Politics

[aknowledgeableperson]

"Trump enjoys a big lead with those who want a new direction for the country, 64 percent to Clinton’s 26 percent. After eight years of President Obama, a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say they want to elect a president who can set the nation in a new direction. Forty-seven percent say they feel so strongly."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnbcA1

[earthling]

Conflating Britain with the US is a risky proposition. Britain is 8% non-white, US is 33%.

Immigration is a relatively small reason for Brexit. The bigger reason is how much control EU has with no elected officials and costs to be a member. Trump is way way off base trying to make parallels.

Will be very interesting to see how this plays out. The US not likely to be impacted long term but Britain could take a long time to adjust to this if ever recovering. Humanity and society progress through collaboration, not isolation - especially when it comes to global interaction/economy. Brexit supporters had some good points about too much EU control/costs but Britain would be better off pursuing change in EU control/policies than leaving it. Now they have to compete with EU as long as it exists and lack economies of scale that EU has on many levels. And if Scotland now reconsiders leaving Britain...

OTOH, on a different tangent. Would love to see Texas Texit, which is now brewing.

[aknowledgeableperson]

There was some discussion about what Great Briton has to go through to exit the EU. It could be over a ten year process and cost much more than staying in the EU. Trade treaties is just one thing to worry about.
Texas on the other hand, will it have to build a wall completely around it? Let alone the international trade treaties it would have to negotiate and the loss to the local economies from the closing of military bases.

[shinatoo]

There was some discussion about what Great Briton has to go through to exit the EU. It could be over a ten year process and cost much more than staying in the EU. Trade treaties is just one thing to worry about.
Texas on the other hand, will it have to build a wall completely around it? Let alone the international trade treaties it would have to negotiate and the loss to the local economies from the closing of military bases.

Nope, EU Article 50 gives them two years to finalize negotiation or all treaties and contracts become null and void.

[grovester]

Actually, it's 2 years from when they give formal notice, which they haven't done yet. There is some chatter that they will drag their feet on this so as to not start the clock.

[grovester]

Conflating Britain with the US is a risky proposition. Britain is 8% non-white, US is 33%.

Immigration is a relatively small reason for Brexit. The bigger reason is how much control EU has with no elected officials and costs to be a member. Trump is way way off base trying to make parallels.

Will be very interesting to see how this plays out. The US not likely to be impacted long term but Britain could take a long time to adjust to this if ever recovering. Humanity and society progress through collaboration, not isolation - especially when it comes to global interaction/economy. Brexit supporters had some good points about too much EU control/costs but Britain would be better off pursuing change in EU control/policies than leaving it. Now they have to compete with EU as long as it exists and lack economies of scale that EU has on many levels. And if Scotland now reconsiders leaving Britain...

OTOH, on a different tangent. Would love to see Texas Texit, which is now brewing.

My point was that both the Brexit and Trump are manifestations of old white men. Britain's demographics allow this to be acted on, in the US it doesn't.

[earthling]

^Ah, got it.

Separately, while immigration may not have been the primary reason, it still was one of them and there are already reports of hate crimes and 'go home' remarks increasing in UK...
http://fortune.com/2016/06/27/brexit-ha ... d=leftrail

[phuqueue]

Conflating Britain with the US is a risky proposition. Britain is 8% non-white, US is 33%.

Immigration is a relatively small reason for Brexit. The bigger reason is how much control EU has with no elected officials and costs to be a member. Trump is way way off base trying to make parallels.

This is absolutely not true.

And it is clear from polling data and interviews with voters that those who voted for “Brexit” had been well warned about the economic risks. They just cared more about something else: immigration.

Most research has found that immigration has bolstered the British economy. But voters supporting the Leave campaign either were unpersuaded by the evidence, did not think it had benefited them or felt the downsides outweighed the upsides.

***

The progress of the last 50 years, particularly in Europe, has made it easy to buy into the idea that the forces of nationalism, xenophobia and prejudice are mere irrationalities, market distortions that will naturally fade away in the long arc of history.

Last week’s vote highlighted — not for the first time, but with unusual clarity — the hole in that theory. For many people, identity trumps economics. They will pay a high price (literally, in this case) to preserve a social order that makes them feel safe and powerful.

And the BBC describes immigration as Leave's "trump card," which they played "often and ... successfully." And opinion polls from the end of May show Leave getting a "significant boost" from immigration. This isn't necessarily to say that immigration was the number one issue, but the idea that it was a "relatively small" factor is plainly false.

Will be very interesting to see how this plays out. The US not likely to be impacted long term but Britain could take a long time to adjust to this if ever recovering. Humanity and society progress through collaboration, not isolation - especially when it comes to global interaction/economy. Brexit supporters had some good points about too much EU control/costs but Britain would be better off pursuing change in EU control/policies than leaving it. Now they have to compete with EU as long as it exists and lack economies of scale that EU has on many levels. And if Scotland now reconsiders leaving Britain...

OTOH, on a different tangent. Would love to see Texas Texit, which is now brewing.

They really don't have good points about EU control in light of the economic reality that the UK is going to need to maintain access to the common market and that this access will come with significant strings attached. Like Norway and Switzerland, the UK will still have to abide by all the EU regulations that they hope to cast off, and like Norway and Switzerland, they will have essentially zero voice in setting those regulations now. The Leave campaign has basically not acknowledged this at all -- either it has somehow never occurred to them, or this is just another one of those pesky "facts" that they actively (and successfully) sought to obfuscate, or they foolishly believe they don't need the EU (because of the "special relationship" that will be a lot less special to us when London is no longer our bridgehead into Europe, or because of the Commonwealth, or whatever other reason that they think they can make it on their own). To whatever extent Brexiters are genuinely concerned about sovereignty, they're pining for a bygone era that they will not recover just by leaving the EU. It's not the 19th century anymore and it never will be again.

[flyingember]

They really don't have good points about EU control in light of the economic reality that the UK is going to need to maintain access to the common market and that this access will come with significant strings attached. Like Norway and Switzerland, the UK will still have to abide by all the EU regulations that they hope to cast off, and like Norway and Switzerland, they will have essentially zero voice in setting those regulations now. The Leave campaign has basically not acknowledged this at all -- either it has somehow never occurred to them, or this is just another one of those pesky "facts" that they actively (and successfully) sought to obfuscate, or they foolishly believe they don't need the EU (because of the "special relationship" that will be a lot less special to us when London is no longer our bridgehead into Europe, or because of the Commonwealth, or whatever other reason that they think they can make it on their own). To whatever extent Brexiters are genuinely concerned about sovereignty, they're pining for a bygone era that they will not recover just by leaving the EU. It's not the 19th century anymore and it never will be again.

There's no way the US won't be following the same EU regulations. I can't think of a single company that will create a British-specific product.

The EU being a 500 million block and the UK making up about 12% of that means the UK is going to see nearly all it's trade come with EU regulations attached even if no government enforces it. Any company serious about Europe is going to implement the more restrictive policies and require UK partners to do this.

Basically the UK is going to end up paying the cost and not getting the funding economically.

[earthling]

If you search lists for 'reasons to leave', immigration just comes up as one of many along with economy, NHS (national health service), sovereignty typically listed...
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/11992106/brexit-arguments
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... overeignty

But is interesting to see the polls you pointed out, could be the case but really just one of many side effects of being in the EU. Other reports say a major factor is Britain does not at all like that EU is run by unelected officials, remote elites. Others deny it's about sovereignty and about NHS and economy. But yeah, is apparent immigration not 'small' factor, just maybe not the major one. Mea culpa.

Agree that leaving the EU is not a solution as it will still exist and they have to contend with it (and work out independent trade agreements with less economies of scale). The solution is to fix EU's problems by being involved as a member. Collaboration would probably be better for UK than isolation. We'll see what happens.

This is interesting, declining but still over 50%...

[pash]

.

[earthling]

I think the difference clearly reflects the view of many Europeans that the EU does not represent their interests, whether because it is too non-local, or whether because it is too bureaucratic, too technocratic, too responsive to élites rather than to the man on the street.

And that perception the EU is run by 'unelected' officials. Given the power it has, perhaps EU does need more direct representation 'of the people' perhaps through elected officials.

Old World countries have a unique identity being so close to each other, pretty much due to early isolation. Isolation creates various languages and unique cultures. Now that global interaction is unavoidable, European countries individually seem to continue to struggle trying to maintain unique identity/control as well as compete or even function globally. Perhaps some in Britain still think they are a global empire that can stand on their own?

The British concerns of EU are warranted, but probably the better solution is to fix EU's issues, not leave it. The benefits of EU outweigh the fixable problems. Can't fix it if not a member yet still heavily impacted by it so may as well be.

Britain has a large foreign-owned auto and engine making industry and EU ties to aerospace industry, large enough % of exports to be devastating if losing much of it. Will be interesting to see what happens, if they move to EU countries.

[phuqueue]

One glaring omission in the media coverage I've seen about the UK's referendum is the historical context that shows how unexceptional the result was.

I think you are downplaying the difference between standing still and moving backward too much. It's true that voters are often reticent to cede yet more authority to the EU (although not as reticent as you imply -- aside from the European Constitution, most of the rejections have come from the same few countries), but this is the first time they've voted to actually claw back power already ceded (well, Greenland in the 70s, but that's not really the same). The mere fact that they were even given that opportunity is exceptional, but even in the UK you see Leave voters admitting that they only voted Leave because they didn't expect to win, the architects of Leave walking back their campaign promises and insisting that there's no rush to trigger Article 50, etc. It seems like even the UK might not actually want to leave but hoped that a close call could wring some concessions out of the EU and accidentally went too far.

And if I had to guess I'd say they're probably still not actually going to leave, and I'm not sure they're going to get any concessions from the EU either.

[earthling]

Yeah, there are reports that Article 50 may not actually be executed, meaning they don't leave. Vodafone (world's second largest telcom company) says they may pull HQ out of UK if triggered, might not be the only one. Even if the EU doesn't punish UK for leaving, some large private biz within the EU with UK presence probably will.

[earthling]

Back to presidential polls, more 4-way general polls appearing...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5952.html

While Libertarian getting more support than normal, it doesn't seem to be giving Clinton much of a boost if any, including at the state level with the close states.

[flyingember]

The first 538 forecast is out 18.5 weeks from the election

They're starting with Clinton winning easily
It's worth reminding they predicted every state presidential result in 2012 and nearly predicted 2008 perfectly so they're a site to watch again

What I find interesting is they have several southern states as the ones to watch (outlined on the map) and have Missouri in that list. They're giving Trump only a 55% chance of winning the state

[FangKC]

Jason Kander has pulled within three points of Roy Blunt in the senate race in Missouri. This despite the fact that Kander is known to only 38% of voters in the state.

Roy Blunt leads Jason Kander only 41/38. That closeness is mostly a product of Blunt's unpopularity. Only 31% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 42% who disapprove. One thing that's particularly striking is how poor Blunt's numbers are within his own party- only 49% of Republicans approve of the job he's doing to 26% who disapprove. Kander is actually winning more support now from Republicans (13%) than Blunt is from Democrats (10%) despite Blunt's far longer presence on the statewide scene. Kander is currently known to only 38% of voters in the state, so a lot of the direction this goes may depend on how voters feel about him as they get to know him better over the next 4 months.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/blog/

[earthling]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... e_map.html

MO was fairly heavy Trump leaning but now losing momentum. MO now pegged as a tossup. CO was a barely Clinton leaning a month ago but now more Clinton leaning, no longer a tossup. PA still shows as tossup but trending towards Clinton.

Of course it will depend on who shows up to vote but is interesting to see the trends.

[flyingember]

I'm intrigued to see what making fun of a mother of a soldier killed in action does to Trump's chances.

For a party that is traditionally in support of everything military service that's a particularly stupid thing to say.

Thinking anti-Trump and how to would go-
It almost seems like Clinton's chances are all based around finding these traditional white American strongholds and bring them into the fold. The next up would be a black mayor that found how to cut taxes and fund liberal programs at the same time.
A speaker from a rural farming part of Kansas saying how their school is hurt by the state's tax cuts which is reducing the quality of their community, and how doing this nationwide would hurt traditional American institutions like public schools, which is where they met their wife and all their friends went to school.

[phuqueue]

If making fun of John McCain didn't hurt him, making fun of a Muslim certainly isn't going to