Brexit, A Week And A Half Later: Did The Sky Fall?

Brexitracism

Editor’s Note: I have spent countless hours since early yesterday trying to de-spook the spooked text formatting of this new article by Stephen Ericson. I even braved the purchase, downloading, and teeth-gnashing enrollment protocols of Microsoft Office 2016, but it was all for naught. The line breaks refuse to behave in the published version. So,

just pretend

it’s a

 

T.S. Eliot…poem

and…forgive us this time.

CF.

***

 

As anyone who follows the news would have to, by now, know, back on June 23rd, the U.K. decided to leave the E.U.

Reaction here in the United States was, unlike the outcome of the vote, easily predictable.

That being because President Obama had gone to Britain for the sake of admonishing them for even having considered the notion of casting off the yoke of their continental overlords, (it will put Britain in the “back

of the queue”) everyone in the United States seemed to assume that the matter was a simple left/right

issue, such as is pretty much all politics in the United States.

A closer examination of the issue shows that it is, like all matters of European politics, much more

complicated than that. There were politicians and thinkers of deep thoughts on both sides of the British

political spectrum who advocated for either ‘stay’ or ‘leave’, yet the situation here in the states was treated

in the press largely, and again predictably, as a monolithic act of unbound, moronic racism. There was a

cartoon that made the rounds on Facebook of a map of the island anthropomorphized into a cantankerous

old man shooting himself in the foot. The foot in this case being somewhere near Wales.

Tisk tisk… stupid old British people.

The morning of the 24th saw CNN affix a camera to the Dow Jones Industrial Average as it “plummeted”,

an act that upon reflection almost reeks of sabotage. The responsible thing to do would be to let the

business channels handle it, the same way they almost always do in the event of a stock market situation,

but clearly CNN had taken sides on Brexit.

The Washington Post chimed in with an air of condescension; “The British are frantically Googling what

the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it”, typifying the British voter as a doddering old lady “Even though I

voted to leave, this morning I woke up and I just — the reality did actually hit me,” one woman told the

news channel ITV News. “If I’d had the opportunity to vote again, it would be to stay.”

By the following Sunday, CBS’s Sunday morning was running with the angle the whole thing had been a

remarkable mistake, issuing the new catch phrase “Regrexit”.

Flash forward the following Sunday, and…crickets. Brexit had vanished from the Sunday morning political

talk show circuit. There was simply nothing to say. Sure there was a good deal of other things to talk about;

Hillary and the FBI, the seemingly endless series of ISIS related terror attacks…

But surely Brexit had ruined the world economy, right? Well, not exactly. The DJI which post Brexit had

‘plummeted’ to 17,140 was back up to 17,949 by July 1st. The low it turns out was still 1480 points higher

than the last crash back in February due to low, not high, oil prices.

Ok, well that’s no big deal I’m sure the UK is suffering right?

The pound has in fact taken a hit vs. the Euro, but it seems to have stabilized. It may be a bit of an ongoing

process, but it’s nothing that sound fiscal policy shouldn’t take care of.
 Banking has also taken a hit; shares

of the Royal Bank of Scotland went from 7.49 on the 23rd to 4.69 on the 27th. But that 4.69 low is still

higher than the 1.03 it fell to in October of 08’, from which it rebounded to 19.46 in the following

December.

But what about trade? Surely the British are suffering due to rank xenophobia of their stogy pensioners,

right? Well, not exactly:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/686038/New-trade-deals-lined-up-for-Britain-after-brexit

“Australia, Canada, South Korea, India and Mexico are all understood to be keen to get around the

negotiating table as soon as possible and American politicians are also eager to strike a deal.”

Not exactly ‘the back of the que’.

All of this leaves me a bit flabbergasted. When did seemingly the entirety of the left in the United States fall

so in love with the European Union? For that matter why would President Obama even bother to get

involved? Why would he threaten to punish them, mind you this would be in a time past his term as President,

with economic punishment for simply removing themselves from an economic partnership that

the majority of them feel is no longer working?

Why would the press in the United States offer up such a shallow take on the reasons for Brexit? Could the

entire moment have only been about nationalism and hence racism? Even if that were the case, and clearly

it isn’t, are countries simply not allowed to monitor their own immigration policies without being likened

to fascism?

As it turns out, the more one examines the E.U. the more a disconcerting picture emerges. Brussels dreams

up some arbitrary new and complicated regulation and suddenly it becomes law. British law. French law,

Polish and Italian law. The man on the street who thinks he lives in a democracy where the House of

Commons and the House of Lords hash out the day to day decisions that govern his life finds that his rights

are slowly being eroded, and that there’s nobody available to petition for change. The corridors of power

are across the channel and frankly they’re just not interested what you have to say.

Had the vote been presented in this way, would there be such a hub bub at all? If the question were put to

the public as “Do you want to be governed by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from Brussels, or do

you want to be a part of a democracy centered in Westminster?” would it even have been a question at all?

So, it’s curious then that there’s been all of this hand wringing and finger pointing. People who love and

value democracy should be overjoyed that the will of the people has been done on this complicated issue.

Instead we get this wall of recrimination and then when that turns out to have been mostly false, stoney

silence.

I’m guessing that this is what we can expect for anyone who dares to stand up to the globalist agenda. It’s

going to be a bumpy ride.

 

–Stephen Ericson

Comments

  1. cnn zimbabwe says:

    I am regular reader, how are you everybody? This article posted at this web page is actually pleasant.

  2. Stephen Ericson says:

    “Stephen Ericson says:
    July 8, 2016 at 1:25 pm
    Well Isaac, here’s your chance. Correct the record. There was a crisis, the E.U. acted.

    You just fill in the when, where and how.”

    “Isaac Zohar says:
    July 8, 2016 at 1:57 pm
    Unfortunately, your writing style isn’t particularly clear so it’s hard to discern what you’re asking and/or what your point is.”

    How much more clear can I be? What don’t you understand? Why can’t you just admit that I’ve beaten you in this debate and go do something constructive with your time? Your side lost. The U.K. got itself out of the E.U.

    Don’t like it? Go punch your pillow, and when you’re done doing that why don’t you perhaps try to start some sort of business venture, as now with the E.U. out of your hair it’ll be that much easier.

  3. Keith says:

    Maybe if you copy and pasted the article into notepad, then copy and pasted back into the original program, that would fix the formatting issues? Then again, I have a feeling you may have already tried that…

  4. tony villar says:

    You are right, Sir.

    This is the right question that the British people should have been asked in the recent referendum.

    “Do you want to be governed by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats from Brussels, or do
    you want to be a part of a democracy centered in Westminster?”

  5. Isaac Zohar says:

    This is a highly inaccurate article. You only have to check in with The Times, Telegraph and The Guardian to see that it’s still making the front pages on a daily basis. The result has left a power vacuum in government so the focus has shifted to the beauty contest of who will become our next prime minister, but there’s also shocks on the financial markets that are directly related to Brexit. Commercial property funds have been suspended for the next 6 months, which has broader implications for investors, and the pound fell today to its lowest against the $ in 31 years.

    The governor of the Bank of England is on standby with £250 billion to inject into the economy which looks like it will need to happen sooner rather than later, since in just two short weeks since the referendum, he’s already detecting a ‘material slowing of the ‘economy’.

    It’s unclear to me why the author is citing an article from the Express since it’s widely considered to have next to no credibility at all as news source. But even if it did contain a seed of truth, we aren’t allowed to embark on bilateral trade negotiations with other countries until we’ve officially withdrawn from the EU, which will take two years from the moment that Article 50 is invoked. And since we don’t even have an effective prime minister at the moment, that’s not going to happen any day soon. So who can possibly say if India, Australia, Mexico etc, will still want to trade goods with us years down the line?

    In summary, the author’s somewhat cavalier view of Brexit less than two weeks on, reminds me of one of my favourite poems:

    If you can can keep a cool head,
    When all around are losing theirs….
    Then you don’t fully understand the situation.

    • Stephen Ericson says:

      I’ve checked with the telegraph, the times and the guardian and they’ve responded predictably.

      Here’s a good one from the telegraph.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7370220/UK-would-still-be-recession-without-200bn-Bank-of-England-cash-injection.html

      Oh wait, that’s from 2010. So, it’s not like this kind of cash injection is with out historical precedent. When it comes to sound fiscal policy, like saving for retirement, the time is always sooner than later.

      Here’s a more recent article from the telegraph…

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/european-leaders-fear-brexit-vote-could-herald-eu-collapse-unles/

      “Italy’s finance minister, said that “business as usual” was no longer an option for EU leaders and bureaucrats, in the wake of the British vote to leave. ”

      So clearly the discontent doesn’t reside in the U.K. alone. Had brexit failed, what would have happened? The E.U.’s unresponsiveness would have gone unchecked, and not unlike the current presumptive Democratic nominee, it’s abuses would have continued…again unchecked.

      If the E.U. has to wake up and right itself now, they should be thanking the U.K. for the tough love they so desperately need, or go the way of the Do-do.

      All of that said, I’m not exactly sure what the benefit of being the last one to board a life raft would have been in this situation, save being polite. The Guardian did warn that the U.K. would be the worlds most unpopular country should it decide to vote to leave, boo hoo. I’m sure all will be forgiven once the pound regains it’s losses, which shouldn’t be all that long considering the alternatives currency wise. All will be forgiven and people will go back to emblazoning their clothes with the Union Jack anew.
      —-

      We live in an age when ‘trusted’ news sources, the NYT for example, frequently expose themselves to be little more than a PR arm of the party they favor. That would be the democrats. We also live in an age when ‘not trusted’ news sources like the Enquirer break actual, and important stories. What can I say, the internet changed everything. If you insist on getting your news from a source who’s editorial staff’s integrity is beyond reproach, I’m afraid you’re going to be relegated to reading the Truth Barrier and little else. Which is problematic due to the fact that they’re currently understaffed.

      Paul Ryan has certainly reached out…

      ““Trade with England is very big between our two countries and very beneficial for our two countries, not like some of the other countries we’ve had problems with,” Ryan said. “I think we should make sure that our trading relationship is stable, so that our respective economies are not affected, but actually improved.”

      That to me sounds like something called leadership, which in this case is exactly what’s called for.

      http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/28/after-brexit-paul-ryan-calls-for-special-trade-deal-with-britain/

      I’m not going to lie and tell you that I know which Asian news sources I trust, but I’ve found more than few others that have expressed this sentiment…

      “Making a contrarian pitch, Mahindra & Mahindra Group Chairman Anand Mahindra today said Brexit is an “exaggerated” Tsunami alert to the world which needs to “take a tranquilizer”.

      Well said Anand.

      http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/brexit-an-exaggerated-tsunami-alert-says-anand-mahindra/articleshow/52916229.cms

      I’m not sure why in this case having an optimistic outlook is a ‘contrarian pitch’, unless one takes into account how much of the media is under control of globalists, I’m guessing?

      Not to be bellicose and juvenile, but honestly your favorite poem sucks.

      What exactly is the point of panicking? How is that constructive? Hillary Clinton has laid into Donald Trump several times now for in essence saying that in times of financial downturn he was able to make lemon aid from lemons. Is there another way to make lemon aid? The market goes up, it goes down. Like I said in the perfectly accurate article that I wrote above, true leadership would be urging calm, not fomenting discord for the sake of cheap political points.

      • Isaac Zohar says:

        There was nothing in my post which said that QE had not happened before, so it’s unclear what exactly your point is.

        Other than that, your comment betrays an extraordinary level of naivete that we’ve sadly become accustomed to from the mendacious Brexit brigade, whose relationship with facts, is tenuous at best.

        • Stephen Ericson says:

          Of course you’d never say that QE hasn’t happened before. It’s obvious, what’s not obvious is why you’d call it out in this situation. Sure it caused a disruption, but if there’s calm and resolve the pain can be minimized, and further it can actually turn out to be a good move in the not so long run.

          Please describe to me how well the E.U. works. That’s the one thing I never hear from the remain crowd is a solid defense of this nebulous, murky institution.

          • Isaac Zohar says:

            The rather obvious point which you appear to have trouble grasping is that QE is not a sign that things are going swimmingly, as this author is claiming.

            As for your second point, here’s an easy-to-follow beginner’s guide to how the EU works:

            • Stephen Ericson says:

              I never said that QE is a sign that things are going well. What you fail to grasp about my point is that the E.U. doesn’t have much of a track record for preventing the need for QE either.

              Here’s a great video on how it doesn’t work.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0

              enjoy

            • Stephen Ericson says:

              Ok, great. Thanks for sharing that. First of all…that was the non confusing beginners guide? It seems like a cesspool of endless debate, and a petri dish confusion.

              Let’s go to 4:35. The EU Parliament is the only branch of the EU who’s members are elected by it’s citizens. But wait…let’s go back to 4:01 ‘The EU commission is the sole organ of the EU that may propose new laws.

              So, there it is. The 375 million or so people who vote for the EU Parliament don’t get to vote on new laws. They only get to vote on representatives in a severely entangled, murky, confusing, prone to corruption, dispute prone non legislative body.

              So, yes. Un-elected, unaccountable.

            • Isaac Zohar says:

              That’s not the way that government works, though. How many individual laws have you personally voted on in the UK? Who have you voted into the House of Lords? We both know the answer to that. So does that mean our parliamentary system is undemocratic and unaccountable?

              Inevitably, an organisation as large as the EU is going to be more complex, but just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s automatically detrimental.

            • Stephen Ericson says:

              “That’s not the way that government works, though.”

              I guess the video you’ve provided must be wrong then.

              To answer your question I don’t live in the U.K.

              ” but just because you don’t understand it,”

              Perhaps my writing was inelegant, so for that in this case I apologize. I didn’t mean to say that I didn’t understand how it works, I was asking anyone of the remain camp to defend how it actually works in practice. Does it actually do a successful job doing what it’s supposed to do? I don’t hear many people saying “I think the E.U.is doing a good job”

              And if it’s not doing a good job, it’s entirely reasonable to leave it.

              Now, I’m not trying to say that I do understand completely the inner mechanisms of the E.U. and how it conducts it’s affairs, because obviously by dint of the video you’ve shared it doesn’t even understand itself. The video is calling for reform and a continuation/expansion of Lisbon and urging greater voter participation. So, kudos to whomever made the video, not that I’m sure greater voter turnout would actually help anything.

              Just because it’s large and complex to the point of being somewhat incomprehensible doesn’t mean it does work well either.

              I’ve read elsewhere that as much as 44% of Europeans don’t understand how the E.U. works, which I’m sure is on the low side if one were to consider the influx of new migrants in the last year or so. By now I’m sure it’s well over 50%.
              It seems to have been designed that way. In my estimation, that’s the nature of bureaucracy.

              ““In my view, he perhaps doesn’t understand the nature of the transfer of power that has taken place, but I can assure you, if Americans truly knew how much of our national sovereignty now resides in Brussels,” Grayling said, “they would never argue that we should stay.””

              The above quote seems perfectly reasonable to me. We could spend months accusing each other of misunderstanding the E.U. it would seem.

              https://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/chris-grayling-thinks-obama-doesnt-know-how-the-eu-works?utm_term=.kylVKpzDb#.kwPqZP70e

              None of which invalidates any of the points that I made in my original article.

            • Isaac Zohar says:

              **I don’t hear many people saying “I think the E.U.is doing a good job”**

              Of course you don’t, because the right wing media have successfully demonised the EU for 40 years, and quite deliberately pandered to people’s ignorance, fears and prejudices. This reached its culmination during referendum campaign when Brexiteers eschewed reason and argument, and substituted them with easily digestible – but ultimately meaningless – slogans like ‘Take back control’.

              This was no victory for ‘sovereignty’, but one of populist ideology, which will hurt many of the people who voted to leave, in the the mistaken belief that the EU was their enemy.

            • Stephen Ericson says:

              Well Isaac, here’s your chance. Correct the record. There was a crisis, the E.U. acted.

              You just fill in the when, where and how.

            • Isaac Zohar says:

              Unfortunately, your writing style isn’t particularly clear so it’s hard to discern what you’re asking and/or what your point is.

            • Isaac Zohar says:

              I received an email notification that you’d responded to my comment however, your reply doesn’t appear to have materialised here. Perhaps you deleted it? That would have been wise, since the notification contained your comment in full which was puzzlingly and unnecessarily adversarial.

              Time, I think, for you to take a step back and compose your thoughts calmly and rationally, Stephen.

            • Stephen Ericson says:

              I responded above, at the top of the comments section, due to the fact that the thread had run out. My responses have been utterly calm and rational and the fact that you’ve said that they weren’t is an act of aggression on of itself that I’m perfectly willing to ignore.

              You’re not making any sense at all.

              Do you really mean to say that you can’t remember a crisis that the E.U. has suffered through? Well I’m asking you; did it handle that crisis well? The Greek debt crisis? The immigration/refugee crisis? Those are two that spring to mind.

              You purposefully act like you can’t understand what I’m talking about for the sake of avoiding the obvious answers. This is the crux of what I’m saying, what is it that the ‘left’ is so in love with about the E.U. Please, take this moment to explain.

              If you can’t understand what I’m saying or asking, slow down, rub your temples, clean off your glasses and try again. I think that you can do it, being that my writing is perfectly clear.

  6. Does the EU reimburse good ol Barry… I mean… Barack for the good press I wonder? I mean they are generous with honorarium as ever with the secret hoi polloi except not for the people. Nay for the people.

Speak Your Mind