From the Guardian: Boris Johnson Tax Plans And you thought getting out of the EU was going to fix all your ills? Think again. And a Very Merry Christmas too for all you Brits ... PS: For your pre-Xmas reading enjoyment, also from those wicked people at the Guardian: Recession looms for Britain
What people like you don't realize is that people in a society are going to be more reluctant to share their resources when everyone in society is not like them (increasing diversity) and you overwhelm that society with poor people from outside. "Mass immigration has been the undoing of leftwing political parties across Europe since it erodes the shared values that are an essential prerequisite of a well-funded welfare state."Telegraph, It's not just the Labour Party - the Left is in meltdown all over Europe, by Toby Young, May 10, 2011 https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/will-wonders-never-cease/ People like you were warned, yet you did it anyway. You seemed incapable of understanding the warning. Well now you will reap the consequences. You'll never get your socialist utopia now. It will all crumble before your eyes. And it's YOUR fault. I think things in the UK are going to start looking more like Latin American countries. (If you even know what that means. You probably don't, so I'm not going to even bother) Trade-offs are tough, aren't they? Well, no one's going to want to pool together for the common good. Sorry, you should have thought about what other people would think, instead of stubbornly clinging to your ideology. And those other people are not very partial to sharing now. You can tear down walls between different countries, but that will only start resulting in invisible walls appearing within your country.
All true but you have missed the most important question of all. Jeremy Corbyn won the election for the Tories so the question is, how can we keep Wurzel as leader of the Labour party so that he can lose again in 2024?
Europe has proven that what people tangibly want are two basic services provided by the state: Healthcare and Tertiary Education. The former is evident, the human being does not want to die. The second is becoming more evident each day. Whyzzat? Because we are moving from the Industrial to the Information Age, and such morphic changes bring both wide confusion and amazing new potential to any collection of humans by means of what economists a market-economy. These are two basic values mentioned above that are common throughout Europe are missing significantly in the US. Which is why Europeans do not get bent-out-of-shape like Yanks about Nationalized Healthcare and Tertiary Education. It's basically human - they understand that both are necessary for the betterment of their lives. The point about mass-immigration (in Europe) is that it came at the wrong time. Southern Europeans who could not find jobs have been migrating for over a century to northern-Europe (that could not find sufficient manpower). The first Italian "eatery" in London was at the end of the 19th century! The famous restaurant "Le Procope" in Paris - where Franklin and Jefferson mingled with French radicals (who would eventually overthrow their king) - was started by a certain Angelo Procopio. It is the oldest restaurant in Paris! I am trying to say this quite simply: The south migrates to the north to find jobs since time immemorial in Europe. And if one looks hard enough, I'll bet the same phenomenon occurred in the US in the 18th and 19th centuries as well. You re exaggerating the "massiveness" of migration. It occurs, then goes away, then comes back - it is part 'n parcel of mankind's history. And, very much like America where the migration is also south to north. Migration is instinctual to mankind. Look at any migration map of the stone-age: Migrating is endemic to us. And sooner rather than later we humans shall be inhabiting other planets. Whether we are welcome or not is quite a different question ... !
It's that type of thinking that made the Left lose the Presidential election in the United States. All that hype about "the new economy" wasn't working for people outside the main big cities. The people decided they didn't want to move away from the "Industrial Age" to the "Information Age", as you put it. Nothing about that move away from the "Industrial Age" was really natural. It was the result of government decisions and intentional government policies. Lots of regulations and taxes meant industries could no longer compete with those in China, as just one example. Heck, we've come to find out many of those goods were actually made by slave labor. Yeah, the "New Economy" for you.
The student loan crisis and the fact government had to fully subsidize student loans sort of proves that Tertiary Education may not actually have been such a worthwhile public investment, doesn't it? If it made financial sense, why aren't private companies making these loans? Why did the losses have to be socialized?
Particularly among politicians, who believe that control of the media means that it does not matter what bollocks they come out with, they will be believed. In practice most folk are basically conservative and want to be left alone. So when politicians pitch up and promise them a new heaven and a new earth they tend to give the relevant party a miss
The above is a remark regarding politicians in general. They are not ALL like that. And, in fact, it is voting-systems that allow the perfidious manipulation of voting-outcomes. (Which should be illegal in any developed-nation of intelligently honest individuals.) Consider them by party-affiliation and voting-procedures and it is difficult to think that Uncle Sam is better or even comparable to other developed countries like Europe or Australia. Why? Because nowhere in the world of democracies (pseudo- or otherwise) exists the instrumentation of voting outcomes like Gerrymandering or the Electoral College in the US. Nowhere* ... ! *And why? Most of today's countries became democracies long after the US. All of Europe remained monarchies when the American colonies decided to break away and fought to become the earth's sole real democracy. But, it made some mistakes in the early part of the 19th-century of voting-procedures and has never corrected them.
Only if one believes that education does not enhance the intelligence of the individual. I doubt you'll find many people who agree with that silly notion. For the same reason they do not chose to subsidize healthcare. Corporations figure that such "loans" are not in their field of commercial activity, and they are right. Because then they would not need to pursue entire populations. But when a matter of National Concern, then general availability of a service (at an acceptable cost) is key! Europe has long since proven that Healthcare and Tertiary Education are rightfully the responsibilities of governments. Why should the US think otherwise? Because it suits presently those who perform those services privately! Healthcare is BigBusiness for private insurers and banks. Private-universities have lobbies in Washington to keep private-schools private. When other developed countries have recognized the necessity in terms of pricing and coverage* that both functions must be governmentally provided. It is a damn fine idea to allow some families to have the source of tertiary education not only low-cost but nearby. After all, even more so nowadays, it is dangerous to see how kids on their own are behaving in this Brave New World of the the Information Age. They were once glued to the boob-tube and now they are glued to their smart-phones ... PS: I must excuse my personal aversion to means that, I feel, are of mediocre technical quality and very bad at finding/visualizing good-information. But, for putting out the current daily-blather and music and videos they are just-fine and especially on the bottom-line. In fact, they are a financial-boon to their providers.
The real value of any nation - since time immemorial has been in its ability to educate the masses. Communism proved that, even if they got the economic-part of that notion wrong. Which history has shown vividly. We have in the US the cumbersome set politicians we deserve. And why? Because we take our responsibilities as electors far too lightly. Until "shat" happens and then we get far too upset. Because the fault was collective from the beginning. We, the sheeple have the right AND DUTY to vote! We have speed limits to save lives. Democracies need sufficiently well-educated people in the subject of Civics. And Uncle Sam doesn't. If you do not care to believe that contention, see "Figure 1" here: The State of Civics Education Need more be said having read those statistics showing the awesomely mediocre results ... ?
Just as a slight assist from the topic, personally I think that since time immemorial it’s been the ability to wage war and/or maintain a martial status quo in order to extend/defend ones sphere of influence..... Education has until very recently only been available to an elite or within the church. Education has been seen by those of power as a means of attacking those in power thus by denying education they kept the masses (for want of a better word) in there place in order to maintain a status quo. Education is a double edged sword in that it allows those that obtain it to aspire to greater things and should those aspirations be thwarted it can lead to conflict, thus taking one back to the states ability to defend itself from without and within - hence the historical disparity between spending on its military and not on its people’s education. Pick the bones out of that...
Seriously? The job has been done. Why on earth would Trump want to destroy Johnson. That as well as it being necessary for staying in the EU was the reason some Scot's chose not to vote for Independence....and the 'pooling of resources' were the exact words used to bribe them. I am sure they will never be so silly again.
The idea to make people pay for their higher education was a neo liberal one. Part of a group of things designed to make those with a better education too busy making money to get interested in politics and wanting to raise the standard of living for all. It was very successful and the middle class is dying in the US. I don't know how old you are but the only thing in life was not only money. I'd support allowing everyone a higher eduction in their area of interest for no other reason than that it broadens their mind....and don't tell me most people could not do it. Research suggests that 80% of people are perfectly capable of studying at that level and the main thing that holds them back is that they do not know it.
You do not need an education to 'aspire to greater things' depending of course on what you mean by greater things but you can 'aspire to money' without any education. People in the 19th and 20th C aspired to a better society where all people would be given opportunities and included in that was things like the need for self development. We in the 21st C have thrown away everything they fought for. That is one of the things I find most crazy about what it is going on at the moment. People with an education can find out what Governments are up to and that I think is something Governments find more concerning than them 'aspiring' but you are right about the seen as questionable need of education in the near future and I am sure we will see opportunities for such ending....if we stay the way we are going that is.
Johnson is apparently going to pass laws making it easier to fire Judges. I think I see an attack on the checks and balances going on here. There will of course be no problem with the Judge dealing with Assange even though it is known she has vested interests. No, this will be for people like those who ruled against the man himself and for those who believe that Britain is a democracy and have refused to go along with the Government trying to make free choice of political position illegal. He has already promised to do this anyway. When May tried, the courts refused to do it given that as far as they were aware we were a democracy. One of the few bits of Smith's intent to make the UK a genuine democracy that Blair followed was a strengthening of our justice system to make it more independent so that it could provide the needed check and balance. It is not surprising it is one of the top things Johnson wants control over.
LOWEST COST POSSIBLE Good point made! Which is why GB was one of the first European countries to introduce both a National Healthcare Service and almost free Tertiary-level Education. Both have worked well-enough but presently - apparently - need some attention. (Why Blair ever increased the cost of a post-secondary degree, I - for one - will never ever understand. I thought he was smarter than that.) Percentage of the population obtaining a tertiary-level degree is found in this study made by the OECD (which is a limited number of developed countries) found here. I take note the following from the two lists shown: *The US has a traditionally very high level of graduation rate, as seen by the fact that across the broad age-range shown in the first breakdown by country, the percentage is above 40%. Which is very high indeed as compared to other comparable countries, meaning Europe. *And the best-of-the-range - believe it or not - is Russia at above 50% of the population! (Where post-graduate studies have been free-gratis-and-for-nothing since Communists took power in 1917.) *The total number of countries above 40% with tertiary-level degrees is limited to about 10 of the total 36 countries *The highest level of scholarly achievement seems to be with the Czech Republic. So, no, fellow Yanks, the US is not the world's Greatest Achievement Winner in total educational throughput to the highest scholarly degree level. From the above and worth considering: *For as long as Tertiary-education is so-damn-expensive, Uncle Sam will likely NEVER be the world's highest level scholarly-throughput achiever. *Is that key to the ultimate level of total academic achievement not the lowest-cost possible study-fees FOR ALL COMERS? *And if not, then why not ... ?
Yes, well, that's the problem. Exactly. I left the US a long time ago, and even then there was an aspiration to "do well". Even to do "very well". And above all "show the world!" Which was some sort of badge of courage, though I never did see how. Moreover, the US is the country that watches the most TV. And the messages that come across there are "Ya gotta buy-this, and ya-gotta-buy-that". As if, life were not worth it if one did not buy whatever proposed. Yeah, so we are a Consumer Society. So what? So everything. Ok, the US is - like most other free-world countries - a market-economy. One in which markets Supply goods/services to satisfy Demand. But neither does that simple phrase mean that the prime-purpose of that market-economy is to create Billionaires. Which is the EXACT POINT where a country must decide what its Moral Objectives are. And that requires great-discussions. Not just elections every two-years that are manipulated by the Great Manipulator - that is, TV Advertising. (I for one can fully understand why France has forbidden all political advertising on TV and billboards two-months before a national election. Politics cannot be sold by means of advert-jingle!) What is necessary is to bring the candidates together and pester them with questions to understand precisely for-what they stand. Yes, Yes, I know that happens - but political candidates have specialists who help them concoct the right answers to some inevitable questions. Once elected, however, they forget whatever they promised because they must face the real political factors with which they must deal on a daily basis. That's life. Moreover, fundamentally, I think the basic problems lies with our youth who are not sufficiently well educated in both Civics and Politics (they go hand-in-hand). Our Civics Education is a shambles. Here's an explanation why, from Wikipedia: Current state of civic education in the United States One must read that article to understand the jumble in which Civics Education finds itself the US ...
If you remember the 60's people were well getting into trying to make their 'democratic' voice heard and people who had been to university were well happy to protest and get the standard of living and rights of all improved. This was not agreeable to the emerging neo cons. Nor was it agreeable to capitalists as the standard of living of the poor was increasing due to them having increased pay while at the same time the share of the capitalists was decreasing. I have heard that it was absolutely a deliberate ploy to charge for attending Higher Education which with some other twists reduced the amount of money the new MC had and so gave them less time for protesting to gain a better life for everyone. My understanding is that there was no financial need for Governments to stop paying for this and as we know they still are in the main paying for most people's education when they retire - it is just that people are burdened with this debt all their working lives - a motivation not to get educated. The big change however was not so much that but with the advent of neo liberalism the motivation changed from Governments having a vision of a better life which they could provide for the people to simply 'is it financially good. Does it make money' which is the attitude Kazenatsu has. The only thing which matters is money. If money is not made from giving them a higher education then they should not have higher education. It does not matter that such education will allow them to get nearer their own potential and to give back to society what they have received - the only thing which matters is whether it is going to make money. Tony Blair bought into neo liberalism and he knew what he was doing. I felt the country voted in Labour at that time because they wanted shot of it and that might have happened if John Smith, then leader of the Labour Party had not died allowing Blair to grab his chance. In the UK we were at a crossroads then. People had noticed that Thatcher had sent a lot of our 'unwritten constitution' into the bin and that Democracy was on very shaky grounds. Blair had been with Smith to meetings and knew the pledges he had made to make sure the UK had a Democracy which could not be broken. Blair however did not follow this. He allowed Scotland and Wales votes on Parliaments and local Assemblies - and London too I guess but apart from giving a vote in the NE which told them it was a waste of time and would only cost them more money, he did nothing about the English wide regional assemblies which would have allowed the UK to become a Federal State with all parts having an equal say. He did arrange for our Justice Systems Independence to be strengthened and he went some way with Freedom of information but not far enough and basically ignored the rest. He knew what he was doing. He knew he was giving up on Labour's reason for being and base. He felt Labour could offer one or two bits and pieces to those without but otherwise be the same as the Tories. With Blair, Labour changed form being a party which cared about the all round, mental, physical and to some extent spiritual though not religious well being of its people, working to bring them up to a better life and make sure none were left behind to a party which only cared about whether something made money and of course the thing which makes the most money is wars. Who knows possibly Brown believed in the trickle down effect but this has not happened. What has happened is that inequality has grown massively and the only people who have been making any profit to talk of are the 0.1% and it is the 0.1%. (see Mark Blyth for some good videos to explain this) 2008 showed that neo liberalism did not work. Rather than sorting out the situation, Governments sent working people's money after it and ended public work to improve the lives of the 99.9%. In the UK the situation is now so bad that many councils are facing bankruptcy and cannot even care for the most essential services - such as children being abused. (many also went corrupt with the economic changes that went with neo liberalism). We have now reached the point where the standard of living for all but the .1% is going to tighten to an indecent level and this will be aggravated by the climate disaster. Centrist Parties are honest about the climate situation but they have never been honest about the fact that we are now in an economic system which does not work for any but the top 0.1% and causes increasing inequality and poverty for everyone else. We are losing our MC's. They are a mainstay of democracy. It makes sense that in such a situation Governments will be wanting to be authoritarian. Violence will soon be the only way people can be kept in order,...and I am sad to say that going back to whether most people have the ability to gain a University Degree and become one among equals for some it has been too easy to get a few to be happy about not 'making' this by continuing to come out with fake studies suggesting black people are thicker than them. Paul Mason did a lot of door step knocking during the election. He could not believe the absolutely out front way ott racism people came out with to him. He said it was mainly in those over 60 out of work as this simply would not be allowed anywhere where a person worked. It was also mainly in areas which were predominantly white. Our young though may still manage to find a way through. The majority of under 45's voted for Labour. Their voice still needs to be heard.
My daughter always used to complain about the amount of tax she paid - particularly that spent on wars and other things she did not approve of. She was taught to do this. The news told her every time she looked. Then came the Referendum on Scottish Independence. She was against. She decided to read the white paper. Next time I saw her she told me she had changed her mind about a few things. She said having read the white paper she realised she would be paying more tax if we went for Independence. She also said she realised that we would be building a much better society and within that society her children would have a much better life. She said she was more than happy to pay more tax for this and would be voting for Independence. She simply cannot understand why some people put having a couple of extra bob in their own pockets as more important than having a decent society to live in........and that pretty much is what got us changed from being virtual slaves to being equals in a democratic society - the people who lived near the slaves understood that if they gave them a better deal then life would be better for them too. Of course with the ever greater inequality in the US, the few haves just live in their gated communities and leave the rest to perish.
Thanks. That answers a lot of questions. I lived in the UK when Blair was in office. I never did get a "hang" of how government worked - it was so diverse from our "united" version of a democracy. But, I was nonetheless convinced that with its National Healthcare and low-cost Tertiary Education, that a lot of good had been done for the nation. (And despite Madam who knew how to "take it all down" but do nothing to replace what was there somehow more effectively. Madam No, she was.) What is amazing about humans is that they do know how to change themselves in order to better their lives. They move about, for instance, to go where the jobs are rather than lament when they no longer exist. And yet, we settle into a pattern that we think must not change. Because change - we assume wrongly - regardless of how it is done is bad-evil-destructive. (Regardless also of how necessary it may be. Like leaving one polluting energy to get to another less polluting because lives are at stake.) This is difficult for me to imagine, given that GNP has been trending progressively positively - as seen here. And let's watch that history change (or not) over the next five-years to see if Brexit was really worth it. (I cannot believe it was. Their program was so utterly devoid of any cogently new-ideas. Yes, well, I'll believe that when I see it. Because climate is not something you change in a day, a year, ten-years, or thirty-years or even a hundred. And getting unhooked from carbon-fuels will not do that much good either. If the change is indeed permanent, then it's already too late to take any real action. What's an "MC"? Yes, and they will be voting likewise for some time to come, I suggest. I suspect that there was a lot of centrists who voted Right because Corbyn was so empty of any amiable personality or even valid-ideas. (Aside from not having any answer to GB's most pressing problems - one of which I suggest is the present cost-of-postsecondary-education.) My Point: The basics are there, and they are GNP. A country accomplishes nothing without a growing GNP (because populations multiply naturally), which provides the backbone for employment and earned income. The UK GNP is not that bad at all - and much better than, say, France's. (But, unlike the Brits, when the French get really politically upset, they just don't show up at the polls.) If the UK-Left has not learned a Massive Lesson from this last election, then Labor is in very, very dire straits. Which is why I am wondering why the LibDems didn't do better at this last election. (Or most any election for that matter.)
I disagree with you that the economy is going to be able to provide for the people and believe we have plenty of evidence for that already. Middle Aged white men in the US are getting addicted to drink and drugs and committing suicide at a pace not before known. We need a new economic system. The WC of England have just said no the best deal ever and possibly the only chance they will get - and all costed...and are so proud with themselves it makes you want to cry. Gone is their health service - though it is on its way out already. Has been going since 2012 but the wonderful deal with the US will finish it - you will see from the above that some people are already finding themselves outside the health service. While most people for the immediate future will get some care at the point of need, sending it out to private contractors with the top issue money making will lower the standard and availability. This just concerns the English NHS. I did not expect you to be a climate denier and I am guessing that is because you have chosen not to look into it. You are correct that things usually take a very long time but never before have we had a situation which has been caused by our treatment of the planet. I am surprised you do not already know that there is already massive evidence that we are well into it. Remember the 45 degree temperatures in Europe this summer - this went on to a heat wave of 20 degrees and forest fires in the Arctic. Of course we have forest fires continuing in Australia seeming spreading further and further and all kinds of things are and have been going on in the US - rain causing ruin to seeds and making the soil impossible for planting followed by early snow finishing off a fair bit of their harvest. They have had their first climate refugees needing to move because of rising waters and on and on. People in South Africa and India finding it difficult to get water. All the time things are happening quicker than was ever expected. It is quite possible that very soon we will hit one of the loops which will cause out of control climate turmoil. Many people believe the worst initial problems will come with harvest failure. We are told we still have till 2030 to reduce our Co2 emissions to 45 and to nill by 2050. Even the UK which is one of the better on this is not on target to reduce by 2030 though the Labour Party intended on doing everything it could to get to zero by 2030 which is probably what is really needed. Reality is we are all in this together and while countries like the US, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Australia keep putting more Co2 in and have not even started to take it out, war is expected. It certainly is not the only thing which is needed. At least two other things are of fundamental importance. One is keeping the ice on the Arctic - without that we will within a very short time have a massive sea level rise and methane Gas release. Though this is much more severe that Co2 it does not last long - about 20 years so I am sure all the fossil fuel barons will survive in their holiday homes for that time. Of much more importance is getting the Co2 out of the atmosphere. We do not know how to do that yet. Currently it is saving us from the worst effects of our exploits but that is temporary. The change is semi permanent - if we stop now some will get better but it could take thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years and the damage is cumulative. We do still have the ability to limit the damage. The longer we hold off. The worst damage there will be and the more people will lose their lives and of course society as we know it today will be no more. You may know that there is a massive drop in insects - again another thing which could cause our extinction. So what do you want? Assuming you have a family. Just bring them up to become extinct? Greta is not talking bullshit. We, adults, by not acting have taken from her her dreams, her hopes and her future. We have just the smallest chance of survival. It does seem with the actions of some countries that they actually are prepared to destroy the planet making some of that lovely money as they do so believing they and theirs can survive for ever in something like the Amazon's boss's 'pods in the sky'. We almost certainly can save the planet but this will only happen if people get off their arses and are difficult like XR. Does not have to be the way they work but if people do not make it absolutely clear to the Government, even Governments which are better like the UK one that we need more done and will take over government to do it if need be, it will not happen and we will see the destruction of our planet in a horrifying way. Work is going on to keep the ice on the arctic. I think the dimming which is masking the pollutants in the atmosphere is the most risky given that we do not yet know how to get it sorted. The sea is also warming up faster than expected and on and on. We either put everything in to save the planet for your children or we acknowledge that we do not care enough for our children to survive to do the necessary. The poor will I believe be seen as disposable. Our choice. If it is too late we at least would have tired. If it is not too late, we still have a chance but no time to wait. Middle Class That is not true. That is just what the papers said. I know I am thick on this and I never was interested in economics which means anything I know is recent catch up but given that everyone interested in saving the planet says it will not work with increasing GDP I would suggest you are offering a non offer. We will not do well dead. A new economic system is needed. This one does not do its work even if it makes an ever tinier amount ever more richer. The poor are currently losing all their rights. Please check out Mark Blyth, Prof of economics at Brown University and a Scot as well. He believes that eventually they will force the Fossil fuel Planet Earth destroyers to put in the money to save planet earth and not only will that leave us with somewhere to live, albeit not in anything like the shape we could have had had we heeded the warnings but he believes that is also what is going to save us from Fascism - which he says all top economists now see as inevitable. There are things which cannot be changed. Corbyn was most unacceptable to the establishment for two reasons, one he was offering the sort of stuff which the centre left would have in the 70's. His position is basically Social Democrat of that era - nothing more. This however is totally unacceptable to the Global Neo Liberal Elite. I would say he was the one 'rebel' for whom the stereotype of the establishment not allowing to come into being was true. He also saw the Palestinians as human beings having the right to rights and justice. That is where the on and on Labour and then he himself is an antisemite came from. He also allowed himself to be pressured by the right of the Labour Party to offer another Brexit vote. He should not have done that and he should not have taken on the chin all the smears of antisemitism - eventually aimed at him, himself. He also should have made sure people understood why he had the past he had. It was not for the reasons the papers gave but due to his humanitarian personality. So we need to see. It is being considered. However there is also a belief that till end times England will be stuck with the Tories, who are the elite and who will of course look after their own. Scotland and NI no doubt will leave the UK but nothing will matter if we do not save the planet. There is nothing of greater importance right now.
its an interesting though isn't it...the catalyst for that was the somewhat paradoxically named "great war" which killed so many that society couldn't function as it had and so had to change in such a way that the old "Downton Abbey" types got decimated and whole new vistas of opportunity opened up to those that survived the war.
The economy is not a simple concept. Because it is the one "science" that treats peoples needs, wishes, desires, etc. - all of which are human whimsies. In fact, for me, and I have a degree in the so-called science, it is a haphazard leap into the future of what an economy can and MIGHT do. It gives us an idea but no real dependable answer. As for Brexit, I will repeat what you surely have already read. Britain wants it, so they are going to "get it". It will take at least five years to see what the economic consequences actually will be. But the simple fact is that they are retracting from a huge market with significant buying power right-next-door. In that sense alone, quitting the EU is really quite stoopid. Time will tell ... PS: The Rabidly Right in the UK may be suffering from a morbid sense of Great Britain's Past Empire that must be somehow "recuperated". History is history and nothing more. The future, by definition, is unpredictable and therefore unreliable. And when it comes to economics such failings as withdrawing from a powerful single-market are surely perilous.
surely with a degree in the subject you would assume that economic stabilization would take 10-15 years? The fraud over CDOs is still in train and that was from 2007/8 it takes years for economies to find balance after such a shift....
