Brexit or not ?

[girlracerTracey]

Ok, you explained why being a sovereign nation has advantages but I still don't see how it solves fundamental problems of capitalism (like the ones I originally quoted from your post).

Might watch the video if it's not too long.

I no longer perceive the Western financial system as being capitalism vin. Not in the true sense of what capitalism is understood to mean. Bank bail-outs on a far reaching and mammoth scale do not fit with the definition. Nor do "bail-ins" for that matter. I think the present system is more akin to what I would describe as rampant "corporatism" and to many intents and purposes is arguably a kleptocracy in how it functions and operates. If 1% (some would say 62 families) own over 50% of the world's financial wealth then something has gone slightly askew with the concept of capitalism I think many would argue. The corporate interests that actively lobby at the EU are no different from the corporate interests that lobby elsewhere in the Western world and in particular in Washington.

So what I am suggesting is if you're out at least as a nation you might have more of a chance, to a small degree at least, of trying something a little different. Maybe you might have more of an opportunity to change and alter the financial system that operates in your country to the benefit of the majority. Take Iceland for want of a better example..

grT

As a final thought vin. My strong contention to you would be that if we truly seek peace and security for the world we must banish the private central banking system to the textbooks of history. A return to a state issued value based currency system of finance is in my honest opinion the only real hope for peace and security in this world. If mankind were insightful enough to do this not only would a state of reasonable financial stability be achieved but also such phenomena as false flag terrorism and currency wars would melt away into the ether..

Question is whether mankind is clever enough to look beyond the end its collective noses and actually do this.. Based upon current strategies out there at least a segment of mankind is adopting such an initiative.

I fear if things continue as they are then divide and conquer and infighting and disharmony, not to mention wars, will remain to be the symptom of the age. 

grT 

[Hawk]

The "Bank of England" manager announced last week that 250bn pounds would be made available to financial institutions to ease and stabilise the markets should they need it. 

What I'd like to know is: Were did that money come from so easily seeing as we are all supposed to be in the age of austerity together, and if any financial institution that does dip into that fund has to then pay it back and under what terms?

Just seems to me that when the financial institutions even sniff a problem the country virtually gives them a blank cheque to ease their pains yet will do nothing but make even further cut-backs to the ordinary populations woes to make their lives even harder!!??  WTF is that all about I ask myself!!

Hawk.

[girlracerTracey]

I've been down the pub Hawk..so watch out everyone! lol.

The answer to your question Hawk is simple. They "print" the money out of thin air. It's just digits on a computer system. Nothing more. Then they charge interest to the state to use the money they have so generated. That's how it works. It's a Fiat currency.

Of course the bigger and more overwhelming question is who is all this debt that overburdens the Western nations owed to?

Of course the answer to that tempting question is that proximately and ultimately the insurmountable and soaring debt is owed to the exact same people, the same entity if you like, that printed it out of thin air in the first place..

Ever felt like you've been had people?

grT 

[Stout Johnson]

Nick, from my perspective our conversation went as follows.
-I try to propose a better indication in a post of what is cited and what is user comments (maybe you did not like the comparison 'tabloid-ish'?)
-In your subsequent post, you tell me I am ignoring facts and attacking you  .
-Then I try to explain again what I meant and that I assume that the reason for you misunderstanding me is your 'blood boiling'
-Then you tell me that you feel insulted and seem to suggest I do not know to debate properly

First off, I like you and so there is no reason for me trying to insult you. If anything came across strange (which caused you to become even grumpier  ), then my apologies. Reading our conversation from your perspective, I think one could possibly dislike the words 'tabloid-ish' and 'blood boiling'. Please be assured it was without any bad interest. Maybe I could have furnished them a little  ;)smiley but I figured I can do without. But since this is a very special topic here, I probably should have included them...

Other than that, I do not see much in my comments that could possibly make you feel insulted, to be honest. And if I have the honest impression that you seem to be a bit edgy (and I said - 'seem' - which also includes the possibility of me having a false impression) then I will just say that if it is my honest opinion. Because it in fact is relevant - if it can possibly cause you to misinterpret my posts. Same with my proposal to read my comment later. It is not like it is beyond all possibility that one might see something in a different light later, especially if someone was a bit edgy (which was my impression). And to me it is a bit far-stretched to read some sort of impaired-ness out of this. Being in a bad mood has nothing to do with being impaired. In fact, maybe I was a bit grumpy myself, when I posted this.

Hope this somehow settles this 'personal conflict'  (precisely timed inverted commas and emoji)

Back to the real topic itself: I think in terms of the 'real Brexit' after the referendum itself, the opinions here do not seem to differ much. It is in the books, there should be no 'new referendum', it should be proceeded with instantly etc. The only real difference here (from what I have perceived) is rather in the assessment of whether the EU is something that can work in the future or not. But this is not really something for the Brexiteers to worry about anymore. And quite frankly, I do not think we can reach a consensus on this very topic. The EU has some severe issues, I think many here (if not all agree). It is rather the fundamental question whether one thinks it should be fought for and improved collectively or just be abandoned which we cannot seem to agree on... so maybe we should just leave it at this point.

[Napalm Nick]

Yes Stouty no worries here I do agree with what you are saying in more than just this topic and respect your opinion. I guess this topic is 'tetchy'. Alls good and i know the intentions are well meant as advice..

From our UK perspective it has been a long ride, we have been working to these conclusions for months and months with little useful information to finally put that mark on a price of paper. Such a simple thing for such a big decision.
Because I believe I did the right thing I obviously want to put some of my reasoning down and hope others can at least understand why I/we voted as we did.

For me personally in a condensed nutshell, that is because the ethos of having an EU that i wanted to be in, has been destroyed by faceless beurocrats raping the very people who put them there. I want to hear why people still support this and I put my opinions down against it. I guess I find it somewhat irritating when the responses are about my assumed conduct and character rather than any reference to the point of the post.  I mean, should the administration of one of the main ideas - the safety of its citizens - get 4 times more funding than the idea itself?  Surely that has gone bananas! Bent non-eu directed ones at that.

Only Vulcans like Max should never need or use emoticons 

[HornetMaX]

Pretty much what happened after the French referendum in 2005 - bit of spin and enacted anyway despite a vote against

I don't think it will end up the same way.
Yeah, the 2005 referendum result got partially ignored (which is bad), but here we're a t a very different level.

@Hawk: yes, central banks can print out money out of nothing, nothing strange here (the fact private banks can somehow do the same is much more debatable). Me too I dislike all the help banks and financial institutions get from tmie to time, but keep in mind that when many financial insitutions ends in deep troubles, you end up like the poor people in the US, victims of the subprime scandal. Not good, unless you live in a cave.

@Nick: little EU budget is spent on some areas also because the states have not given the EU control over these areas. the EU has no control of borders for example: it's still up to individual states.
Some people still like the EU idea and principles, that's why they are OK to stay and try to improve it.
And I do use emoticons, but sparingly: I dislike this kind of spoon-fed, geopolitics-driven, minstream media imposed form of communication

Nice post Nick..... What lepers they are.... It's a shame part of the leave campaign didn't concentrate on the MEP expenses scandals

Because some of the leave campaigner were MEP too maybe ...
You search a bit, I'm sure you can find an expense scandal in any government, including your current and future one.

But then I'm always a bit puzzled when somebody from the UK complains about democracy, expenses etc.: you still have the House of Lords (aka the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, and I'm not making this up, that's the real full name of the thing) ... and do not complain a iota about it. Weird ...

[Napalm Nick]

Make a topic about it and I will complain about it lol.

[Hawk]

@grt: Yeah, it's just disgusting that the B of E seem to warrant printing digital money out of thin air like that for the bankers even though the bankers are supposed to be bullet-proof now from these sort of market instabilities(so we keep being told)... I mean do they really need that extra funding and I'd be interested to know if any financial institutions have used some of that funding already to make themselves a lot more money during this period than they'd have to pay back? Virtually given a free-bee to make extra money if you know what I mean?

@Max: Most of the time I'd agree with you on that Max, but actually the House of Lords do a good job sometimes in stopping a party like the Tories(when in government) from ramming through unfair laws. So although for most of the time I'd say yeah lets get rid of them, they are actually a sort of safety net to stop stupid laws being passed; not on every occasion because more than not they will just pass laws that the government want put through, but they do come in useful sometimes, and sometimes is better than not at all.
What I'd change is the way the Lords are elected.... I think they should be elected by the people and not government, if elected is the right word for it?

Max, I understand the importance of supporting the financial system(although only through our self made dependence on the financial system I might add), but there is a difference in supporting them and virtually making money available to them that they don't really need just so that they can take advantage of the situation to make themselves even more money. It just really does seem that they do really see us normal working class people as the plebs and themselves as the master race of whom we as plebs must serve.

As for the stock and money markets, they are just like a massive world casino gambling game for the bankers mostly with a little dabbling by the public. Why cannot companies live or die by their success and failures instead of whether their share prices are at a level required for banks to warrant borrowing them money? Seems the financial system really has got us all by the balls big time to me and there is very little that can be done to stop them, that is barring a total financial system collapse and/or revolution in the way the system works(now that would be something.... Let's have another referendum vote on that! Hehe! ).

Hawk.

[girlracerTracey]

@grt: Yeah, it's just disgusting that the B of E seem to warrant printing digital money out of thin air like that for the bankers even though the bankers are supposed to be bullet-proof now from these sort of market instabilities(so we keep being told)... I mean do they really need that extra funding and I'd be interested to know if any financial institutions have used some of that funding already to make themselves a lot more money during this period than they'd have to pay back? Virtually given a free-bee to make extra money if you know what I mean?

The more you delve into this one realises how complex the subject is. Prior to WWII many of the central banks, including the Bank of England, were privately owned institutions. In fact the Bank of England has been a privately owned institution since its creation in 1694 by a Scotsman William Paterson who famously stated "The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing." Private ownership continued after Nathan Rothschild assumed overall ownership and control of the Bank of England in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo. The B of E was not put technically into public ownership until 1946. The control of the bank to all intents and purposes however remains in private hands with an appropriate clause written into the bank's operating license.

By contrast the Federal Reserve remains a conglomeration of private interests and private banks. It is independent of the U.S. government through operation of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

The European Central bank and other nations' central banks are publicly owned but their decision making and operating remit remains independent of government and state authorities. So these days I suppose one might suggest it is more a question of the mechanism of control rather than perhaps a straightforward matter of ownership.

If one looks at the governors and management personnel of these banking institutions the influence from the private sector and moreover the American private banking sector is quite apparent.

It's an interesting and in some quarters a highly controversial subject. Certainly over the centuries enormous wealth has been accrued by a select few through the system of private centralised banking.

grT 

[HornetMaX]

@Max: Most of the time I'd agree with you on that Max, but actually the House of Lords do a good job sometimes

Hmm yeah ... but then some of Mussolini's idea were not bad neither

What I'd change is the way the Lords are elected.... I think they should be elected by the people and not government, if elected is the right word for it?

Appointed, officially. Which is a carefully crafted wording for something less pleasant

Anyway positive (for the EU) effects of brexit are already kicking in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens
I'd suggest reading it carefully, it shows what the UK will be facing when negotiating ...

[Hawk]

@Max: Most of the time I'd agree with you on that Max, but actually the House of Lords do a good job sometimes

Hmm yeah ... but then some of Mussolini's idea were not bad neither

What I'd change is the way the Lords are elected.... I think they should be elected by the people and not government, if elected is the right word for it?

Appointed, officially. Which is a carefully crafted wording for something less pleasant

Anyway positive (for the EU) effects of brexit are already kicking in: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/03/eu-swiss-single-market-access-no-free-movement-citizens
I'd suggest reading it carefully, it shows what the UK will be facing when negotiating ...

Any quotes from newspapers are just here-say Max..... Okay there maybe some basic truths in what some reputable papers print but all of them are quite willing to take subjects well out of context to push their own opinions onto their readers... That's just the way journalism is these days - Not to be trusted at all mate. 

But no matter what the EU does to block us trading with the EU they will be worse off for it as the import/export figures show, and we'll still be free to export and produce(without EU quoters, unlike members of the EU) as much as we can use and sell to the rest of the world, which is a much greater market than the EU.... If the EU want to play hard-ball then let them because they stand to come off a lot worse than we ever will as far as job losses are concerned.

Don't let the doom-mongers fool you into thinking we've made a big mistake, because it's quite obvious from what's being portrayed in the media with the disgusting level of bias towards promoting the opinions of the remain voters that what they are all after is a way to remain in the EU or at least gain a deal with the EU that would mean we might as well not have had a referendum vote at all.
There is nasty business going on behind the scenes in government to high-jack the result of the referendum(hence Theresa May(Remain Supporter) being manoeuvred into position for taking the Prime Ministers job, and she'll get the job with the prime directive to make sure that we do a supposed good deal with the EU under the supposed name of what's best for Britain and business.... Mark my words mate, this is happening now.
If she does then I just hope that all the leave voters have the balls to rise up and give this government a bloody good kicking for treating their citizens like idiots and not following through with what was expected from the referendum result.

Hawk.

[h106frp]

I love the way they keep telling us what will happen. Around the Midlands its happened already - profitable businesses that were bought by european companies stripped clean of value and IP and then closed to move the jobs to their respective home countries to avoid trouble with powerful unions, France and Germany some of the worst offenders.

All we have left is acres of cheap warehousing that has followed the abundance of cheap labor that flowed into the country - and do not think you will get a job in a warehouse as the recruitment is run by east european agencies and they do not even bother to advertise the jobs in English - its a closed shop.

Time some of the M25 inner circle visited the rest of the country if they want to try and understand why this has happened. You can only have a unified Europe if the same rules apply to all and its a level playing field, the woeful disadvantage of UK employment legislation creates a lot of resentment.

[girlracerTracey]

The Rothschild probably had $200 billion decades ago... but because they kept banking private, they lost a bit with some overall devaluation. Still, their inbreeding clearly worked to keep the family name going and in control of so much. The most powerful people own a holdings company with dozens of branches in the most varied fields. The Rothschild bought one or two of the premier wine farms in France, even.

You could devote a whole lifetime of website forums let a lone a single forum thread to the Rothschild banking dynasty and their associates, estimation of their collective financial wealth and their influence on the events of history and of the present day. Here is not the time or the place methinks..

Also remember it was a Rothschild who propositioned and successfully lobbied for the creation of a Zionist state in the Middle East. Lord Rothschild's influence in this matter should not be underestimated. Just examine the Balfour Declaration of 1926 to know that this is so. How many individuals in this world wield such power and influence to create a new sovereign state? A new country. Against the letter of international law. Not many I would submit.     

Here are some brief excerpts from "U.S. Money vs Corporation Currency" penned by the Alfred Owen Crozier in 1912. Crozier was a Midwest attorney who wrote 8 books on the political, legal, and monetary problems of the United States and who was considered by many to be an authority on the subject.

"[The Rothschild] descendants comprise the four great banking houses of that name in Europe—in London, Paris, Berlin and Vienna. In 1863 the wealth of this one family was conservatively estimated at $3,200,000,000, over three billions of dollars. This huge total compounded during the past fifty years and increased by incidental investments in mines, timber and many other things, may now amount to fifty or one hundred billions. No one outside knows the amount. With alliances controlled by this family it surely directly or indirectly controls a large portion of all government bonds and at least one-third of the world's estimated total wealth of $377,000,000,000.

But suppose the Rothschilds themselves only own $39,000,000,000, an amount equal to the bonded debt of all the governments of the world, with an annual income of $2,300,000.000 or two-thirds what their total wealth was in 1863. Any change either way in these figures will be a variation only in degree. In no way does it materially change the acknowledged potent fact that in all great national and international monetary and financial affairs the Rothschilds always play the ruling hand. They possess masterful genius and financial intellect. But it is the sheer weight of liquid or ready wealth held in such large quantity that all the nations of the world must go to the Rothschilds for financial assistance in time of peace, or before they can go to war whatever the provocation or emergency, that gives them supreme power in the world's affairs. No war can be waged without money, and no large nation can get adequate money to finance a war from anyone but the Rothschilds. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that whenever any war is begun the Rothschilds have consented thereto. They may finance both sides, because it is immaterial whether the interest profits they crave come from one or both countries. In fact the war furnishes an excuse recognized as legitimate for charging both nations higher interest rates not only on the new debts but on old obligations maturing and being refunded. Increase to 4 per cent from 3 per cent is a 25 per cent increase in the total income and in the value of bonds, measured by their earning power.

It is known, of course, that after the nations have fought for a while and murdered tens of thousands and wounded and permanently maimed hundreds of thousands of human beings on both sides, pressure exerted by other governments instigated by the financiers will force a quick compromise, leaving the nations both in approximately the same condition as before except that each has vastly increased its debt and the annual interest burden on its people while the financiers have gotten rid of accumulated capital in exchange for high interest gold bonds that can not be paid for perhaps thirty or fifty years. This surely is the result if not the deliberate plan.

Then again, the debt of the principal European countries has been doubled or vastly increased during the long period of "armed peace."



Anyway, back to Brexit..

grT

[Napalm Nick]

Time some of the M25 inner circle visited the rest of the country if they want to try and understand why this has happened. You can only have a unified Europe if the same rules apply to all and its a level playing field, the woeful disadvantage of UK employment legislation creates a lot of resentment.

Yes I remember some horrible documentary about how out of all the EU countries that provide jobs to "anyone in Europe" (a kind of EU Job Centre) the UK provides over 65% of the adverts alone. Of course it may well be bolllox but if not then I hope not any more. But I take everything with a pinch of salt nowadays.
I liked the Remain argument "Who will pick the tulips and do the minimum wage labour now?" . Well I say "the idle lazy British unemployed twats." Do the work and we will subsidise the pay with some benefits". Not "have some benefits which make you better off than working". I mean, come on we need someone who will say this shit and not worry about losing some election votes.
What we need is a dictatorship like the EU....oh.   


Vote Napalm.

[girlracerTracey]

Tony Blair, the alleged war criminal, sticking his oar into the Brexit debate in advance of the Chilcot "whitewash" opps sorry inquiry..

Blair: "The U.K. may never leave the European Union and should therefore keep its options open following last month's referendum result.."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tony-blair-second-eu-referendum-chilcot-report-latest-news-a7116776.html