7 ms·

Seeing how the pound has fallen, I think it's cheaper for foreign investors to buy Britisch companies. That is a bit ironic if you keep the surge of nationalis

Seeing how the pound has fallen, I think it's cheaper for foreign investors to buy Britisch companies. That is a bit ironic if you keep the surge of nationalism in mind.

grabcocque 10y ago
Brexit was partly about the EU's sclerotic lack of democracy and partly about failure to control immigration. Since this touches neither of those, I don't see the irony.
- Xiol 10y ago
  Except the EU isn't undemocratic and immigration is good the economy.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "Except the EU isn't undemocratic" What gives you that impression?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - jerven 10y ago
      If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic. Also assuming whitehall will produce less redtape than brussels is probably not going to be true :(
      - ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic." Explain.
        ionised 10y ago
        It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords. It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised. London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state. The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government.
        jerven 10y ago
        Plus the way that districts for the house of commons operate... leading to a less than representative commons.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. > "The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords." The balance of power has shifted in those 'hundreds of years'. The House of Lords no longer has the same level of power it did 200 years ago. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 shifted the bulk of the power for law making to the House of Commons. If you're not familiar with these bills, I recommend taking a look... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 > "It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised." The moment the Monarch tries to exercise that power is the moment the Monarch seals their fate, as dissolution of the monarchy would almost inevitably follow soon after. I'd hardly call that 'power'. > "London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state." I agree that spending in London is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the country. However, it's worth remembering how big a part of the UK that London is. The population of Greater London is roughly 9.8 million. The population of the UK as a whole is roughly 64.1 million. Therefore, approximately 15% of everyone in the UK lives in London/Greater London. To put that in perspective, that's more people than live in the next 6 largest urban areas combined (Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Glasgow, Liverpool, South Hampshire). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_Uni... There are signs that UK public spending outside London will be improving. At the moment public spending in the UK is guided by the Barnett formula, which even the author himself admits was a 'terrible mistake'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula > "The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government." The City of London is rife with fraud and corruption, but that's no argument for the EU, which is equally in bed with big business. The lobbying industry for the EU is massive, second only to the US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Haha, what EU are you talking about? When did you vote for Juncker or anyone else on the commission? The commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated? It's got better than when it was at its worst, but the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable for a Western institution. And let's not even start on how Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro and seem to be essentially dictating monetary policy in Greece, Italy and Spain.
    - toyg 10y ago
      > When did you vote for Juncker Juncker was the PPE candidate before the last round of EU elections. A majority of EU citizens voted PPE-member parties, so Juncker was elected Commission President. That's democracy in my book. All major European parties had a CP candidate going in the election, although only two had a realistic shot (Juncker for PPE and Martin Schulz for PSE); if you voted for Labour in UK, you voted for Schulz -- who is now President of the European Parliament btw, following a common European convention where opposition leaders are given oversight roles. That's real democracy in action IMHO. > commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated Was concentrated, pre-2009. The Commission now sets the legislative agenda, but Parliament has final say including veto. > the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable Considering the institutions typically taking flak (Commission and Council) are direct emanation of national governments, I'd say the responsibility for that sits directly with national governments and their voters. Besides, if you don't like the fact that you "didn't vote for Juncker", you should be happy that Commission and Council will always include a representation from your country, no matter what anyone votes for, and it's usually on the topic that is of most interest to your country. > Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro That's the real problem (which doesn't really affect the UK, but certainly the EU as a whole suffers from it). Everything else is a detail.
    - jankor 10y ago
      Juncker was a leader of the party that won European Parliament elections. The rest of the commission is appointed by the elected Parliament as well. Let's compare this to let's say House of Lords. Germany was the main opponent of lowering the interest rate to 0 and launching QE, they obviously failed, no Germany is not suddenly in control of the Euro. I am myself not a big proponent of the EU, but let's keep criticism where it's due and don't raise conspiracies about sudden german control of the Euro.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    Democracy in the EU? In 2011, the elected prime ministers of Italy and Greece were toppled in Brussels-backed coups. EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. Note the response of the EU when a referendum went against closer integration. This happened in Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. The vote was either ignored or the electorate told to vote again until they got it 'right'. We see the same mindset at work with folk who want a second referendum for Brexit.
    - vixen99 10y ago
      Noam Chomsky explains the EU's democracy deficit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. // Which seems exactly like the measure of democracy we have in the UK, no?
  - cronjobber 10y ago
    Your points are technically true, but neither informs on whether Brexit happened over questions regarding sovereignty and immigration. Such questions obviously mattered and "the economy" (whatever and whoever that is) isn't the only concern of sovereign states. You could argue that in a democratic capitalist market economy, government should concern itself predominantly with non-economic concerns of the people over economic welfare of its billionaire class. This ideal isn't always matched by reality, of course.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >Such questions obviously mattered // In fact they mattered so much the the leave campaign flagrantly perjured themselves to convince the voters of a false reality in order to get the vote they wanted. Democracy! It ain't what it used to be. All the sovereign baloney bothers me too - I'm not better off as a lowly nobody that in having the Queen and PM May holding the sovereign power over me than I was having the relatively socialist EU powers over me, whether they were elected or not. I really don't get the argument beyond it being used as a veil for racism or a desire to return to The Empire.
- glenndebacker 10y ago
  "Brexit was partly about the EU's sclerotic lack of democracy" Oh please, first lookup what a (representative) democracy is and how the European commission and parlement works before shouting nonsens. I'm not particularly somebody who find that everything the EU does is good, but I have also seen my part of BS regarding how it works. If I remember it correctly what I have been reading, but it doesn't differ that much with a lot of political structures in Britain. Or is the UK also undemocratic ? "and partly about failure to control immigration" Which is also a nationalisme agenda ergo the reason why the Brexit supporters at the European mainland (Front National, Vlaams Belang, PVV, ...) are nationalist parties. Not to say xenophobic. That is another thing that is very ironic, it's all about democracy but then they look for support (at the continent) to parties which are only democratic when you are white. Because that are the parties some of you are investing your hopes in. You can't deny that nationalisme ideas (a lot of elderly voted with some reminiscence to the days there was still something like the British empire) has also driven that agenda ergo it is quite ironic that it created a situation where the crown jewels could be picked cheaply by foreigners. Even if you read the article in question you can see the same theme's (independence, ...) repeating...
- pjc50 10y ago
  As opposed to the UK's sclerotic FPTP system and unelected legislature?
- imtringued 10y ago
  Except most immigrants come from outside the EU. http://qz.com/697783/most-migrants-to-the-uk-actually-come-from-outside-europe/ http://qz.com/697783/most-migrants-to-the-uk-actually-come-f...
lucaspiller 10y ago
If there are any US investors looking to get into the UK healthcare market, I'm sure you can get a good deal on the NHS if you ask nicely...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Seeing how the pound has fallen, I think it's cheaper for foreign investors to buy Britisch companies. That is a bit ironic if you keep the surge of nationalism in mind.

grabcocque 10y ago

Brexit was partly about the EU's sclerotic lack of democracy and partly about failure to control immigration. Since this touches neither of those, I don't see the irony.

Xiol 10y ago
Except the EU isn't undemocratic and immigration is good the economy.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "Except the EU isn't undemocratic" What gives you that impression?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerven 10y ago
    If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic. Also assuming whitehall will produce less redtape than brussels is probably not going to be true :(
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      > "If you call the UK a democracy then yes the EU is very democratic." Explain.
      - ionised 10y ago
        It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords. It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised. London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state. The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government.
        jerven 10y ago
        Plus the way that districts for the house of commons operate... leading to a less than representative commons.
        ZenoArrow 10y ago
        > "It's a plutocracy. Has been for hundreds of years. > "The UK has an unlected upper House of Lords." The balance of power has shifted in those 'hundreds of years'. The House of Lords no longer has the same level of power it did 200 years ago. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 shifted the bulk of the power for law making to the House of Commons. If you're not familiar with these bills, I recommend taking a look... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1949 > "It has a monarch that technically still has a lot of power, even if it isn't excercised." The moment the Monarch tries to exercise that power is the moment the Monarch seals their fate, as dissolution of the monarchy would almost inevitably follow soon after. I'd hardly call that 'power'. > "London is the primary focus of the country's expenditure and may as well be a city state." I agree that spending in London is disproportionately high compared to the rest of the country. However, it's worth remembering how big a part of the UK that London is. The population of Greater London is roughly 9.8 million. The population of the UK as a whole is roughly 64.1 million. Therefore, approximately 15% of everyone in the UK lives in London/Greater London. To put that in perspective, that's more people than live in the next 6 largest urban areas combined (Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Glasgow, Liverpool, South Hampshire). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_Uni... There are signs that UK public spending outside London will be improving. At the moment public spending in the UK is guided by the Barnett formula, which even the author himself admits was a 'terrible mistake'... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_formula > "The City of London, an entity unto itself is rife with fraud and corruption on a global scale, and essentially owns our politicians, much like Goldman Sachs basically owns the US government." The City of London is rife with fraud and corruption, but that's no argument for the EU, which is equally in bed with big business. The lobbying industry for the EU is massive, second only to the US. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-euro...
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Haha, what EU are you talking about? When did you vote for Juncker or anyone else on the commission? The commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated? It's got better than when it was at its worst, but the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable for a Western institution. And let's not even start on how Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro and seem to be essentially dictating monetary policy in Greece, Italy and Spain.
  - toyg 10y ago
    > When did you vote for Juncker Juncker was the PPE candidate before the last round of EU elections. A majority of EU citizens voted PPE-member parties, so Juncker was elected Commission President. That's democracy in my book. All major European parties had a CP candidate going in the election, although only two had a realistic shot (Juncker for PPE and Martin Schulz for PSE); if you voted for Labour in UK, you voted for Schulz -- who is now President of the European Parliament btw, following a common European convention where opposition leaders are given oversight roles. That's real democracy in action IMHO. > commission where all the power of the EU is concentrated Was concentrated, pre-2009. The Commission now sets the legislative agenda, but Parliament has final say including veto. > the EU is still incredibly undemocratic and unaccountable Considering the institutions typically taking flak (Commission and Council) are direct emanation of national governments, I'd say the responsibility for that sits directly with national governments and their voters. Besides, if you don't like the fact that you "didn't vote for Juncker", you should be happy that Commission and Council will always include a representation from your country, no matter what anyone votes for, and it's usually on the topic that is of most interest to your country. > Germany suddenly seem to be in control of the Euro That's the real problem (which doesn't really affect the UK, but certainly the EU as a whole suffers from it). Everything else is a detail.
  - jankor 10y ago
    Juncker was a leader of the party that won European Parliament elections. The rest of the commission is appointed by the elected Parliament as well. Let's compare this to let's say House of Lords. Germany was the main opponent of lowering the interest rate to 0 and launching QE, they obviously failed, no Germany is not suddenly in control of the Euro. I am myself not a big proponent of the EU, but let's keep criticism where it's due and don't raise conspiracies about sudden german control of the Euro.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Democracy in the EU? In 2011, the elected prime ministers of Italy and Greece were toppled in Brussels-backed coups. EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. Note the response of the EU when a referendum went against closer integration. This happened in Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. The vote was either ignored or the electorate told to vote again until they got it 'right'. We see the same mindset at work with folk who want a second referendum for Brexit.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    Noam Chomsky explains the EU's democracy deficit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPbXWB0X1UQ
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >EU civil servants then pursued economic policies that would have been rejected at the ballot box. // Which seems exactly like the measure of democracy we have in the UK, no?
- cronjobber 10y ago
  Your points are technically true, but neither informs on whether Brexit happened over questions regarding sovereignty and immigration. Such questions obviously mattered and "the economy" (whatever and whoever that is) isn't the only concern of sovereign states. You could argue that in a democratic capitalist market economy, government should concern itself predominantly with non-economic concerns of the people over economic welfare of its billionaire class. This ideal isn't always matched by reality, of course.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >Such questions obviously mattered // In fact they mattered so much the the leave campaign flagrantly perjured themselves to convince the voters of a false reality in order to get the vote they wanted. Democracy! It ain't what it used to be. All the sovereign baloney bothers me too - I'm not better off as a lowly nobody that in having the Queen and PM May holding the sovereign power over me than I was having the relatively socialist EU powers over me, whether they were elected or not. I really don't get the argument beyond it being used as a veil for racism or a desire to return to The Empire.
glenndebacker 10y ago
"Brexit was partly about the EU's sclerotic lack of democracy" Oh please, first lookup what a (representative) democracy is and how the European commission and parlement works before shouting nonsens. I'm not particularly somebody who find that everything the EU does is good, but I have also seen my part of BS regarding how it works. If I remember it correctly what I have been reading, but it doesn't differ that much with a lot of political structures in Britain. Or is the UK also undemocratic ? "and partly about failure to control immigration" Which is also a nationalisme agenda ergo the reason why the Brexit supporters at the European mainland (Front National, Vlaams Belang, PVV, ...) are nationalist parties. Not to say xenophobic. That is another thing that is very ironic, it's all about democracy but then they look for support (at the continent) to parties which are only democratic when you are white. Because that are the parties some of you are investing your hopes in. You can't deny that nationalisme ideas (a lot of elderly voted with some reminiscence to the days there was still something like the British empire) has also driven that agenda ergo it is quite ironic that it created a situation where the crown jewels could be picked cheaply by foreigners. Even if you read the article in question you can see the same theme's (independence, ...) repeating...
pjc50 10y ago
As opposed to the UK's sclerotic FPTP system and unelected legislature?
imtringued 10y ago
Except most immigrants come from outside the EU. http://qz.com/697783/most-migrants-to-the-uk-actually-come-from-outside-europe/ http://qz.com/697783/most-migrants-to-the-uk-actually-come-f...

lucaspiller 10y ago

If there are any US investors looking to get into the UK healthcare market, I'm sure you can get a good deal on the NHS if you ask nicely...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]