Assuming the UK gets a good trade deal with the EU. And that could take a decade to work out, considering a village in Belgium could veto the whole thing.
Figures I've seen were largely based on Eastern European immigration. What you're ignoring is the relatively recent massive influx of Muslims, and any statistics I find on that group are appalling. The most unemployed, the most claiming disability, the most on public housing, the most in medical costs. And this is hardly unique to the UK.
So, Brexit voters didn't like Muslims coming here and not contributing, so they voted to keep out Europeans who do contribute. But if you say Brexit voters are ignorant it makes you an out of touch, metropolitan liberal lefty luvvie...
Most of the Brexit voters I know are actually well-educated and certainly not poverty-stricken.
Then your sample was unrepresentative, Brexit voters were on average far less educated than Remain voters. They voted Leave because of decades of propaganda by the anti-EU press, ignorance, and xenophobia. There was no economic argument for Brexit.
But they realized that if the British economy takes a hit over Brexit, they won't be hit much harder than they're being hit now.
The 'things can't get any worse' meme is usually false. Things can always get worse. The richer parts of the UK's economy prop up the living standards of the rest. If finance, bio, tech etc. leave following Brexit that means tens of billions in lost tax revenues, meaning lower public services, lower benefits, and job losses cascading through the economy as the bankers' spending power moves to the EU.
When the economy was booming, they were steadily spiralling downward.
False. They might not have been doing as well as those at the top, but their living standards were far higher than most of the world, even if they were in unskilled dead-end jobs. Factory workers with two cars outside the house, smart phones all around and holidays to Benidorm every year are in line for a cold, sharp shock when they realise that their lifestyles are only that high because they share a country with rich, educated metropolitan Remain voters, and that factory workers in most of the world live far more deprived lifestyles. There's a reason so many people want to come to Britain to work.
And in return for receiving all these "benefits" from the booming economy, they had to give up control of their borders and their currency.
I don't remember when they joined the Euro. Or is this more 'Fake News' like the £350m a week to spend on the NHS? The entire Brexit campaign was driven by lies.
So what! At least the top few who were getting all the benefits of EU membership and raking in billions of pounds to add to their existing fortunes might finally suffer just a small fraction of what my friends and family have been enduring for a generation.
Nope, the top few will always be rich and successful. The most beautiful irony of the whole situation is that the Brexit voters have the most to lose from Brexit. Do you honestly think the megarich will lose anything? They can swan off to anywhere in the world and take their business with them. Brexit voters voted to restrict immigration...for people like themselves. Factory and shop workers won't get a visa to work anywhere else, they're stuck in the UK and will go down with its economy. The metropolitan, remain-voting elite can go where they like.
They won't even get rid of immigrants. Most immigrants in the UK actually come from outside of the EU. They're not here because the EU took control of our borders, but because the British government wants them here. The same British government which has 'taken back control' or whatever. Well guess what, if the British government was handing out visas like confetti to Bangladeshis before, there's no reason to think they're going to stop. There might actually be an increase to make up for the loss of EU migrants.
There's going to be a huge amount of butt-hurt when Brexiters don't realise that screaming 'democracy' doesn't mean you can have your cake and eat it.
So, donate to wikipedia to let them go on holidays, give money to causes (instead of just giving it directly yourself), and $32 million on salaries whilst the people actually providing the content get nothing?
They've been mocking Trump for years and it hasn't made a bit of difference. At this point it's basically making noise for the sake of making noise. A giant left-wing tantrum all over TV.
With that single story a national of deplorables can trivially take CNN off the credible list.
Not much to argue against in that article, unless you think sentencing should not be blind but be dependent on the convict's neighbourhood or family. If you think that article is wrong, do you believe that someone who lives in a low-crime area and has a good family should get a lighter sentence from the same crime?
Or maybe your objection is about the use of credit ratings in employment. I'd like to hear a good argument as to how a mechanism which makes it harder for poor people to get jobs helps society.
The GOOD thing is that with lower production costs, it will become less costly to live so maybe these things will balance out as they always have in the past.
Assuming that any decrease in cost of living isn't hoovered up by a corresponding increase in property prices.
You said it yourself, in the couple of years when Obama didn't have a Republican Congress openly admitting they were shutting him down just for the lols, he achieved great things including universal health care, saving the banks and saving the auto industry. Now you're blaming him for not fixing absolutely everything when most of his presidency was hobbled by Republicans putting their party before their country.
And you actually think Trump is some sort of outsider rather than a New Yorker billionaire born into wealth and privilege, whose 'real world' perspective is borrowing money to put into failing businesses then running away? You're going to be very surprised when he isn't all that willing to upend the status quo which allows him to get away like a bandit and line his pockets as the world burns around him.
What if the US tells Apple they have to move to the remaining US if they want to keep using GPS? Or selling iphones in the US without huge import tariffs?
California wouldn't have a tech industry outside of the US. The vast majority of the most valuable technology used in Silicon Valley was created by the US military. Unless you think an independent California is going to create its own GPS to use on those shiny phones? And outside of the US, who are they going to sell that agricultural produce to? Rich countries and trade blocs put import tariffs on agriculture to protect their own food security. Oh, and now you're doing it without water from other states. And no US border force to protect you from the drug cartels.
You are aware that outside of the US, most of California's big industries wouldn't exist? No Hollywood, no aerospace, no silicon valley, no rich countries to sell their agricultural produce to. California only contributes more to the treasury because SV gets to use US military technology for free. US taxpayers all over the country spent tens of billions making things like the Internet and GPS, some nerds in turtleneck sweaters come along and put them in a shiny box, then declare themselves wealth creators.
SV wouldn't even exist without decades of huge government military spending. By rights, the US tax payer should own most of those tech companies as they created their products.
Living with the consequences of your actions is part of being an adult. Voters who fell for the Trump meme or didn't vote need to learn what happens when you don't take democracy seriously. The same with Brexit, it should be as hard and as painful as possible so when the voters are sat unemployed and hungry they might think twice about voting to lose their own jobs because a newspaper told them to.
By that logic, MLB should never have been formed, because they would have had to scale it back if baseball lost popularity. They should have put it in a general 'Sports League' with multiple sports involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming the UK gets a good trade deal with the EU. And that could take a decade to work out, considering a village in Belgium could veto the whole thing.
Clinton only won the popular vote because of California, she hardly got a huge mandate from the whole country.
So, Brexit voters didn't like Muslims coming here and not contributing, so they voted to keep out Europeans who do contribute. But if you say Brexit voters are ignorant it makes you an out of touch, metropolitan liberal lefty luvvie...
Then your sample was unrepresentative, Brexit voters were on average far less educated than Remain voters. They voted Leave because of decades of propaganda by the anti-EU press, ignorance, and xenophobia. There was no economic argument for Brexit.
The 'things can't get any worse' meme is usually false. Things can always get worse. The richer parts of the UK's economy prop up the living standards of the rest. If finance, bio, tech etc. leave following Brexit that means tens of billions in lost tax revenues, meaning lower public services, lower benefits, and job losses cascading through the economy as the bankers' spending power moves to the EU.
False. They might not have been doing as well as those at the top, but their living standards were far higher than most of the world, even if they were in unskilled dead-end jobs. Factory workers with two cars outside the house, smart phones all around and holidays to Benidorm every year are in line for a cold, sharp shock when they realise that their lifestyles are only that high because they share a country with rich, educated metropolitan Remain voters, and that factory workers in most of the world live far more deprived lifestyles. There's a reason so many people want to come to Britain to work.
I don't remember when they joined the Euro. Or is this more 'Fake News' like the £350m a week to spend on the NHS? The entire Brexit campaign was driven by lies.
Nope, the top few will always be rich and successful. The most beautiful irony of the whole situation is that the Brexit voters have the most to lose from Brexit. Do you honestly think the megarich will lose anything? They can swan off to anywhere in the world and take their business with them. Brexit voters voted to restrict immigration...for people like themselves. Factory and shop workers won't get a visa to work anywhere else, they're stuck in the UK and will go down with its economy. The metropolitan, remain-voting elite can go where they like.
They won't even get rid of immigrants. Most immigrants in the UK actually come from outside of the EU. They're not here because the EU took control of our borders, but because the British government wants them here. The same British government which has 'taken back control' or whatever. Well guess what, if the British government was handing out visas like confetti to Bangladeshis before, there's no reason to think they're going to stop. There might actually be an increase to make up for the loss of EU migrants.
There's going to be a huge amount of butt-hurt when Brexiters don't realise that screaming 'democracy' doesn't mean you can have your cake and eat it.
Before Britain joined the EU we were known as the 'sick man of Europe'.
It doesn't have to be a subway, plenty of roads in LA they could put tracks on.
I'm pretty sure they could live without the 'grants and awards', or all the free jollies to events and conferences.
So, donate to wikipedia to let them go on holidays, give money to causes (instead of just giving it directly yourself), and $32 million on salaries whilst the people actually providing the content get nothing?
When the rich give money to Hillary, it ain't charity. They were expecting a whole lot back in return.
They've been mocking Trump for years and it hasn't made a bit of difference. At this point it's basically making noise for the sake of making noise. A giant left-wing tantrum all over TV.
With that single story a national of deplorables can trivially take CNN off the credible list.
Not much to argue against in that article, unless you think sentencing should not be blind but be dependent on the convict's neighbourhood or family. If you think that article is wrong, do you believe that someone who lives in a low-crime area and has a good family should get a lighter sentence from the same crime?
Or maybe your objection is about the use of credit ratings in employment. I'd like to hear a good argument as to how a mechanism which makes it harder for poor people to get jobs helps society.
The GOOD thing is that with lower production costs, it will become less costly to live so maybe these things will balance out as they always have in the past.
Assuming that any decrease in cost of living isn't hoovered up by a corresponding increase in property prices.
Another unique ability that homo sapiens has? Planning for the future.
Yeah we're planning for climate change, fossil fuel depletion and automation just fine.
Well, as long as they can keep finding more barrels as quickly as we're using them, there's enough oil to last forever!
You said it yourself, in the couple of years when Obama didn't have a Republican Congress openly admitting they were shutting him down just for the lols, he achieved great things including universal health care, saving the banks and saving the auto industry. Now you're blaming him for not fixing absolutely everything when most of his presidency was hobbled by Republicans putting their party before their country.
And you actually think Trump is some sort of outsider rather than a New Yorker billionaire born into wealth and privilege, whose 'real world' perspective is borrowing money to put into failing businesses then running away? You're going to be very surprised when he isn't all that willing to upend the status quo which allows him to get away like a bandit and line his pockets as the world burns around him.
Boycie was a little guy...
And that above, people, is how you lose an election.
By stating facts you don't like? At least you're admitting that we live in a post-truth era.
What if the US tells Apple they have to move to the remaining US if they want to keep using GPS? Or selling iphones in the US without huge import tariffs?
What happens to California's tax revenues when their major industries pick up and leave because they're American not Californian companies?
California wouldn't have a tech industry outside of the US. The vast majority of the most valuable technology used in Silicon Valley was created by the US military. Unless you think an independent California is going to create its own GPS to use on those shiny phones? And outside of the US, who are they going to sell that agricultural produce to? Rich countries and trade blocs put import tariffs on agriculture to protect their own food security. Oh, and now you're doing it without water from other states. And no US border force to protect you from the drug cartels.
You are aware that outside of the US, most of California's big industries wouldn't exist? No Hollywood, no aerospace, no silicon valley, no rich countries to sell their agricultural produce to. California only contributes more to the treasury because SV gets to use US military technology for free. US taxpayers all over the country spent tens of billions making things like the Internet and GPS, some nerds in turtleneck sweaters come along and put them in a shiny box, then declare themselves wealth creators.
SV wouldn't even exist without decades of huge government military spending. By rights, the US tax payer should own most of those tech companies as they created their products.
Reagan did go all in, he caused untold damage and was arguably the worst president in history.
Living with the consequences of your actions is part of being an adult. Voters who fell for the Trump meme or didn't vote need to learn what happens when you don't take democracy seriously. The same with Brexit, it should be as hard and as painful as possible so when the voters are sat unemployed and hungry they might think twice about voting to lose their own jobs because a newspaper told them to.
By that logic, MLB should never have been formed, because they would have had to scale it back if baseball lost popularity. They should have put it in a general 'Sports League' with multiple sports involved.