> I think you are taking it as
> self-evident that Leave is a
> bad idea
It's funny to watch Leavers complain that people think they're racist, with all their great arguments about common fisheries, not being able to depot Abu-bin-whoever, and whatever other weird non-issue is flavour of the day, not to mention the supreme irony of a people with an unelected upper chamber claiming they're booting out a directly elected upstream parliament for "democracy".
Most but not all. Economics is currently split into multiple schools which disagree on philosophical fundamentals, and is hardly an exact science. How many economists predicted the financial crisis? Those that did tend to be small government advocates. (I don't endorse everything he says, but Nassim Taleb is one example, who is also pro-Brexit).
I wish someone had made this point during the campaign, to answer the snipes that Leave was anti-intellectual, anti-expert, and so on.
He just wants all these puts he's been buying to be worth something [0].
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-talebs-universa-invest...
France is trying to prevent Americans from publishing true facts in the states, because misguided Frenchmen might accidentally seek such facts out and read them.[0]
Also, it's not altogether clear that any good long term compromise has been found to balance the needs of the strong economies alongside the more fragile ones.
You staved off Grexit, but retained the powderkeg of local fiscal policy with central responsibility for solvency of members.
Now, if I were in the UK, I probably would have seen these as secondary issues to the value of the common market. But worrying about concentrated power doesn't seem alien to me. And given the UK and EU are both in the WTO and so culturally related, it's not like I'd fear both sides will instantly revert to quotas, 1000% tariffs, and random visa denials.
Ok, ok, academic leavery aside, the mainstream leave does seem related to immigration, and that's troubling even if leave could be justified on other grounds. Nate Silver had a comment on the 538 podcast, something like, "We hold up liberal democracy as the pinnacle of governance, but it seems to have a systemic problem with immigration." That seems troubling, and I'm not sure entirely what to make of it yet.
[0] http://www.voanews.com/content/google-appeals-french-order-f...
I have no idea why you claim that I have a "conspiracy theory" when I am commenting on the motivations of one man (which, by definition, isn't a conspiracy)... yet you yourself call his motivations into question by calling him an "opportunist". As far as I can tell your argument boils down to: 1. Boris is an opportunist 2. Anyone who claims that Boris acts opportunistically is a conspiracy-spouting nutter.
> Nor is it clear that a Remain vote would have helped Johnson's career, given that almost the entire establishment backed Remain.
His next career advancement isn't under the control of some vague "establishment" (mind your own conspiracy language there!) but the party membership at large. (He would have to finish in the top-two selected by the parliamentary party, but that probably wouldn't be hard) The membership is more Euroskeptic than the "establishment" as you put it. He would run as the candidate that would bridge the euroskeptic-grassroots with those more "establishment" types (old Etonian, former mayor of London, knows all the right people...) He'd certainly be the hero of the right-wing press as well.
Again, I think the only reason that Cameron brought him close was that he never thought Boris would make such a brazen move... a disastrous misestimation.
> There is now more money in the UK budget, where it gets spent is up to the next PM.
Part of the economic logic of the EU is that instead of every member employing their own bureaucrats producing basically-similar regulations, they would all just pool resources and do it once. It's more complicated and messy, but still cheaper than doing something 28 times. Plus then there's no complicated trade questions.
The brexit campaign of course ignore this all: they made the brazen claim that the UK sends all this money and gets nothing in return.... not even the money that's directly returned. (Hell, not even the "rebate" which literally never leaves the exchequer) That's not reality at all though.
So no, there is not more money.
That money is worth significantly less since the GBP dropped in value. And if multinational companies start moving their European/EMEA headquarters to Frankfurt, Brussels, Berlin, Dublin etc then there will be significantly lower tax receipts. Of course with the UK rumoured to lose its last AAA credit rating government borrowing costs will be higher as well.
This idea that Brexit somehow meant more money for the UK budget is simply ridiculous. Any disruptive change of this nature always translates to lower growth whilst people adjust.
I don't know that much about Gove's position, but from what I can tell it has little to do with classical liberalism and a lot more to do with nationalism. The classical liberal case was that the EU is a fundamentally broken organisation and it is beyond reform.
> The media is really playing up this angle. Vote Leave isn't the government and the referendum wasn't a general election where the campaigners campaign on a particular manifesto. There is now more money in the UK budget, where it gets spent is up to the next PM.
But voters treated it as such. It's pretty clear that a sizeable number of voters - probably not enough to change result vote but still perhaps 5% - were registering an anti-government vote. While the next PM might have more money, there will be a major backlash if it doesn't get used to replace EU funding, and the decisions about funding will now be debated in London, not Brussels.
Yes, but is it false?
Correct. It really is hysterical watching the quibbling about currency exchange rates and the stock market.
To put it politely, they have no idea what they are talking about. These students have never bought an option or held a single share but it's very generous of them to worry about the fortunes of currency speculators and bankers. That thought did not have its origin in their heads. Ron Swanson and I are very relaxed right now, watching Yes Minister and drinking Earl Grey tea.
It's not clear to me. I think you are taking it as self-evident that Leave is a bad idea. In the mainstream narrative, the EU is associated with everything nice and international and the only reason to be against it is if you're a crazy old-fashioned nationalist.
There's a classical liberal case for Brexit, though, which Gove articulated reasonably well. I think Johnson kinda believes the same things, though without Gove's conviction (I voted Leave but I don't like Johnson, I think he's an opportunist). Like all conspiracy theories yours assumes that the conspirators concoct these elaborate schemes which have multiple failure modes. Leave had roughly 1/3 odds of winning all through the campaign, so it's not that much of a surprise. Nor is it clear that a Remain vote would have helped Johnson's career, given that almost the entire establishment backed Remain.
> It's startling watching the "moderate" Leave wing falling over themselves to dial back all of their promises during the campaign.... turns out there isn't more money for the NHS...
The media is really playing up this angle. Vote Leave isn't the government and the referendum wasn't a general election where the campaigners campaign on a particular manifesto. There is now more money in the UK budget, where it gets spent is up to the next PM.