productiveness and/or cost efficiency of their businesses, allowing them to stay open and thrive. Trade and immigration are part of the free flow of goods, services, people, and ideas between countries, that leads to greater wealth of each participating country.

    People on this site and the old site take it as a matter of faith that the free flow of ideas is generally a good thing that must be defended. Well, it's the same with the flow of economic goods and services. It is a good thing for our economy, for their economy, for prosperity and advancement of industry, and for peace and understanding between nations.

    • (Score: 2) by caffeine on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:18AM

      by caffeine (249) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:18AM (#366933)

      I've not noticed anyone in the US asking for on open border with Mexico. And as an Australian, I've never heard anyone wanting an open border with our neighbour Indonesia. We complain enough about New Zealanders living in AU for the higher social security payments and they come from a country with a very similar economic position.

      I can understand people in the UK wanting the ability to decide on their own immigration policy, and don't believe all the leave voters were just uninformed racists.

      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:38AM

        by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @10:38AM (#366982) Journal

        The US has only had a few wars with Mexico, I believe.

        In my history books I had to learn about the 30 year war, the 100 year war, and of course especially the 80 year war.

        • (Score: 2) by caffeine on Tuesday June 28 2016, @11:07PM

          by caffeine (249) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @11:07PM (#367323)

          That must be it. I don't recall the UK ever being at war with France, Germany or Spain :-)

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:53PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:53PM (#367214) Journal

      The bigger effect is the dismantling of the common trade market, starting with the Brits.

      Why does that have to be dismantled again? My view on this matter is that regressing the EU back to the common trade market would satisfy the conditions of a "leave" vote in Brexit.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:22AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:22AM (#366828)

    >this time they will take full ownership of any negative economic consequences - there are no bankers to blame for any negative economic impacts.

    Except of course, for all the bankers who wagered on 'Stay'. A lot of them did, seeing as it was getting 9:1 favorable odds. And now some of those same bankers are 'punishing' Britain for not voting they way they wanted by attempting to cause a stock market panic. You would think the whole country vanished into a black hole based on some of the scaremongering in the media - it's not like the country's GDP or imports will drastically change just because they're wearing a different hat today. It's the EU countries that can't stop spending themselves to death and need yearly bailouts - those are the ones you should be more concerned with.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:13AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:13AM (#366840)

      > And now some of those same bankers are 'punishing' Britain for not voting they way they wanted by attempting to cause a stock market panic.

      I expect that belief to become the dominant scapegoat for all the shitty times ahead.
      It isn't that the leavers can't actually have their cake and eat it too. No!
      It is a conspiracy of elites punishing the true and noble people of the UK.
      Because the rich don't mind fucking themselves as long as they also fuck the little guy too, that's what they live for!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:49AM (#366864)

        It is a conspiracy of elites punishing the true and noble people of the UK.

        You're just ignorant as fuck about all of history. [youtube.com]

        "The people who have the most control of the currency aren't controlling the currency! It's a conspiracy theory!" - Seek professional mental help.

        • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:56AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:56AM (#366871)

          You are a gamergater too aren't you?
          Linking to long-ass boring as shit videos from nobody bloggers with zero credentials who turn out to be bigots. Standard operating procedure.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:06AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:06AM (#366877)

            Not a single refutation, just name calling. Maybe you know nothing about history because even this video is longer than your short attention span.

            Bankers throw around their influence so much that their economic meddling results in wars. This is historic fact. Now, take your ADHD meds and watch that vid to learn something and you won't sound like a fool next time claiming common knowledge of historic fact is a"conspiracy" or the product of evil gamergaters.

            • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:41AM (#366891)

              > Not a single refutation,

              Because I'm not going waste 45 minutes of my life on a low-rent ted-talk from a source so dubious that he was kicked off infowars.
              Kicked off infowars for fucks sake, how nutty do you have to be for Alex Jones to decide that you are insufficiently rigorous?

              If what you say is so true then there must be more trustworthy sources to cite.
              Bring me something from somebody with actual academic credentials in the field he's writing about and then I'll take you seriously enough to pay attention.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:12AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:12AM (#366903)

                how nutty do you have to be for Alex Jones to decide that you are insufficiently rigorous?

                If King Nut says you're too nutty to be seen in public with, then perhaps your personal nut factor is a tad too high.

        • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:06PM

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:06PM (#367030) Journal

          Another erudite contribution from Project Tinfoil Hat. I look forward to a prosperous future in Farage's agrarian paradise. We will trade freely with Zimbabwe, Venezuela and North Korea which will more than compensate for the loss of EU business. Hail Farage!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:20AM (#366908)

        I am the AC OP, not the guy posting conspiracy theory videos.

        No, it's not "all the banker's fault", but as I previously said: what uncertainly is there really? Is there any commodity of England's that will no longer be traded? Will they import less? Will Europe start laying down heavy tariffs and risk losing business because of it? I really doubt any of the above. So where is all the supposed 'uncertainty' coming from?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:31AM (#366915)

          > what uncertainly is there really?

          How profitable all those businesses will be under new rules and restrictions.

        • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:06PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:06PM (#366999) Journal

          It's warm and I'm a bit ill, and in my feverish state I made a long (LONG!) itemized summary of how I understand Brexit. If you're a masochist or interested in Brexit, feel free to read it and comment. I read thru several of the 20 000 comments on the Guardian, and some articles on de Volkskrant and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and BBC News to compose it.

          I'll try to summarize, but I'm long-winded, I admit. correct me if it's bullshit please:

          I believe the "uncertainty" in this context is as follows (skip to the paragraph "Uncertainty" at the end if TL;DR)

          Ancient history:
          I walked from Liverpool to London. Brexit was no surprise - Mike Carter [theguardian.com]

          Background:
          - The UK has always been the country that wanted special rules and exceptions
          - When the Lisbon treaty ("constitution") was made, the UK lobbied for an article to make it possible for a country to *exit* the EU. They made that rule, and the other countries agreed to put it in the acquis communautaire [wikipedia.org]
          - One of the rules for exit was: the divorce negotiation has to be done within 2 years, after that you are just kicked out (e.g. fallback position to normal tariff WTO trade rules between the quitter and the rest)
          - Another of the rules, relevant here, is that the legitimate government of the quitting country has to formally say to the Council of Europe(=the other governments) that his/her country is quitting. Only then, the 2 year clock starts ticking.
          They can say it in a letter or in a speech, but they have to say something official like: "my country wants out of the EU and I invoke article 50"
          - At one point the UK would have to re-negotiate trading rules with the EU, I can't figure out if that's during the 2 year divorce period or after, maybe both. That seems to take about 5 years per topic in the optimistic case.
          - The UK is rich, a net payer to the EU, so the EU is going to lose a chunk of budget when they bugger off, and the UK can then use that chunk of budget for the purposes of the government which they have elected at that time.
          - The UK is partially represented in the European Parliament by the UK Independence Party. Its leader, Nigel Farage, doesn't like the EU (understatement), and has officially in Parliament called the previous EU president Herman van Rompuy link [theguardian.com]:

          "Ukip MEP Nigel Farage told Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the EU, he had "all the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk" in the European parliament yesterday.

          Farage, the former leader of the UK Independence party, also dismissed Van Rompuy's homeland, Belgium, as a "non-country".

          As well as attacking Van Rompuy's appearance, personality and home nation, Farage also criticised the president's pay packet and accused him of plotting the overthrow of the nation state.
          "

          No love lost there, then.

          Before the referendum:
          - David Cameron the UK PM said a few years ago: "if you elect the Tories again, I promise I will give you a referendum on the UK membership of the EU"
          - The Brits elected the Tories (madness, I know)
          - The UK government and parliament passed a law to actually do this referendum, and that a simple majority decides the outcome, i.e. more than 50% wins, instead of more than 2/3 etc.
          - Mostof the Tory ministers and important politicians were for bremain, the right wing of the party, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Ian Duncan Smith, against
          - Most of the (opposition) Labour part was for bremain but their faction leader, Jeremy Corbyn, wasn't so he was more like: "officially, my party instructs me that we in Labour are for bremain (of course you know that privately I hate the EU's guts, but I'll play along)"
          I believe the expression is "damning with faint praise"
          - The UKIP is for brexit, it's their reason for existing.

          Referendum:
          - Lots of campaigning and politics
          - A few of the brexit campainers have said: "and then when we vote out, the EU has no choice but to offer us even more special exceptions and money than Maggie Thatcher squeezed out of them in 1985 [wikipedia.org], in order for us to please please stay in"
          - Many racist people in the UK apparently formed the opinion that the referendum question was Ausländer Raus!. Possibly after viewing a large poster of Syrian refugees, similar to a Nazi propaganda poster about refugees. The UK has 180 Syrian refugees, there were more on that photo, so it might have been false advertising but maybe the poster just meant: "this is what will happen if you don't vote for us".
          - There was a campaign bus (photo) [independent.co.uk] with large letter printing: "We send the EU ₤350 million pounds a week / Let's fund our NHS instead"
          - David Cameron lobbied to stay *in* the EU ("Bremain"), and said he'd step down as PM if he lost this
          - This is the referendu m question asked of the UK voters:

          "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

          - The UK hoi polloi voted
          - The outcome was 52% Brexit, 48% Bremain, and has not been disputed
          - David Cameron said (paraphrase): "I wanted us to stay in. I quit, just like I promised; the Tories won the general election, so the Tory party will select a new prime minister in October who wants Brexit and good luck with it"
          - The areas that got the most EU "backwards wasteland fund" money were the strongest in favour of brexit (seriously; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale [theguardian.com] "What have the Romans ever done for us!?! except for aqueducts, etc.")
          - All areas of Scotland voted majority Bremain because they see the EU as less tyrannical and more politically centrist than Westminster
          - Northern Ireland voted mostly bremain; but they can always join the Republic which is inside the EU
          - London voted mostly bremain, the new mayor has said he's not planning on deporting the EU foreigners and would like them to continue to work and live there.

          Aftermath:
          - Brexit won, but turns out: there is no actual brexit plan or strategy. I'm NOT kidding.
          - The Brexit campainers Boris Johnson (Tory), Gove (Tory) and Nigel Farage (UKIP) have admitted the next day that "the 350 million quid to NHS" was just bullshit to get people to vote brexit
          - The Brexit campainers have admitted that staying in the common market, like Norway and Switzerland, implies following the EU immigration rules as well; it's a package deal. So the immigration argument was bullshit as well, IF and only if combined with "of course we'll continue trading with our neighbours countries as usual".
          - The Brits are beginning to realize that most of the brown people in their country didn't actually come from the EU anyway, but from the Commonwealth (ex-Empire) [wikipedia.org] last century (seriously!!)
          - There was an insecure internet petition to have another petition; but the deed is done IMHO
          - The UK Government is the only entity that has the right to act upon the referendum result: they can either accept it and activate article 50, or reject their own people's expressed will (goodluckwiththat).
          - If the express will of the people is not respected, it's bullets and blood, dixit Nigel Farage. He's right, IMHO. It would be undemocratic to ignore a referendum.
          - The rEU, the other 27, hope that today tuesday 28 June David Cameron the current PM will officially say "I invoke article 50", because of THEIR OWN economies and 450 million people, which the UK and its government don't give a toss about.
          - The Tory party is divided, and they told the 450 million: "just wait a few months while we several hundred people in the Tory party decide on who we want as our next Prime Minister, then he/she will tell you what Britain wants, after we've decided"
          - The UK Labour party is disintegrating; The poorest areas, traditionally Labour, are switching to UKIP and Tory; the party leader has concrete plans but he's a bit of a Lefty (American English: McCarthy would burn that commie pinko liberal at the stake) and he's not an alpha male gorilla bully chestpounder, i.e. not fit for election time.
          - Labour is completely out of touch with "its" electorate: I found this fascinating article on the Guardian about a guy who walked through England in the footsteps of his father: walk from Liverpool to London [theguardian.com]

          The Uncertainty:
          - Now the uncertainty is whether the UK government will really activate article 50, and even if they will, if they will to it today, or in half a year, or a year ...
          - The other 27 EU governments have claimed that it's bad for business in their countries to have this uncertainty, iow: make up your fucking mind, in or out, don't leave us in suspense like this.

          Phew I hope this epistle is even still relevant now I finished writing it.. Hope it's useful for somebody. Maybe I should have shut up and waited 'till tomorrow when that "Uncertainty" no longer exists.

          • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by VLM on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:23PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 28 2016, @01:23PM (#367041)

            Three minor bugs according to the local brits (the local brits might be full of whatever or too small a group or too poorly informed... but none the less)

            1) The Scotts don't like the Brits. For that matter there's no love lost between the Irish and Brits. This is no shit and not like a football rivalry in the USA, they really hate each other and try to genocide each other historically and car bombs in the Irish troubles and riots in the street and its all Fed up. Basically the Brits want the UK and the world is tepidly in support of the UK but the Scotts and Irish want out. If the Brits said the sun rises in the east some scottish dude would be like "F you brits anything but brits it rises in the southeast" or whatever. So the natural "out" for scotts/irish is to hard core bremain and "oh I guess that a la taylor swift this means we're never ever getting back together" and the odds are incredibly high that in a decade scotland and ireland will be independent states. Maybe in the EU maybe applying maybe not at all. Scotland might not because its economically dead and can't survive. Ireland will have serious integration issues merging the north and south.

            2) You missed the independence movements in Spain and other countries. This isn't the last you've heard of "exit". Would not be surprised to see civil war in spain over catalonia. They're butthurt over the idea that this brexit stuff encourages rebels and the EU is full of rebels.

            The situation is fundamentally unstable because some countries (like UK) are/were milked like cash cows and eventually they'll get bled dry or pissed off and leave. The other countries like the gimmie-that money but the fee for it in places like Greece is too high to tolerate so they'll run off. The EU will be left with middle of the road countries like belgium and denmark. A union of little, mostly equal countries isn't that bad of an idea, actually. But a lot of countries have to be kicked out first.

            Another aspect of the instability of the situation is its a globalist experiment designed to solely benefit globalists. You can threaten the hell out of economies and in the short term manipulated their currencies and marketplaces but fundamentally once people rise up against bullies the bullies don't survive long. If 99.999% of the EU population is better off without the EU then no matter how many threats the globalists make, eventually that sucker is going down.

            I think it was Gorbachev in the 80s who said something hilarious about the EU along the lines of crazy ass western euros trying to LARP their own USSR, not realizing the blueprint (USSR) was collapsing and inevitably the EU would follow in the USSR footsteps and collapse. Well, brexit is the cultural equivalent of the berlin wall being broken down. The EU is done. Stick a fork in it. The first country to act will obviously be the first and furthest along recovery so the brits are going to win in the medium and long run unless the other countries catch up and abandon the EU ASAP.

            Either that or the only alternative for EU survival is going full on USSR evil empire mode. Build a wall to keep the citizens in, make gulags, indoctrinate the youth, secret police everywhere. Even then, see USSR, that sucker's going down eventually.

            3) Local US politics is globalist establishment crook Hillary wants to punish the EU and sent her lapdog Obama over there to threaten the UK, Trump is hated by the progs in the UK but he wants a nice trade treaty with the UK asap after his election. So the progs are at least temporarily fighting progs which is always good to see.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @09:36PM (#367282)

              > Hillary wants to punish the EU and sent her lapdog Obama over there to threaten the UK,

              Sometimes you start to approach the plausible but inevitably you go and bring the reader back to earth.
              Don't ever stop though, it is important that you help the audience keep the quality of your thinking at the fore when reading your comments.
              You could definitely improve the situation by putting that stuff at the start though. You'd save a lot of people a lot of time.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:00PM (#367094)

      You don't think imports or GDP will change when the currency just dropped 10% in 1 day...

      Spare us the rest of your "insights".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @05:25AM (#366848)

    it is not easy to start a new industry/factory making real things overnight.
    the world market is pretty much "saturated" with established players.

    also the real important stuff, from which a lot of other things are made (base components?)
    are all pretty much consolidated. There's just no were else to stepinvest.

    thus these huge market swings are not real. they are just hype.

    we can compare it to a big party at some chateau with well dressed attendants with champagne in hand
    and pretty much like always, only this night, drunk 17teen years baroness eliza decided to get drunk and naked
    in the pool and murican oil-well heir bradon decides to jump in to "save" her ..and thus now the buffet
    tables are un-guarded and easy pray 'cause everyone is heading out to see the spectacle.

    but you can bet that next week, the buffet will be well stocked just the same.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:10AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @06:10AM (#366880)

      Yep, but Big Tex will still be trying to have that damn wet T-shirt contest, even if he has to throw the gals in the pool himself.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:59PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:59PM (#367025)

      Project Tinfoil Hat?

  • (Score: 1) by Synonymous Homonym on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:59AM

    by Synonymous Homonym (4857) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @08:59AM (#366950) Homepage

    Now is an excellent time to buy British Pounds cheap.

    The perceived uncertainty in the market is driving the price down, and financial news outlets are doing their part in making sure the high rollers get their chips when the price is right.

    The Pound will recover soon enough. Don't miss it. Sell before the banks do.

  • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:59PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:59PM (#367093)

    One of the first hits on a search provided this 60-day historical perspective.

    And here's this morning's weekly chart [imgur.com], at 5 minute intervals.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:57PM (#367149)

    if the world's media crying didn't convince you brexit was the right move, maybe the scumbag bankster propaganda and political maneuvering for a way to weasel out of brexit will. but maybe you're like 95% of US voters where no amount of evidence will wake you up to the truth.