BBC has just called the election for Leave, Pound tumbles, dollar strengthens. Get ready for a wild ride.
Printable View
BBC has just called the election for Leave, Pound tumbles, dollar strengthens. Get ready for a wild ride.
Watching the reactions of the markets and the pundits on television it is remarkable that so few of the experts were able to convey with any success the enormity of what is now about to happen - in so many ways. With Scotland having voted so overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU, the possibility of another referendum on its leaving the UK must now be extremely high. A break-up the UK as we know it is back on the agenda. Right-wing parties around the EU will gain added strength and embolden them to leave the EU. Will the EU impose punishing sanctions on the UK as it negotiates out, if only to discourage other member states? And all this is before those with savings in sterling and European currencies start to wonder when the massive losses already stacked up in recent hours will begin to regain some of their value. Sterling is now at its lowest level since 1985!
Even more interesting. The result is not binding on parliament. Any chance Cameron and the UK parliament dare to overturn the will of the people?
"Even more interesting. The result is not binding on parliament. Any chance Cameron and the UK parliament dare to overturn the will of the people?"... not likely based on both the Torie and Labour leader's comments on BBC. Seems like everyone wants to move forward with mediating the impact.
The UK will be fine, We were fine before we joined and we'll be fine when we leave,
In the long run, I think Arsenal will be proved correct. But it's going to be a helluva bumpy ride for the next 2 - 3 years. Anyone in the UK planning to retire to Thailand in the near future may have no option but continue working for another couple of years.
Let's just hope other EU countries don't decide to follow suit. I guess we still have NATO so it wouldn't be the end of the world. Nonetheless, considering Russia has already invaded Ukraine, it may be a good idea for the EU to remain united.
Cameron will resign. New PM by October.
I'll stick my neck out here. I don't think the UK will totally leave but rather remain as part of the trading block without the political interference.
Leave NATO? great idea. The EU diplomats may be self-serving but those NATO generals are straight out of Doctor Strangelove.
By the way, with Scotland like to leave the UK, perhaps a united Ireland will follow. The Bullingdon Club will go down in history as the ones who killed the UK and restored Little England.
I was pleased to see that my country, London, told Farage et al to get lost....perhaps we could declare independence? With Jeremy as PM.
Like it or not, you're happy NATO exists. Same type of thing as for example, there's loads I hate about the US, but I have to admit, I'm happy to see them as the world's super power. I'd much prefer them in that role than China.
Again, let's just hope this doesn't have a domino effect across the EU. I'm sure political factions across the EU, especially in places like Greece, Spain and Portugal are watching closely and are thinking, "well, maybe we should have a referendum too". Germany, UK, and France are leaders of the EU, so the UK leaving is probably going to have some reprecussions. Let's just hope those reprecussions aren't bad enough to make Russia and China jizz themselves.
Matt. I don't know if you've noticed but China is already jizing themselves. We see their rising dominance every month. This is going to be the Chinese century.
You're REALLY sticking your neck out on that one - no other country in the world has secured such a deal with the EU. To remain "part of the trading block" - e.g by joining EFTA - you still have to pay a contribution to the EU, accept all the rules, and most importantly accept and uphold the principle of free movement - which is probably the single biggest issue which motivated the English and Welsh to vote to exit.
As for the situation with Scotland, a second Scottish Independence referendum is now inevitable. There is no political choice - the vote to remain in the EU was 62 to 38 against, and our First Minister would be lacking in her duty if she did not seek to see it put into effect - and the only way of doing that is if Scotland becomes Independent.
Interestingly, the German parliament has said this morning that Germany would welcome Scotland staying within the EU an as Independent country - which is a dramatic new development as the allegations from the NO camp during the 2014 Indyref was that Scotland would never get in.
Meantime the EU itself is today not bending over backwards to somehow appease the UK - they are telling the UK that now it has voted to exit, then please hurry up and fuck off.
There will be at least a 2 year window of opportunity (during the UK exit negotiations) in which negotiations in principle between the EU and Scotland can take place.
Whether or not Scotland would take their second chance is another matter - there are a myriad of difficulties not leasr of which is the currency issue - but the prospect of Boris the bumbling buffoon as the next UK Prime Minister is worth a few hundred thousand votes on its own
:clapping:
Wouldn't be so sure of that. The US is still the dominant super power in the world, and doesn't look like that will be changing any time soon. Who do you think is keeping Russia and China at bay right now? There's constant mass US & NATO led military exercises in Eastern Europe, the US has beefed up it's military presence in the South Pacific to ensure China doesn't get any ideas, etc. Like it or not, and agree with US policy or not, they're currently keeping this world a peaceful place to live.
As for the Brexit, the UK leaving isn't the be all and end all. My main fear is that other countries are going to follow suit, and a divided Europe could potentially spell disaster. There's no reason to think a WARSAW type pact can't re-emerge, and I'm assuming there's discussions going on in Moscow right about such a possibiliy. Hell, Russia already invaded Ukraine, so if the EU falls apart, we could be in trouble.
Scottish. I'll wait on that subject. It's for another day but I think calls for another referendum are entirely justified. However, I honestly don't think it will come to that.
Matt: China is already the dominant country in the South China Sea, the largest trading partner for most of Asia, building whole cities in Africa, building military islands in international waters, setting up their own world bank to which the UK and Australia both signed up plus managing to get their own way on a whole number of other issues which you are possibly not even aware of.
The EU and the USA have done their best to push democracy but that battle has been lost, hence Obamas' hastening to develop relations with both Cuba and Vietnam, going so far as to sell arms to the later. Unthinkable just a couple of years ago.
Sure-sure: Russian already 2+ years "invaded" to Ukraine and NATO still searching evidences for this. Everyone has camera on phones now, still no one photo of troops which are marching by Ukraine are published. How it is possible? For sure there are a lot of Russian freelancers and soldiers of fortune on the side of pro-russian rebels in Ukraine, also for sure there are working instructors, advisers and Russia support pro-russian rebels and sell and supply them with weapons.
But for 2+ years NATO still hasn't any evidence of regular Russian army presence behind border Russia-Ukraine. And this "Russian invading" looks like Colin Powell's Presentation to the UN Security Council... I think you understand what I mean :)
You mean aside from the fact Crimea is now a part of Russia? Aside from that little incident, yeah, they haven't invaded at all.
I'm sorry, but Russia has shown every intention of aggression. And there's a chance the UK leaving the EU is just a stepping stone, and other countries will now do the same. If that happens, I wouldn't expect Russia to sit on the sidelines.
"Aside" from fact what Crimea was part of Russia from queen's Ekaterina II time and has been "gifted" by Khrushov at 1960-s to Ukraine without any referendum. "aside" from fact what Crimea was autonomous republic and voted to exit from Ukraine, "aside" from fact what Russia didn't invaded to Crimea just cuz had 25000 troops in Crimea by agreement with Ukraine since 1993, you are right :)
Ohhh, well, then that makes the annexation via military force totally fine.
Nonetheless, that's neither here nor there. You can't tell me Putin doesn't have aspirations of seeing a WARSAW-like pact again, and the Brexit could be a stepping stone towards that.
Why you call it military force? Do you remember Argentine-UK conflict? There was "military force". In Crimea no one was killed at time of "annexation", there was referendum with voting.
I have 7 relatives who is living in Crimea now - 3 in Sevastopol (biggest city) and 4 in rural area. Everyone is happy with changes. I know it is small representation, but at least I have news from first hands: no nationalism and neo-nazi harassment anymore, no harassment from police, but still have some corruption in local government.
Moses. I respect your right to voice an opinion on any issues. I respect you as moderator. I do not think you can do both. It leads to a conflict of interest.
Agree with the first part. The second depends totally on how you define "any time soon". I suggest you read Paul Kennedy's excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". It's a good 30 years since he wrote it but the conclusions remain. Kennedy outlines the reasons why nations rise and, more importantly, why they fall. All empires fall - from the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, British etc. etc. He suggests that states at the peak of their power have usually by that time started a long period of economic decline which eventually makes it impossible for them to meet their defence commitments.
As an empire expands, so does the requirement for additional funding to police it. Thus there is a direct correlation between the creation of wealth and the military expenditure required to maintain the status of empire. The tipping point comes when too much of an empire's resources are devoted to military might. At various times since the start of the Cold War, the United States has substantially increased its military expenditure as a proportion of GDP. By the end of the Clinton Presidency it had dropped to around 3.5%. After 9/11, it rapidly increased to 4.6% in 2005, then 5% in 2008 and 5.7% in 2011. Obama has been able to reduce it again, but the USA is largely paying for it through printing money as a result of ongoing Quantitative Easing - effectively devaluing its currency (although you'd not think so today of all days!)
Ironically it is Trump who has hammered away at the over-expenditure though countries like Japan, South Korea and Germany not paying anything like their share of defence commitments. But the military's fondness for ever more lethal and up-to-date weapons alongside massive over-billing and rip-offs by contractors certainly doesn't help.
Like it or not China is already well on the way to becoming the next super power.
With the technological advances, the 2 million Chinese people employed by the government in the surveillance industry and a population of 1.4 billion (and rising) consumers China doesn't require the military strength that previous superpowers required. This will be a new form of colonialism and China will come to dominate the world like no other country ever has.
Thank you. I have rule: I never make moderation (excluding deleting of direct violations of rules such as spam, childporn and so on) of topics where I'm posting as a member of forum. Even without moderation I still have black triangle at the bottom left of each post and can call for Surfcrest's help (as everyone) :)
Alright Moses, fair enough.
Because the Russian military popped up during the domestic protests within Ukraine, and basically said, "ok, I think we'll own Crimea from now on"? A shot didn't need to be fired, because what the hell is Ukraine going to do against Russia? Ukraine isn't even a part of NATO, so they're basically defenseless, and definitely no match for Russia. Hell, Russia could probably bulldoze and annex the entire country in 72 hours if it wanted.
Then again, if the EU falls apart in the coming years, Russia may decide it's an opportune time to expand its aspirations. That could spell hell for the world.
The east part of Ukraine at time of spring 2014 already made the similar voting as Crimea did, and asked to be part of Russia. The answer was "no". Cuz Russia has enough problem with own land - it is undeveloped. The only people who say "Russia will take us" - are military weapon manufacturers and their lobbyists - they need explanation why they need so much money from budget and people who trust them.
Are you Russian Moses? Because you are certainly pushing the Russian viewpoint. One country cannot chop off bits of another just because lots of the people who live there are historically and ethnically part of the larger (more aggressive) state. Moreover parts of a sovereign state cannot just hold their own referenda without the central government agreeing to it. The Ukraine crisis started because they looked towards the EU rather than Russia. So are you Russian?
It has been declared many times already at GT and here: I'm not Russian but I'm living in Russia for 2 decades already. And I know situation from inside.
My point of view on situation with Crimea is very clear: Russia broke some law, but save people of Crimea from neo-nazi and nationalists. Without that Crimea now may be been East-European Rwanda already. The "power engine" of Ukrainian revolution - Maidan - at November 2013 March 2014 been nazi batalions from West of Ukraine and nationalistic parties like "Pravy Sector" ("Right Wing") and "Svoboda" ("Freedom"). Do you remember Rwanda tragedy?
Just short update on situation at March 2014 in Crimea: over 65% of Russians, 15% of Ukrainians, 12% of Tatars
Quality of life was: the same level of corruption in Russia and Ukraine (a little bit higher in Ukraine), less criminality and better safety in Russia and main - personal income per capita 3 times higher in Russia than in Ukraine. Crimean choose Russia - they had reasons: safety, personal income, native state language and no place for Ukrainian nationalists.
But main reason has been economical. Even for old people. Russia and Ukraine have similar system of social pensions for people older than 60 years. But Ukraine pays around US$60 and Russia pays around US $250 (as per March 2014, time of voting).
Not on subject, but I can't this blatant ignorance of history stand as is it, lest someone thinks cndmatt is right:
After World War II, the US has been the most belligerent country and been involved in more wars than any other country. [citation needed, just my impression]
Yes, they have. That kind of goes hand in hand with being the world super power. Listen, I don't agree with a lot that the US does either. Iraq was obviously bullshit and they knew they were going in under faulty intelligence, Vietnam was a cock-up as well and due to now declassified documents we know the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fabricated, etc.
Like it or not though, the US currently has about 660 military bases, 27,000 soldiers deployed in Europe, another 20,000 deployed in Asia, a strong presence in the South Pacific, and the list goes on. If it wasn't for the US as a deterrent, I would imagine other nations like China, Russia, and North Korea would be acting a little differently right now.
I don't agree with a lot that the US does either, but whether you like it or not, agree with their policy or not, they're helping ensure this world remains a peaceful place to live.
Dude, Putin is hardly a peace activist.
You don't think he's sitting in the Kremlin right now with a shit eating grin on his face, just waiting for the EU to crumble, so he can make his moves and help make Mother Russia great again?
I wonder what West Germany would have looked like, after WWII, had the US been a vindictive conquerer instead of a benevolent one. The Marshall Plan paid for by US taxpayers supported the rebuilding of countries like Germany. Belligerent seems like a vindictive exaggeration. Maybe younger Germans don't understand the reason Germany became an economic powerhouse. Maybe you would have preferred an East Germany experience.
You may be correct re North Korea (although I don't believe its dictators are expansionist - their primary goal is self preservation) and Russia, but China's occasional forays outside its own territory has mostly been to shore up its porous borders. It did send a large fleet to Japan at one point - it had to turn back - and its claims to Taiwan and Tibet are dubious. Those territories apart, it has never ventured outside its own borders with the aim of colonisation. All pundits now regard China's absolute priority is the defence of its own long border. There are some more recent disputes re small islands in the South China Sea, but these appear more economic and the possibility of oil. Even its short war with Vietnam in 1979 concerned borders, not expansionism.
A perfectly valid point - apart from one crucial factor which rather kills your argument stone dead! This was not the US being kind to a ruined country and helping Germany back on his feet. It was a vital part of the US strategy to ensure communist Soviet expansionism did not reach to the Atlantic and beyond. In the same way, Roosevelt and Truman rejected Ho Chi Minh's several written requests for assistance in getting rid of the French colonists from Vietnam. The USA was no friend of colonialism. But it also desperately needed French assistance in stopping Soviet expansionism in Europe. And so it did not use any influence with France to persuade it to get out of Indo-China. That one act allied to what the US mandarins believed was the "loss of China" and the now derided "domino theory" led directly to the secret war in Laos, the tragedy of Vietnam and then another secret unauthorised war in Cambodia. That led to tiny Laos over 9 years becoming the most bombed country in world history and directly to the conditions which gave rise to the Khmer Rouge and that ghastly genocide. US actions in being a "benevolent conqueror" in Germany thereby led to the deaths of 5+ million in Asia. That does not fit my idea of "benevolence".
China has been quite expansionist over the past few decades especially. China currently owns nearly all of Africa, a good portion of Australia's natural resources, and a host of other corporations and resource deposits across the globe. Granted, they've done all this economically and not militarily, but nonethless, you can't tell me China isn't expansionist.
What do you think the high speed rail from London to Singapore is for? That's not just China being nice. That's them taking over.
Why do you think one of Obama's foreign policies was to beef up the military in the South Pacific? He knows full well what China's ambitions are, so the US beefed up the military presence in the region to help ensure China doesn't get out of hand. Same goes for Eastern Europe and Russia.