Friday, June 24, 2016

Brexit aftermath, the future of the UK and the world

 I'm a proponent of allowing the people to determine their destiny, however, the irony of Brits choosing to go it alone again rather than be ruled over by an overarching governing body is hypocritically historically hysterical.  If anyone is an expert at conquering, well, look no further.

Right after the referendum vote results, the British Pound took a major hit now at 1.7 of the Canadian dollar putting it near par with the Euro itself.  It has been reported that over £350bn has also exited the economy in one fell swoop.  Thousands of bankers and financiers are reported to be moving to Frankfurt.

These are often predictable effects of injecting uncertainty into the economy, but you can be sure that there are many George Soros' out there who sold short on the game and are even richer than before. Often, these very financiers are financing the outcome and betting on it.

Will the UK recover from this economically?  Yes, but only if it's own overarching nanny state style of government gets out of the way and let's its economy build and grow from private market forces, not controlled by central planning bureaucrats from Brussels, or providing corporate welfare to industries needing a boost to compete.

The EU model, determining which countries get what industries, is nearly the same as saying where all the immigrants should work and live, is it not?   Are we all trying to mimic China's model to compete with them or are we better than that?

When the UK joined the EU, it was smart for them to keep the Pound and it still is now.  It's the one of the strongest currencies, if not the strongest, and it's value will return to what it was if not higher as bankers buy up a pile of it in the next days and tourism picks up even more for Canucks like us who thoroughly enjoy visiting our original mother country.

Having been to England, Rome, New York, Toronto and many other cities, what is apparent is thinking that immigration has ruined the core culture is nonsense.  London is quite British.  Rome is quite Italian.  I didn't get the sense that the culture was lost, if not enhanced.  Celebrating diversity strengthens a country.  Going to any Canada Day event will prove that fact.

While after joining the EU, the UK saw unprecedented immigration.  It's flattering, is it not, when groups of people want to be a part of your country?  Although leaving the EU doesn't make the UK any less diverse, it sends a message that perhaps enough is enough for now.  The same angst and xenophobia is highlighted in the Donald Trump presidential campaign and he's exploiting those very bursting intolerable generational cleavages for support.  On the other side of the coin, the social-democrat Bernie Sanders campaign is filled with Millennials and Gen-Xers who protest against the corporate influence on government, while only wanting more government influence of their own lives through free health care and free tuition, among a grocery list of other entitlements, but equally demand a lowering or eliminating of military funding, corporate bail-outs, and such.

I believe that people want freedom and to live and raise their families in a healthy economy that has good jobs and a nice work-life balance with a social support system that is there for those that truly need it.  Few I know celebrate when costs increase or taxes go up on good, income or small business, or they don't get a deserved raise in salary--no matter what the culture is.

On a 'crownly' note, even the Queen essentially gave Canada its independence in 1982 not having to sign any more bills sent to her and we adopted her as our own Queen of Canada.  I'm wondering if she is preferring this Brexit arrangement to her reign in the rain.  I would think so.  It's hers.

The graphs show that as the older the voter got, the more likely they were to vote to leave while at the same time, won't be around as long to see what happens.  There's irony there too.  The UK Baby Boomers who are now retired saw the 20 year or so EU experiment fail in their eyes as more immigration occurred, while economic powerhouses like the UK and Germany were found having to bail out poorer nations, at the same time as their own predatory bankers and racketeers played havoc on Greek and Italian Baby Boomer costly entitlement pension schemes.

Steady UK PM David Cameron took a risk and lost this one, and now he's Primexiting in October.  His party caucus will look to find a uniter to right the ship and may actually find more success as the UK insulates and puffs up its chest--more seemingly conservative than not.

What's more interesting is the calls for Ireland to unify into one whole island country and for Scotland to have another Braveheart vote for freedom only to have them to want to join the EU.  I'm still trying to make sense of that one, but the Scots have a socialist/labour tendency, yet methinks its more of an ongoing historical protest vote against Westminster than economic ideology.

It's hypocritical to be for free trade, free enterprise, and freedom from government regulation, freedom from government-backed corporate monopolies, freedom from predatory lending, freedom from human exploitation, but not embrace freer immigration, more cultural and sexual diversity, and the rainbow array of different goods and services that come with all of it opening new markets.

The same goes the other way too.

Now, what I'm about to say is likely out of the bound of normal political discourse, and some may think, "Hatrock, you're crazy."  So be it, but the historical facts are there.  We are not taught in school nor does the mainstream media feed much of economic history to us.  But as citizens, we must be aware and know how private and central banks work.  One doesn't have to look much harder than the 2008/9 financial crisis to see what happened and how it exposed the supposed stable economic system that western nations dominated by the U.S. and U.K. is not based on straight-forward nomenclatures.  It's not socialist and mostly run by government, nor is it capitalistic mostly run by banks and corporations.  It's the inverted perversion of that whereby governments and central banks favour the private banks and big corporations through laws and regulation, bail-outs, and those interests influence the politicians through donations and vote support.  We all know this though.

The "system" that the world operates has been clinched down by bankers, big corporate interests, the military industrial complex and their political puppets for over 200 years, were strengthened by world wars and smaller wars as well, and will continue to do so unless the system is overhauled by a near but unlikely global revolution (sorry Anonymous and Wikileaks).  The very corporate oligarchical interests that many protesting socialists and anarchists rile against are given special treatment by the very anti-capitalistic political systems they support.

Many asked 20 years ago.  After the EU, then what?  What is it that the world political systems are "progressing" toward?  Does the EU then become part of another umbrella political body?  Is that body ultimately the highly corrupt UN itself?  A UN that brokers IMF deals with African warlords?  An IMF that is funded by central banks like the Federal Reserve cartel that prints bank notes and floods the economy with constant monetary inflation.

Meanwhile lower and middle class folk struggle to get ahead with menial wages behind inflation. While government supports supply management of farm sectors increasing prices for basic food, and housing supply costs force mass mortgages for predatory lenders, at the same time, the government increases taxes on everything, including on taxes themselves, as they grow their own bureaucracies and administrations powered by public union fat cats who only have their own private interests at heart.  It's no wonder household debt is higher than ever.  Who wins?  Banks gaining interest payments and governments gaining higher tax revenue to solve problems they and their corporate friends create.

Why would a small businesses want to be swallowed up by a big corporation?

Why would a family want higher costs, taxes, and interest payments or having government tell them how they should raise their kids?

Why would British folks want to stay in the EU then?

Why would Scottish, Irish, or Welsh folks want to stay in the UK?

Maybe people are just sick and tired of being ruled over.

And choosing freedom over control.


Anonymous said...

Here is another interesting perspective.

Anonymous said...

My take: The spirit of cultural diversity and a globalist view is inherently English, and is a great outward-looking, forward moving progressive spirit (pro-freedom, anti-corruption, welcoming etc). It is due to that spirit that the wider English-speaking world is what so many want to copy and where so many want to be.

However, you cannot expect the English to be welcoming of immigration given 2 things:
- Their population density (adjusted for arable land) is 3.5 times the world average (vs Canada 0.2 times, and USA 0.6 times average), and the towns and cities are over-populated already.
- For whatever reason (and Conservative/Labour will obviously disagree) there is huge poverty, scarce resources among many people outside of the wealthy South-East, celebrities and tourists who see the nicer areas.

Migration and integration are great things, and to slowly merge all peoples of the world in a manageable friendly way is a great way forward, but I don't think you can expect England to support immigration the way that, say, Canada should.

That from an English migrant to Canada!

Of course, the vote was supposed to be about the European union, and Britain is quite right to want a trading relationship without the flag, anthem, army and unelected rich commisioners. The vote was not supposed to be about immigration, but in reality it ended up being about both.

Anonymous said...

old white guy says........only a fool would allow his enemy to live in his backyard. immigration is not always in the best interest of the host country, just ask the swedes and germans.

Anonymous said...

It will no doubt cause a lot of difficulty in the short run, but it seems the EU is tone deaf to its members. There have been several no referendums on more minor issues like the Danish no on the Maastricht Treaty, French barely yes on it (Had they voted no, there would be no Euro today), Dutch and French no to the European Constitution (both are founding members and core members unlike the UK), Irish no to Lisbon and Nice Treaty and only made to vote yes a second time. Had the EU listened up and understood not everyone is comfortable surrendering their national sovereignty to the degree it has, this could have been avoided. Hopefully this will be for the first time when the EU actually returns national sovereignty to its members rather than take it away. Also mentioning the flag, NATO and UN have them so that is not so much the issue, rather the frequency the flag is flown. In the UK you seldom see it, but elsewhere in Europe (I was just there for three weeks) it is flown on most albeit not all government buildings on the continent much like our provincial buildings fly the Canadian flag, but you don't see our federal flying the UN flag or any other international organization we are part of. By contrast the only private buildings I saw with the EU flag were hotels (much like ours always have the American flag) and some large multinational corporations but never on small businesses or homes (although flying flags on those is not too common).

As for immigration, I think it is important to point out that non-EU immigration, otherwise that from Middle East and Africa is unaffected by this. non-EU immigration is still handled by national governments and that could be changed in Britain even in the EU. What will change once they leave is the right for EU citizens to freely live and work in Britain will end. Prior to 2004, this was a non-issue as the member states then had similar standards of living to the UK so it was always a two way street. Once all the former Eastern bloc countries joined, then Britain got a lot while few Brits moved there as they have a much lower standard of living than Britain. Since English is the most common second language, Britain got far more than anyone else as well as even if you have the right to move freely, its tough to find a job if you cannot speak the language. Wouldn't be surprised if Ireland now starts getting a lot more since it is the only English speaking country left. Or perhaps in school more will start taking German instead of English in Eastern Europe due to this. In many ways if NAFTA allowed free mobility this would be the same issue as the GDP per capita in Poland is only marginally higher than Mexico while in Romania and Bulgaria its actually lower so that is probably the best comparison. Free mobility between Canada and the US would probably be a non-issue as we have similar standards of living, but it would be if Mexico was included.