BREXIT and Trump

[moralist]

7 hours ago, PDS said:

Has Britain recently lost a World War while I wasn't paying attention?

In the last 200 years, has Britain shown a fondness for monarchic rule, or one person rule?

Do the English have a fondness for totalitarianism as reflected in centuries of its literature, music, or mythology?

I didn't think so. 

Forgot what Santanna said, and remember instead what happened to the Boy Who Cried Wolf. 

You're totally right... there's absolutely no correlation.

You'd only have to look to the Middle East to find a real one.

 

Greg

[PDS]

21 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Monarchy reigns but does not rule. Parliament is the sovereign   body in Britain.  Britain has an unwritten constitution  and is a quasi-republic.  It keeps a hereditary monarchy for show and ceremony.   

Here is the blurb from the Wiki article:   

The monarch and his or her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is, by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.

ba'al chatzaf 

Gee, Baal.  Thanks. 

I have also heard that sometime in the recent past, we Americans landed astronauts on the moon.   Can you help me with that puzzle too? 

[Brant Gaede]

The moon landings never happened. It was a Hollywood-type production.

--Batty

[moralist]

Hear the MAN responsible for BREXIT...

 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, moralist said:

Hear the MAN responsible for BREXIT...

 

Good for him!   He ripped a new on for those Euro-wusses.  

[moralist]

This guy's got balls!

 

[PDS]

3 hours ago, moralist said:

This guy's got balls!

 

He does have big ones.

And that brunette in the red necklace seems to want a closer look at them...

[SteveWolfer]

So, how does the EU respond to Brexit?  Might they do something to punish the UK for leaving and do it in such a way that the UK has another referendum and rejoins and it ends up looking like the EU is a great idea and no one should ever leave it?  That's what the EU might like to happen, but can they do it?

 

If they can't get the UK to rejoin, then do they try to make an example of it for leaving, or do they try to move on as quickly as possible and focus on keeping the remaining nation members from leaving? 

 

The EU had its problems even before considering the loss of member nations.

 

The British population were the deciders in leaving, whereas the political establishment in Britain and the EU were the opposition.  But who are the real power in the EU?  I don't know.  From what I've heard it isn't their elected representatives, but rather it is a large set of committees that operate behind the scenes.  But who, if anyone, do they take their direction from?  When you can't locate a nexus of the power, it is hard to even guess at motives.

 

Whoever is trying to steer the EU might be feeling more frightened than angry or they might be focused in a solely pragmatic fashion.  It would be nice to know which.

 

Nigel Farage is making a call for the EU behaving in a mature fashion and not go down the road of tariffs.  He wouldn't be making that request if he didn't think it was possible that the EU might behave vindictively or stupidly.

[william.scherk]

19 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

So, how does the EU respond to Brexit?

So far, the EU has rebuffed any formal or informal negotiations with the UK -- until a British Government initiates the withdrawal process. That process starts with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This stance I understand. So, there is nothing really concrete that the EU can do in the meantime. Talk is cheap.

Speaking of cheap talk, the UK prime minister, David Cameron, resigned from his leadership of the Conservative Party, effective at the end of September. He has stated clearly that he will not initiate withdrawal while in office. He has said that it is the next government that will do so.

On the opposition side of the House of Commons, the leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn just lost a 'caucus' vote of confidence in his leadership, and eighty percent of his Shadow Cabinet removed themselves  -- but he is at present resisting any call that he step aside as 'unconstitutional' ... 

In Northern Ireland,  Unionist leader Ian Paisley (Jr) has suggested that NI constituents should apply for Irish passports (supplemental to current UK/EU passports). Most folks in Northern Ireland are assumed by the Dublin government to be republican citizens. There is no formal border control between the (old) UK and Europe (Ireland).  The Unionist/Loyalist partner in peace (Sinn Fein) has called for Northern Ireland to become part of the Irish republic.

In Scotland, the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has begun the process to replay the Scottish Independence referendum. 

Back to the Conservatives, one of the two favourites to be chosen leader is Boris Johnson. Yesterday he skipped Parliament but published a newspaper column. He essentially said Don't Worry, Not Much Will Change. He explained that a new relationship with Europe would continue to offer Britons freedom of movement and settlement, and that the free movement of capital, labour and services would be preserved in a new deal. 

Today, he walked back his comments; he had made mistakes in his article due to tiredness.  So, what does that mean for a free-trading common market in the new arrangements. Johnson has no clue. Nobody does.  These are the dog days of reaction, regrets, confusion and open questions.

Meanwhile, Britain's financial institutions have taken a hammering in stock valuation and confidence, and the UK currency has plunged to its lowest levels (relative to the US dollar) since 1985. Knock-in effects are hiring freezes in pan-European UK-headquartered firms specializing in 'servicing the market' (the common market) -- and more of the same can be expected. Once Britain is no longer under a common financial/fiscal free trade agreement, those firms cannot do the business they do now. For an international financial centre like London, this is a blow, and perhaps not what was expected by some Leave voters.

I am not surprised that the UKIP party leader (and MEP) Farage gets some approbation here, but I consider him a devious bigoted liar and a fool, and known by the company he keeps.  His party is aligned in Strasbourg with all the petty nationalists and pro-Russia parties, from LePen's National Front to the Greek fascists and continental neo-Nazis. 

My angle of interest is partly political, partly personal. I make my first visit to the UK in September. I want the pound to have cratered, to my benefit.  

The other angle is the process of Leaving. From this angle I intend to inform myself on just what kind of relationships can be retained or rebuilt between the EU and the UK.  The common market provisions will be the core of any such treaty -- in the terms I have already listed: freedoms to move, reside, start a business, and so on.

This is a big complicated issue, with important details not yet in hand.  In Great Britain there is no plan. Leadership is in disarray or headless, reactive and at sea.  Will the new prime minister have a "mandate"?  Will there be future public consultations on the contours of a new deal?  Will Great Britain become Little Britain?  

-- one line of relative certainty is that the present arrangements will likely be retro-active/non-cancellable, if I understand the law properly. What I mean is that UK expatriates in the EU will retain their status and rights after the divorce. As a corollary, those who were legally resident in the UK on the day before divorce will have the same rights of residence the day after.  This non-cancellable landscape of personally-held freedoms will likely allow those living/working/retiring/investing/property-purchasing in EU to carry on with few new curbs. 

Economically, the once world-striding British Empire was an 'open borders' kind of machine. The evolved international heft and importance will to some degree be let go.   If capital is not under a pan-European Regime, it is hobbled.  I think this explains the drastic devaluations of financial entities and those entities that do business 'inside the club.'

-- a couple of sad and depressing notes.  Physical and verbal attacks on those considered to be 'foreign' are on the up-tick in the UK. Targets are not merely the brown, black and Asian. They extend to Poles, Romanians, and other central Europeans, and to citizens perceived to be the ugly other.  This for me is the darkest of the after-referendum results: that some people think it is a perfect time to tell someone to fuck off back where they came from.  

 

I expect intelligent discussion of the Brexit to be honest and even-handed; to recognize benefits and costs to a divorce -- to different parties involved, individuals and groups.  I also expect a certain amount of repulsive commentary by the mentally-challenged.

On a slightly related note -- Immigration --  Mr Trump is apparently softening his Muslim Ban rhetoric, if not the ban itself. His surrogates have been falling all over themselves to offer clarification, leaving  a pot of fudge -- and Mr Trump has not submitted to a sit-down to explain the fudginess.  

Can anyone here today figure out what is happening on that subject? 

[See also Welcome to Brexit Britain:

Six days after the EU referendum result the UK has no government, no opposition, no plan. Companies have begun to reconsider relocating their headquarters, investment is on hold, deals are being pulled and sterling’s fall has squeezed household incomes just as they were recovering.

...  and Brexit: Truth, myths and media 'neutrality' by Christiane Amanpour ]
 

Edited June 29, 2016 by william.scherk
Spelking, grrrammar, added links | added Financial Times, Amanpour story links.

[BaalChatzaf]

at this juncture June 28, 2016   BREXIT is a referendum.  In theory and in law parliament can ignore it (it its peril in the next election). 

[william.scherk]

On 6/28/2016 at 6:22 PM, william.scherk said:

Back to the Conservatives, one of the two favourites to be chosen leader is Boris Johnson.

Presto-chango -- Mr Johnson has announced he is not in the running to be selected by the party and installed as prime minister.  Though I suppose that decision could change. 

What a difference a day makes, as the song says. The hunt for Red October is on. This selection is from the Guardian story linked above, and is couched in its trademark prose. Shock waves!:

Boris Johnson has unexpectedly ruled himself out as a candidate for Britain’s next prime minister, after the justice secretary, Michael Gove, sent shockwaves through Westminster with a last-minute bid for the Conservative leadership.

Gove had been chairing Johnson’s leadership campaign, after the two men worked shoulder to shoulder in the campaign for Britain to leave the EU.

But with just hours to go before formal nominations closed at noon on Thursday, Gove announced that he no longer believed Johnson was the right man for the job, and that he would launch his own bid to be the next prime minister.

Gove:

[anthony]

What I see continuously coming through from sound bites and interviews by Eurocrats, political leaders and the media, is the unstated insinuation that Brits are being - 'selfish' - in departing the Club. One could argue that it's not completely a rational selfishness, and somewhat subjective/emotional, but that doesn't hide the fact that indeed they are. The accusation, considering from whence it comes, is quite a compliment. Now Britain will certainly receive a hard time by those European altruist-collectivists, partly to try to ensure an example to other EU countries, partly as sour pay-back. And if the effort fails, there will be we told you so's and crocodile tears.

Especially by the media. I've always had respect for Amanpour, liberal as she may be, but I've never seen her look more personally pissed off and sound more scathing as she has by Brexit. A pretty good give-away of her premises. I came in on the end of a wrap-up she did 4-5 nights ago, and heard her pronounce roughly this:

"I want to leave you with this thought. The British youth voted overwhelmingly for "Stay", while it was mainly the aging who want to leave. But just consider this: the elderly have only 16 years[?] of life left, while the young have 46[!]. Just think about that!".

Say what?!!

Well the hell with you, Christiane. If ever there were an anti-conceptual, skeptical, age-ist, prejudicial, condescending expostulation by an 'impartial' journalist, this was it. It so happens that many Brits like me think that - if handled resolutely, cleverly and rationally - this is the best move for a self-determining, more capitalist UK. No matter our "age" and remaining time, the principles of the future of the nation, and where our descendants may live, is uppermost in our minds. Not just our 'selfishness'.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

What I see continuously coming through from sound bites and interviews by Eurocrats, political leaders and the media, is the unstated insinuation that Brits are being - 'selfish' - in departing the Club. One could argue that it's not completely a rational selfishness, and somewhat subjective/emotional, but that doesn't hide the fact that indeed they are. The accusation, considering from whence it comes, is a compliment. Now Britain will certainly receive a hard time by those European altruist-collectivists, partly to try to ensure an example to other EU countries, partly as sour pay-back. And if it fails, there will be told you so's and crocodile tears.

Especially by the media. I've always had respect for Amanpour, liberal as she may be, but I've never seen her look more personally pissed off and sound more scathing as she has by Brexit. A pretty good give-away of her premises. I came in on the end of a wrap-up she did 4-5 nights ago, and heard her pronounce roughly this:

"I want to leave you with this thought. The British youth voted overwhelmingly for "Stay", while it was mainly the aging who want to leave. But just consider this: the elderly have only 16 years[?] of life left, while the young have 46[!]. Just think about that!".

Say what?!!

Well the hell with you, Christiane. If ever there were an anti-conceptual, skeptical, age-ist, prejudicial, condescending expostulation by an 'impartial' journalist, this was it. It so happens that many Brits like me think that - if handled resolutely, cleverly and rationally - this was the best move for a self-determining, more capitalist UK. No matter our "age" and remaining time, the principles of the future of the nation, and where our descendants may live, is uppermost in our minds. Not just our 'selfishness'.

It just goes to show that the golden oldies have more sense than the young whipper snappers.....

[anthony]

Yeah, in general. As much in the UK as over in the States (and the support by 20-30 year-olds for Bernie Sanders...!), it seems "the whipper-snappers" have turned into those staidly most resistant to real change (from comfortable welfarism, anyway). What happened to youthful rebelliousness?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a perfect example of why Brexit happened and it shares the same root of Trump's appeal in the USA:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
By Victoria Ward and Nick Collins
18 Nov 2011
The Telegraph

From the article:

Quote

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

. . .

Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.

He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration."

. . .

EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.

Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.

I didn't think it possible, but this is worse than Bloomberg banning large soft drinks in NY.

For those who want it spelled out, bureaucrats making idiot laws with actual legal sanctions for infringement while they make asses out of themselves, is at the root of Trump's appeal here in the USA.

It should be funny, but most people have reached a point where they are sick of it.

When Trump calls the bureaucrats morons, the "most people" people let out a huge emotional, "FINALLY!"

Oh yeah... one other thing. These "most people" people vote for Brexit and they vote for Trump.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael, this reminds me of my stay in Spain some years ago. I was mostly in the Canary Islands, and on Tenerife a volcanic island and tourist destination which had at one time thriving banana plantations, its main agriculture. They were the tastiest bananas I'd ever had, better than the African variety, but guess what? I was told that the EU had in its wisdom decreed that the fruit was a few centimetres too small for export to Europe, and so almost killed the industry (and put more people onto subsidies and hand-outs from Madrid). Checking now, I see their production and trade has opened again, so there must have been a back-track on the ban by the EU Parliament recently. The arbitrary, dictatorial nature and 'one size fits all', of the EU, is going to cause its downfall.

[BaalChatzaf]

40 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a perfect example of why Brexit happened and it shares the same root of Trump's appeal in the USA:

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration
Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.
By Victoria Ward and Nick Collins
18 Nov 2011
The Telegraph

From the article:

I didn't think it possible, but this is worse than Bloomberg banning large soft drinks in NY.

For those who want it spelled out, bureaucrats making idiot laws with actual legal sanctions for infringement while they make asses out of themselves, is at the root of Trump's appeal here in the USA.

It should be funny, but most people have reached a point where they are sick of it.

When Trump calls the bureaucrats morons, the "most people" people let out a huge emotional, "FINALLY!"

Oh yeah... one other thing. These "most people" people vote for Brexit and they vote for Trump.

Michael

Shall we replace one set of "morons"  with another set???

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Shall we replace one set of "morons"  with another set???

Bob,

We need to elect Trump to get rid of the morons.

Why are you so hell-bent on being ruled by morons?

 

Michael

[william.scherk]

The value of a free press is inestimable.  Part of the 'fun' of the Brexit process is the current scramble to be chosen Prime Minister (on or around September 1st). The fun of course comes in stages, and ramifies each day. Right now I am very interested in the Conservative leadership campaign.  It is not obvious who will emerge triumphant:  Theresa May or Michael Gove ... 

The contest is two-stepped.  First Conservative MPs 'cook down' the declared candidates (in semi-secret rounds of votes) to two names. Those two names are on a secret ballot available to the roughly 150,000 paid Conservative Party members. (American readers might find this to be oddly undemocratic compared to the US primary system). 

Here is just a sample of the churning hoopla surrounding this all-important race, from the Tory-ish Telegraph's dramatic insinuator Peter Foster  today:

Quote

 

Five reasons why Europe would vote for Theresa May as PM

After months in which the British political landscape has been shrouded in smoke and cordite, leaving 43 years of painstaking European Union construction lying shattered and in ruins, the sight of Theresa May emerging from the chaos will be welcomed in Europe.

After months in which the British political landscape has been shrouded in smoke and cordite, leaving 43 years of painstaking European Union construction lying shattered and in ruins, the sight of Theresa May emerging from the chaos will be welcomed in Europe.

“Die Britische Merkel” proclaimed one headline, a nod not just to the obvious fact that Mrs May is a woman and enjoys political longevity as the longest-serving Home Secretary in over 50 years, but a reflection the pragmatism and work ethic that has kept her on that most precarious of Cabinet perches. [...]

 

I think the compressed media hoopla of the next two months will be something to behold. Uniquely British, quarrelsome, entertaining and sobering. Then the Red Button can be pushed and divorce proceedings get underway.

-- a couple of puzzles today from my review of UK media.  There is tension over the fundamentals of the new deal to come, based on a state-selfish Leave bottom line:  there will be no more unrestricted free movement of people. Each aspect of the new 'friendly divorcee' UK will probably be negotiated by a hard-headed actuary:  what is in it for Me (UK)?  

So, take your pick of issues, be it financial market access and service or be it visa-bound entry and exit regimes -- there is no settled plan. The puzzle for me is that there is not at the moment a consensus position from the Leave leaders, in the sense of an unfinished puzzle without a puzzle-box cover key, if that makes any sense.  The lack of a puzzle box  is what doomed Boris, and why Cameron resigned, and this is why there is terrible turmoil in the Labour party right now.  The puzzle is under construction. Until the leaders are affirmed and the new government summons Parliament, pretty much all we are going to get is Hoopla Plus.

Also from today's Telegraph.

I really wish that the Canary Islands bananas were not more-or-less cut off from the common market.  Seems deranged, judging from Tony's summary. What year did you take the sojourn, Mr Brit?

-- as an aside on democracy and nation-building:  fifty two percent would have 'won' the Quebec referendum for the "leave" side  in 1995.  But the plan offered by the province was a sprawling, confusing mess that assumed shared citizenship between the two new nations and a shared currency. The close call led to a thing called the Clarity Act, which put in place the legal finding from our Supreme Court that a substantial majority vote would be needed before it would 'trigger' negotiations. It said the question too needed to be clear (as the British and Scottish questions indubitably were).

My POV and biases stem from having lived through three referendums in Canada, and perhaps an attachment to the concept of the Crown.  It made perfect rational sense for a demi-nation with a distinct 'separate' culture to want to become self-sovereign, to achieve the top-rank sovereignty.  To dislodge that Crown from being 'above' Quebec, it made rational sense. 

-- to the very narrow point about the stupid/morally squalid collectivist numpty Youth who voted to Remain, it pays to inquire what indeed made Youth more attached to the Union than their elders,on average. What were they reluctant to 'give up'?  Understanding that is key to the healthy debates underway in Britain.  Paring away partisan chicanery and the more florid hoopla from media, one can appreciate the complexity of the challenges ahead. For students of history, this is an excellent time to be an observer:  the story is large and interesting and fraught with uncertainty.

-- to the narrow  suggestion that Mr Trump's support (and November voters) have parallels to Brexit (especially demographics), I agree on broad strokes: it makes intuitive sense to me that a loathing of unrestricted and seemingly overwhelming migration from alien cultures would motivate nationalism, if not nativism.  It is useful and important to draw similarities. Another support for this argument is the formation and success of the various Euroskeptic parties represented in the European Parliament:  these form a voting bloc that comprises all of the "Freedom" parties of the modern 'right wing' ... (in almost all states).

However, I would argue that a reasonable Trump-Brexit analogy follow  route of Measure, Compare and Contrast as part of analysis. Otherwise I might get hornswoggled by confirmation bias and sampling error.  

So, a mental note for me:  how do I best find parallels and divergences between 'the people' supporting Trump and the people supporting Brexit?  In other words, is the constituency of a US 'Brexit' cohort  -- evidence that a Trump will be president?  It may take some time to figure out and to build a convincing argument. Analogy is not argument.  

__________________________

Boring end notes: One wonk line of analysis is neutrally racialist:  it measures the percentages of 'visible minorities' in each country, UK vs USA, and finds patterns.  Was there a grouping of demographic cohorts that tended to predict a Leave or a Brexit vote in a particular constituency?  Survey says yes.  

In other words, without you looking it up, you don't know if white people weighted the Leave nor the relationship between non-whiteness and Remain.

Fun details for the wonk set comparing the allure of the Leave vote in Britain to the allure of the Trump name on the November ballot. Measurements! Measurement omissions!  

For those not campaigning for or mesmerized by Muh Man, consulting a broad range of opinion and expertise gives benefits. Especially when invoking the Principle of Charity. 

With that charity hat on, who can re-explain the reluctance of UK youth to Leave? Winging it,  I say it is a combo:  the young cohort is more 'mixed' as a result of previous immigration and the fecundity of recent arrivals. A racialist argument is that the dark hordes are out-breeding or/and surmounting the 'native' culture/ethnicity.  In racialist statistics, then, the comparison sought would be along the axes of darkness and nativism and anti-immigrant fervor.

Talking point: Big enough cohort to Leave the UK. Big enough cohort to Trump the US?  

[anthony]

William: December, 2010 (on the island). Demographics: Much has been made about this 'argument from bigotry', unsurprisingly by the Leave Skeptics, who avoid fully taking into account the principles of individual sovereignty many British still have. Politics: It's an open secret that all politicians always fear a general Referendum over which they have little control. Now those Parties must pick up the pieces and rearrange themselves in a hurry, knowing the majority will of the people (as well as the minority). The British yob (you mentioned earlier): It seems fairly certain that the Leave campaign accumulated a number of these as "fellow travellers", but I estimate many were also on the Stay side, protecting their Welfare too. Come what may, with another voted outcome, these racist cowards would still have taken the opportunity to assault foreigners and other Brits perceived as foreigners. So who knows if they are all actually "leavers"? You might have added to your list of Polish (etc.) victims, that this isn't anything very different: the UK has had for a few years a large uptick in anti-Semitic attacks.

Over all, for Britain's future, I think there is nothing to fear except fear itself - if they are left to their own devices - but its opponents are doing their best to foist low confidence and doubt, to pressure the people and govt. What does "the will of the people" and their touting of "social democracy" count, when the elites have had their superior noses put out of joint?

[Jonathan]

48 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

 

 

 

 

[william.scherk]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Demographics: Much has been made about this 'argument from bigotry', unsurprisingly by the Leave Skeptics, who avoid taking into account the principles of individual sovereignty many British have.

I believe demographic measurements are central in analogizing to Trump, Tony. You likely don't mean to imply a reliance on bigotry-as-explanation in my argument. I made an argument for examining the demographic differences between the nations before assuming an analogous-to-52% success for you know who.

Simply put, there are differences to account for between the USA and the UK population before analogy can be assumed to illustrate likely voter intentions. I think it important to consider the relative composition of the two populations. To investigate the influence of these differences is not to make a case that a particular cohort is stained by bigotry, but to invoke objective analysis -- to incorporate comparative data that can inform our  forecasts. Since you make no predictions, I shouldn't be tasking you with sorting out measurements of this cohort or that of the larger voting pool. 

Re the Banana deal, do you know much history of the Mighty Banana, fifth largest food crop on earth? Not me.

Before I go digging, I assume that an EU country would import as many Canary bananas as possible or desired, since production is in the EU already. I expect to find that the Canady crop is relatively puny (compared to world totals) and that the vast majority are eaten by Spanish consumers (why would Spain import other bananas at greater transport expense?) -- perhaps they are part of a preexisting supply chain (meaning UK markets preferentially sourced from UK firms in Caribbean, African and Pacific  former empire).  

I do  seem to recall a series of zany World Banana Wars in the last few decades (vague memories of the old GATT and the WHO and the battle to lift protective tariffs against non-colonial sources) in favour of freer competition. Fair Trade, so to speak. No doubt my memories are spotty, but it is a funny thing to consider as dispositive or essential, dang EU Banana Crazy Anecdote.

Here is the puzzle: I can't assume any actual barrier but market forces to EU agricultural production here. If anything, I expect subventions and regional agricultural Euro-assists to such as Canary banana producers.  

Maybe the tastier Canary bananas are a specialty, part-artisan product,  thus a price point or two above gargantuan production from say, Ecuador.  You have piqued my curiosity enough to check our regional markets to see if a such things can be had here. Such is our multi-culty profusion food sourcing in Vancouver, it seems anything fresh can be had.

 

But anyhow, that boring excursion aside, any takers on making an argument for or against TP ... ?  I would say it is not a slam-dunk either way, but as they say, arguable.

Talking point: Big enough cohort to Leave the UK. Big enough cohort to Trump the US?  

 

Edited July 1, 2016 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

We need to elect Trump to get rid of the morons.

Why are you so hell-bent on being ruled by morons?

 

Michael

 

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

We need to elect Trump to get rid of the morons.

Why are you so hell-bent on being ruled by morons?

 

Michael

I am not so hell bent.  I do not intend to vote for any of the candidates presumptive.  I will not be a party to such a travesty.

We will get what we will get  but my hands shall be clean....
 

Trump is an imbecile,  but he is not an Establishment imbecile.   Trump lives inside of a Parker Brother's Monopoly Universe.  Maybe that is why so much of his trade was done on the Boardwalk.   Trumps world view can be summed up as follows: Let's make a Deal!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Trump lives inside of a Parker Brother's Monopoly Universe.

Bob,

Actually, Donald Trump lives in the real world and has left behind him a long-ass string of spectacular achievements that are... er... in the real world. 

That is, unless you can fit a skyscraper or a golf course or, hell, even a TV production studio on a board game. And I would love to see you do that.  

btw - I don't mind if you don't vote. I have already, personally, convinced many people to vote for Trump. One of my favorites was a Uber driver on a trip I recently made. He told me he liked what Trump said at times, but that Trump was a lousy businessman because he only bankrupts companies.

I told him that was a media-driven image. I talked about the Trump Organization and asked him how 4 failures stacked up against well over 500 successful companies. Did he like those odds? He told me he would check online (like I advised him to do) and if this were true, he would not only vote for Trump, but get his family and friends on board, too.

What is your one sourpuss abstention by comparison?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

Dow, S&P 500 shake off Brexit, log best week of 2016

Michael