Patterico's Pontifications

6/24/2016

Brexit Passes; Cameron Resigns. Next Up: Texit!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 am



The punditry is shocked, and acting like this is a giant earthquake. Me, I’m for decentralization . . . and I think all the handwringing is overwrought. The world will not end if the UK leaves the EU. And the world would not end if Texas left the U.S. So: congratulations to Britain on regaining its autonomy, and (with my thanks to Kevin Gutzman for the term) I say: on to Texit!

159 Responses to “Brexit Passes; Cameron Resigns. Next Up: Texit!”

  1. Meanwhile, that dipstick Obama has issued a statement saying he respects the decision of the voters. This is after he arrogantly told Britain that Brexit would mean Britain would move to the back of the “queue” in terms of trade deals.

    That’s OK, Barry, Mr. The Donald will renegotiate all those deals anyway. He makes the best deals, that I can tell you. Everybody says so.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  2. As usual, we think alike.

    DRJ (15874d)

  3. Texas could really do it, and after people got over the shock of having to design a new flag with only 49 stars, the world would continue to revolve around the sun.

    I like that this vote (and the Scotland vote, even though it failed) makes it mainstream and acceptable to talk about smaller units governing themselves. I have talked about secession for a while now, and the fact that some people laugh and think it’s kooky doesn’t stop me. But it’s nice to have the discussion go a bit more mainstream, and actually appear to be a valid and non-kooky option. No map is sacred. Political associations and forms of goverment have always changed.

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  4. OTOH, Scotland’s “Remain” vote shows that once you get a political unit hooked on the welfare teat, it’s hard to pry it off.

    I hear Scotland is now planning another secession vote. Hey, good for them

    Patterico (86c8ed)

  5. You know who also loves the idea of Texas bugging out? Every lefty I talk to. It will guarantee them the Electoral College forever. And should they decide to take back Texas, tey will put it under Occupation followed by Reconstruction like in 1865, with their own carpetbaggers and their own puppet government.

    So, yeah, go right ahead and raise that seventh flag.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. I think that secession is the least violent way forward.

    The best? Maybe, maybe not. But certainly the least violent.

    Steve (77d1b9)

  7. and how much of the army has texans in it,

    narciso (732bc0)

  8. And how many Texans, in the armed forces or out, will forswear the American flag?

    nk (dbc370)

  9. having to design a new flag with only 49 stars …

    Hint: 49 = 7 * 7

    This is surely an omen.

    BobStewartatHome (404986)

  10. I’m convinced the liberal shock about the Brexit is entirely about centralizing power. I heard Matt Damon talk about it angrily at MIT’s graduation ceremony and then seeing Lindsay Lohan getting up in arms about it on this website. The only thing I could think of that would give them interest is the desire to see power centralized so that people’s choices can be taken away in favor of some overseeing power.

    Frankly, it’s Brexist.

    TheNaBr (0c7c2f)

  11. Equating the UK leaving the EU with Texas leaving the United States, is like equating ordering a Big Mac without fries with amputating your arm.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. Yeah, well making an analogy about Big Macs and arm amputation is like wrapping a metaphor within an enigma.

    TheNaBr (0c7c2f)

  13. well it’s an imperfect analogy, I grant you, but therein lies the rub about power, matt daamon scion of slaveholders, misses the feel of serf’s collar,

    narciso (732bc0)

  14. the tourette’s is getting serious, there’s medication for that, yes texans only comprise 13%, but you add up the other southern states,

    narciso (732bc0)

  15. The US could add Puerto Rico, keep the 50 stars, and have another reliable Democratic-voting state.

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. I’m still kind of shocked (Not really, more disappointed) that our Supreme Court would be split 4-4 over the Presidential overreach around his immigration order.

    I really see a huge break down in the law system. If the Feds can’t abide by the law, I can see the argument that states shouldn’t stay in the Union.

    TheNaBr (0c7c2f)

  17. If Texas decided to leave, several other states would join it.

    njrob (15818e)

  18. Yes, but other southern states consider Texas an odd bird, with the possible exception of Tennessee and Virginia. There might even be a mutually beneficial Mexit (south of I-10, San Antonio or the old Nueces River line) from the Texit.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  19. May I suggest a more pleasant daydream? With Ted Cruz as President and a Republican Congress, provoke California into rebellion or insurrection and place it under Occupation with a Reconstruction government.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. Texans still admire Robert E. Lee, nk, (except in Austin, ironically, where some apparently prefer Trump.) Lee hated the war and wanted to preserve the Union, but once war came he refused to take up arms against his home state. I think many Texans in the military might feel the same.

    I certainly hope it would never come to that because, as even Trump acknowledges, free people have a sacred right to declare their independence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  21. I’m still kind of shocked (Not really, more disappointed) that our Supreme Court would be split 4-4 over the Presidential overreach around his immigration order.

    What’s shocking about it? We’ve known since at least the Bill Clinton days that the left-wing bloc on the Supreme Court are willing to distort and stretch their interpretation of the Constitution to fit whatever contemporary progressive policies are desired. For as much as the media likes to turn up its nose at the supposed right-wing bloc that votes in lockstep, it’s really the left that operates with party discipline entirely unmoored from Constitutional fidelity.

    JVW (eabb2a)

  22. California can whip it’s weight in wildcats.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  23. To be fair, President “Don’t Call My Bluff” Obama has firmly established that he only follows though on threats he makes to US citizens so the British knew his “back of the queue” talk was no more serious than his “red line in the sand”.

    max (41ee8e)

  24. no there are certain promises he follows through on, this was more fundamental transformation, like he tried with honduras,

    narciso (732bc0)

  25. All we’d need to to do to get California to surrender is drop packages labeled “gluten” and “GMOs” (where we’d be dropping bombs on normal people).

    nk (dbc370)

  26. california’s a stinky pig

    i was thinking how when i left it caused 3 other people to leave

    two came here to chicago, and one stayed with me til he found a place, but that room’s free now and i already offered it to another possible california refugee

    think of what’s gonna happen when the recession gets underway in earnest

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  27. Texas doesn’t need to leave the Union. Texas needs to join with the other 49 State governments and assert their combined dominance over the Federal government. The Founders envisioned the States as a powerful check on the expansion of the Federal government. The 10th Amendment is the written expression of their vision.

    Following approval of the 17th Amendment, and the abandonment of the provisions of the 10th Amendment, the Federal government has far exceeded it’s defined functions and is currently oppressing the American people, restricting their rights, and governing against the will of the people. And, in addition, the Federal government is refusing to perform it’s Constitutionally mandated functions, like upholding the laws and enforcing control of our borders.

    We are currently suffering under the heel of an oppressive tyrant operating from within the White House.

    Texas should take the lead and call for a conference of the States with an agenda of returning State government to it’s proper role in our representative democracy.

    ropelight (596f46)

  28. Happy-

    Did the refugee leave just your apartment or IL altogether? The latter sounds more plausible and sane. Or is Chicago like Portland and Denver – where Beta California refugees go (Alphas go to Utah, Arizona, and Idaho or to the South).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  29. #21. That’s what’s shocking/disappointing. The level of belief that anything goes.

    TheNaBr (0c7c2f)

  30. #29 Hear, hear … and amen.

    Karen Ferris (2f2ed4)

  31. You called it @29 ropelight.

    Rev. Hoagie® (734193)

  32. Texas has taken the lead in the courts and in the public forum standing up to Obama’s overreach. We’ve done our part and more. Time for Florida and Pennsylvania and the other states to step up, if you really think that will work.

    DRJ (15874d)

  33. he moved just a neighborhood away –

    chicago is much more affordable than california (if you’re resourceful and a little disciplined)

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  34. But it won’t work because the other big states are too purple. You don’t want Texas to be a partner. You want Texas to be your savior. We can’t save everyone. At this point, we Texans have to save ourselves.

    DRJ (15874d)

  35. therein lies the chicken and egg question, is it demography or learned behavior that leads to the mauve nation,

    narciso (732bc0)

  36. Texas has made hard choices to get where we are today. We said No to the big Medicaid sweetener that ObamaCare offered that many states couldn’t refuse. We bit the bullet on higher electric costs for decades to build our own reliable electric grid. We kept taxes low and refused to adopt state income tax, even during the tough years when we had a much less diverse economy and OPEC was ta king a heavier toll. And it’s not as if our industries are given a free pass to make money. They are among the most demonized and targeted companies in the world.

    So IMO it’s time for the other states to call meetings and discuss agendas. Been there, done that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  37. The GOP utterly controls 31 state legislatures and has near control over several more. It takes 34 states to call a Constitutional Convention. Why not do it now and add to the fun?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. BTW, if Trump is elected, California will probably consider seceding. Maybe Texas, Alaska, Hawaii and California should set up a mutual “independence” pact.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. RIP: Ralph Stanley

    ThOR (c9324e)

  40. Add Utah to the pact…. in a weird way, the map of North America could start resembling Man in the High Castle geography substituting China for Japan and modern Russia-Germany for the Nazi regime. Brexit does give the ANZACs a lifeline in case they dont want to be vassals of east Asia.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  41. Out of the ruins
    Out from the wreckage
    Can’t make the same mistake this time
    We are the children
    The last generation
    We are the ones they left behind
    And I wonder we are ever gonna change, change.
    Living under the fear till nothing else remains

    We don’t need another hero
    We don’t need to know the way home
    All we want is life beyond
    the Thunderdome

    Tina Turner [official music video]
    I love her. So beautiful. She invented the Xmen look.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  42. Republican legislatures aren’t all equal, Kevin M. It’s like comparing Mark Kirk to Ted Cruz. They are both well-meaning but their idea of what being a conservative/Republican are not the same. Do you really think 31 states would make conservative decisions?

    DRJ (15874d)

  43. Meanwhile, the Trump people try to change the subject. Trump and his supporters are not reliable partners.

    DRJ (15874d)

  44. “That’s OK, Barry, Mr. The Donald will renegotiate all those deals anyway. He makes the best deals, that I can tell you. Everybody says so.”

    Very good.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  45. I know very little about economics and finance, etc., so if someone knowledgable wants to comment about the Dow today, i would be interested.
    I heard that Greenspan said this is the worst day since the drop in 1987.

    I can’t say that I am shocked about the ruling of the SCOTUS on immigration, as we have come to expect lefty appointees to be lefty, as in the law means whatever we leftists want it to say at the moment,
    but it is quite sobering to see that the SCOTUS really has little interest in enforcing the law as written.
    It really is a lawless society, but most people don’t even understand what that means.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  46. having to design a new flag with only 49 stars

    Hint: 49 = 7 * 7

    This is surely an omen.

    BobStewartatHome (404986) — 6/24/2016 @ 8:01 am

    Well now, don’t be so hasty. Since we’re going to have an empty spot on the flag, why not fill it with another blue state? Puerto Rico, perhaps?

    Bill H (971e5f)

  47. Came to know Ralph Stanley from the Pandora Blugrass Gospel station.
    read an obit in a Tennessee paper, lots about his bluegrass music and authentic mountain music, little said explicilty about Gospel,
    Sometimes, as in often in some settings, difficlut to know when a person has significant personal religious conviction or simply going along with a genre of music.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  48. Faithless friends are worse than enemies. Ok, if Texas wants to run away because being Americans is too tough …. I’m too old and decrepit to fight in the Union army, but I can volunteer for the military tribunals that administer the occupation and try the rebels for treason.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. If this country operated according to the intent of the founders, as expressed in the Constitution, each state would have the right to govern its own internal affairs as they sought fit. Texas might decide to have mandatory carrying of submachine guns in public, California might permit abortions up until the 18th birthday of the fetus, and Vermont might even elect a socialist wack job to the Senate. Oh wait, that already happened.

    Welfare would be run exclusively by the States, without federal involvement, as would schools, roads, transit systems, and local government. Some States would become hellholes, I would imagine. Others might well prosper. People could move if they didn’t like the conditions of the State in which they resided.

    We would come together for national defense, border security (a quaint concept, I know), and foreign trade policy. The States would tax themselves as they chose, and the Federal income tax would be minimal, if it existed at all.

    I believe this to be consistent with ropelight #29’s comment.

    orcadrvr (3cc3b1)

  50. nk,
    what more Constitution flaunting would it take for you to move to Texas?
    If Obama found a reason to remain president, would that be enough?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  51. BTW, if Trump is elected, California will probably consider seceding. Maybe Texas, Alaska, Hawaii and California should set up a mutual “independence” pact.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/24/2016 @ 9:30 am

    Ahahahahhaaahahahahaaaaaaa!! Texas set up a mutual any kind of pact with California? Isn’t that akin to trying to save a drowning victim who is fighting you while there is a 100# lead weight tied to your neck?

    Bill H (971e5f)

  52. Part of the Trump appeal is he doesn’t mistake himself for a hero.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  53. I think slavery was a terrible thing and shouldn’t have lasted as long as it did,
    that said, sometimes I wonder if Lincoln wasn’t heroic in doing a wrong thing.

    Of course, I have a friend who thinks the colonists were a bit premature in demanding a violent resolution to British rule.

    I do believe that just wars exist and that some we have been in have been.

    And I believe that the Dem party as a whole has turned anarchist after that house sit in,
    I could see such a thing to fight an outrageous injustice, but not for political showmanship.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  54. How is this treason, nk? People have a right to freedom and self-determination. This isn’t declaring war or giving aid to our enemies.

    DRJ (15874d)

  55. I disagree witgh that, papertiger, he just does it more subtly.
    He would never claim to be a saviour like Obama,
    but then he would turn around and say how great he is and everyone else is a corrupt idiot, so he had to step up and show everyine else how it is done.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  56. In one way it would be no more treasonous than dem run cities saying they will not cooperate in enforcing fed law.

    But we are officially lawless, so what and how laws are enforced on the fed level are subject to whim.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  57. I don’t think Texas would ever go to war with the US, nor do I want it to.

    DRJ (15874d)

  58. MD,

    1. Big businesses benefit from a big regulatory state: they can best afford the compliance costs that are associated with government overreach, placing them at a competitive advantage over smaller firms.

    2. The Dow/big business doesn’t like the uncertainty a change like this brings. Not only will Britain now leave the EU, but others may follow, especially if it appears British fortunes are improving. A collapse of the EU will hurt the big players who would rather buy access/protection than compete in the market. These organization are legitimately worried that European markets will now become more competitive and less profitable for them.

    Another reason to think the EU will now collapse – something Milton Friedman predicted years ago – has to to do with immigration. Brexit will remove Britian from the list of countries accepting the flood of immigrants, further burdening the remaining EU members with the cost and social problems associated with the flood of migrants. The question now isn’t if others will leave, the question are who and when.

    Finally, two notable advantages the Brits have with regard to exiting the EU are, first, they have a network of large, economically booming former colonies with which to trade (Canada, Australia and, especially, India) and, second, they never joined the monetary union, where the Pound Sterling remains the coin of the realm.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  59. This is a good sign for self-determination. And yes, even for our own country. Unfortunately secession got a bad rap because the last time it was tried revolved around slavery. But hopefully it will be more acceptable.

    I wouldn’t be surprised that half the left would want Texas to stay just because they hate self-determination and want to control Texas, while the other half would want to see them get out so they don’t have to deal with them. I wouldn’t be surprised to see other states leave.

    I know that if Texas or another state left the Union- or even started trying- I’d be moving to Texas quickly.

    Patrick Henry, the 2nd (ddead1)

  60. Thanks, Thor.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  61. Part of the Trump appeal is he doesn’t mistake himself for a hero.

    papertiger (c2d6da) — 6/24/2016 @ 9:49 am

    Trump thinks he has an extraordinary IQ, the world’s greatest memory, and incredible insight. He also brags about his fabulous wealth and stunning women. A hero is too pedestrian for Trump.

    DRJ (15874d)

  62. Do you really think 31 states would make conservative decisions

    No. The GOP is not and never has been a conservative party. Matter of fact, I have no idea what “conservative” means. Can you be, in principle, accepting of SSM and first trimester abortions, and still be conservative? Can you be against those, but for, say, free prescription drugs for the elderly, and be conservative? It’s all so confusing.

    I would be surprised, howe3ver, if they came out for gun confiscation and a national wealth tax.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  63. I have heard something about a new (proposed?) law in CA that will essentially end religious -affiliated schools except for actual seminaries.
    I would think the feds doing that to the states would be a step too far for some.

    I don’t know what the state of the law is if a religiously affiliated school wants to teach that marriage has been and will be between one man and one woman, no matter what the fed government wants to say.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  64. If “conservative” means anything, it starts with believing in the rule of law for a start, and if people want the Constitution to say something different than it does,
    there is an established way to do that within the framework of law,
    whether one is for SSM or not, people could agree on that, for example.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  65. Texas set up a mutual any kind of pact with California? Isn’t that akin to trying to save a drowning victim who is fighting you while there is a 100# lead weight tied to your neck?

    Not to join together, of course — what would be the point? — but to support each other and balance the exit. California and Texas came into the Union under similar circumstances and have always been itching to leave. HI and AK have active secession movements. Deseret Utah as well, as someone points out. Maybe Idaho wants to become an ethnic homeland.

    BTW, WTF was Trump talking about today in Scotland about self-determination in the US?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  66. have you seen the leg, over in alaska, the gop voted to keep the robertscare exchange afloat, so I wouldn’t be holding out for them, many states committed to #willing for hillary, seem to auditioning to be the vendee,

    narciso (732bc0)

  67. whether one is for SSM or not, people could agree on that, for example.

    That was the “in principle” as opposed to Obama’s “by hook or by crook” method.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  68. One does not simply walk into California. Its black gates are guarded by more than just CHP. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Pelosi is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume. Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  69. Which is to say, bring it Frodo.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  70. well I’m sure there are many sane parts of california, but they get outvoted by the axis of san angeles,

    narciso (732bc0)

  71. Yeah, when Alaska voted in the oil dividend, and then the courts nixed the scheme that weighted it toward long-term residents, there was an influx of deadbeats. When the pipeline build ended many former workers stayed, living off of the dividend and food stamps. I’ve been there several times when I was the only one in the grocery store paying real dollars. I think one of the reasons some folks want independence is so that they can cut these folks off.

    Kevin M (25bbee)


  72. what more Constitution flaunting would it take for you to move to Texas?
    If Obama found a reason to remain president, would that be enough?

    Texas, USA? If not for my family in Illinois, I would have already moved there. Or Tennessee.

    Republic of Texas? No, two flags are enough for me. I don’t need seven more. But who knows what the future will bring. We brought my grandmother to Chicago from Greece in her seventies.

    nk (dbc370)

  73. narciso–

    There are even sane people left in Los Angeles. Not so much in SF. However, many of them have moved to Orange and San Diego Counties, or to Texas and Florida. The former white middle-class majority has been replaced by the 40% Hispanic population.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  74. yet this administration, has put a hammerlock on offshore oil, maybe they should vote to join volodya, the only way they will be able to tap the bering and chukchi seas,

    narciso (732bc0)

  75. DRJ, I was joking about the military tribunals.

    Or was I? 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  76. well I’m not writing off the state entirely, it;s just like the overwhelmingly blue counties in southern florida,

    narciso (732bc0)

  77. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust

    That it is not. It has the best climate in the United States, barring only Hawaii. It has MANY other problems, but not that. Just try to riddle anything here with fire and ash and dust and see what happens. “You got a license for that dust, buddy?”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  78. If they were to meet a tourist from Germany in Yellowstone, people from Texas would introduce themselves as Texans. In the same scenario the Californian will introduce themselves as Americans.

    Different mindset.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  79. there is an established way to do that within the framework of law,

    Yes. And since Marbury v Madison, it’s to have a court pass on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. The courts say what is and is not constitutional and over time the precedents build up.

    Now, if you want to call John Marshall a centralizing statist, you may do so. But like it or not, that’s how we’ve been operating in this country for 200 years now.

    It is, btw, one of the many contrasts between the US and UK. The British constitution, being unwritten, ends up being whatever Parliament decides it is.

    kishnevi (870883)

  80. Am I wrong to idolize John C. Fremont (President of the 1 Day Bear Flag Republic) – I probably would be garroted by my distant cousin Alta Californians. Free Soil Free Men!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  81. seriously marshall did not intend mccullough to be about everything but commerce, that the leg would have it’s hands in every human interaction, large and small,

    narciso (732bc0)

  82. It has the best climate in the United States

    Try explaining that at the EPA building in Sacramento. Good luck.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  83. The dummies in Washington would probably give Puerto Rico Statehood so they would have to change the flag to 49 stars.
    Perfect really.
    Lose a great productive state that votes red and gain a bankrupt hyper dependent one that votes blue. The Democrat dream!

    steveg (fed1c9)

  84. Understood, kishnevi,
    but there have been amendments since M vs M,
    I don’t know why some things have gone that way and others haven’t.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  85. short answer, progressivism abhores liberty, but takes a blind eye to license, they used the occasion of the great depression, as their powergrab, at every amendment you care to invoke,

    narciso (732bc0)

  86. I think this is a good time to buy GBP futures.

    Karl Lembke (e37f42)

  87. consider the first, fcc, the second, us vs miller, the fourth, too many to consider, etc.

    narciso (732bc0)

  88. what was that about eliminationist rhetoric,

    https://twitter.com/kingofdawah/status/746396682947006465

    narciso (732bc0)

  89. Da‘wah means the proselytizing or preaching of Islam. Da‘wah literally means “issuing a summons” or “making an invitation”, being a gerund of a verb meaning variously “to summon” or “to invite” . A Muslim who practices da‘wah, either as a religious worker or in a volunteer community effort, is called a dā‘ī.

    Yeah I had to look it up.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  90. Going through his Twitter feed, I think his tongue was very firmly planted in his cheek

    kishnevi (870883)

  91. you may be on to something there,

    narciso (732bc0)

  92. Dude, are you reading my blog again? Don’t you know that can cause hair to grow on your palms? 😉

    Angry Webmaster (c2a001)

  93. Me, I’m for decentralization . . . and I think all the handwringing is overwrought.

    You may have a point. Moreover, the referendum is non-binding and still must be approved in Parliament, which is predominantly composed of pro-EU members.

    On the other hand, assuming the UK does leave the EU (but not the EEA), I travel on a British passport (business or pleasure).

    I am not entirely sanguine about the long-term impact of Brexit or quasi-Brexit on ease of access for Britons and British residents of Overseas Territories to Europe and European markets. For example, we might see a return to the ‘hard border’ of Northern Ireland and the Republic.

    It will be interesting to see what impact this has on the number of foreign investors in London. The uncertainty of the years-long leaving negotiations in one of Europe’s biggest finance centres is unlikely to engender much good cheer on the part of continental visitors who like to keep their wealth in the British capital (for a variety of EU- and non-EU reasons).

    JP (bd5dd9)

  94. 65. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/24/2016 @ 10:35 am

    I have heard something about a new (proposed?) law in CA that will essentially end religious -affiliated schools except for actual seminaries.

    L. N. Smithee posted a link. This concerns not elementary or high schools, but colleges. It was a proposed California law. All but seminaries and the like would have to abide by several rules. Some are not too hard, but some wouldn’t allow them to live by their principles. It has provisions like no compulsory chapel, and if they had dormitories they would have to be co-ed dormitories with co-ed bathrooms. Or at least pick-your-own-gender bathrooms. It would be enforced by private litigation.

    http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/06/21/california-vote-bill-will-essentially-terminate-religious-schools/

    This shows you what would be X’d out from current California law:

    http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1146

    There are now 42 religiously-affiliated colleges that are exempt and the number would be reduced.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  95. JP (bd5dd9) — 6/24/2016 @ 12:07 pm

    Moreover, the referendum is non-binding and still must be approved in Parliament, which is predominantly composed of pro-EU members. </blockquote. they would be hard put not to follow through.
    On the other hand, assuming the UK does leave the EU (but not the EEA),

    Well, actually, doing that would be somewhat difficult, and the EEA might demand almost the same things as are required by EU membership. Switzerland is having a problem and its people may have to undo by 2017 a referendum they passed/

    I travel on a British passport (business or pleasure).

    I am not entirely sanguine about the long-term impact of Brexit or quasi-Brexit on ease of access for Britons and British residents of Overseas Territories to Europe and European markets. For example, we might see a return to the ‘hard border’ of Northern Ireland and the Republic.

    Not just that. Within about 5-7 years you might get a ‘hard bordser’ between England and Scotland, and Scotland also would have to use the Euro.

    And Donald trump yalks about people coming in that they don’t know who they are. They know who somebody is if they are a EU citizen, I would assume, unless you want too say nobody ever knows anything.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  96. OTOH, Scotland’s “Remain” vote shows that once you get a political unit hooked on the welfare teat, it’s hard to pry it off.

    Indeed, that’s how Texas ended up in the USA in the first place.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  97. Texas could really do it, and after people got over the shock of having to design a new flag with only 49 stars, the world would continue to revolve around the sun.

    Nah, they’ll just admit another state to keep it at 50. Or they’ll declare that the number of stars is the high water mark, just as the number of stripes is the low water mark.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  98. Going through his Twitter feed, I think his tongue was very firmly planted in his cheek

    Sounds like a bad day away from a theater shooting.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  99. the referendum is non-binding and still must be approved in Parliament

    Ha. Just an opinion poll. Whew. Dodged a bullet.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  100. ThOR (c9324e) — 6/24/2016 @ 10:02 am

    Brexit will remove Britian from the list of countries accepting the flood of immigrants,

    It already is or is not on the list.

    They do not have to accept non-EU citizens. They never were part of any agreement to take in Syrians or even pay money. They do have to accept genuine refugees, under another treaty, even if they make it to Britain illegally. They now have to accept EU citizens, but can exclude particular individuals on security grounds and the like, and this is what might change. Change vice versa too.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  101. Finally, two notable advantages the Brits have with regard to exiting the EU are, first, they have a network of large, economically booming former colonies with which to trade (Canada, Australia and, especially, India)

    But I don’t think they have any existing free trade agreements, though! If they left the EU they could get them, but, in the words of President Obama, they’d go to the back of the queue. Trade agreements might sound logical but are sometimes hard to ratify. In 1911 the United States negotiated trade recprocity with Canada, but then the party that negotiated it lost a Canadian election and it didn’t happen for more than 75 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(Canadian_politics)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1911

    In January 1911, Laurier and President William Howard Taft of the United States announced that they signed an reciprocity agreement, which they decided to pass by concurrent legislation rather than a formal treaty, as would normally been the case.[1] As such, the reciprocity agreement had to be ratified by both houses of Congress rather just the American Senate, something that Laurier would later regret…

    …The Speaker of the US House of Representatives was a Democrat, Champ Clark, and he declared, on the floor of the House, “I look forward to the time when the American flag will fly over every square foot of British North America up to the North Pole. The people of Canada are of our blood and language.”[2] Clark went on to suggest in his speech that reciprocity agreement was the first step towards the end of Canada, a speech that was greeted with “prolonged applause” according to the Congressional Record.[3] The Washington Post reported, “Evidently, then, the Democrats generally approved of Mr. Clark’s annexation sentiments and voted for the reciprocity bill because, among other things, it improves the prospect of annexation.”[3]

    The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial, condemned Clark and warned that Clark’s speech might had fatally damaged the reciprocity agreement in Canada and stated, “He lets his imagination run wild like a Missouri mule on a rampage. Remarks about the absorption of one country by another grate harshly on the ears of the smaller.”[3]

    A Republican Representative, William M. Bennett, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, introduced a resolution that asked the Taft administration to begin talks with Britain on how the United States might best annex Canada. Taft rejected the proposal and asked the committee to take a vote on the resolution (which only Bennett voted for), but the Conservatives now had more ammunition.[4] Since Bennett, a strong protectionist, had been an opponent of the reciprocity agreement, the Canadian historian Chantal Allen suggested that Bennett had introduced his resolution deliberately inflame Canadian opinion against the reciprocity agreement.[4]..

    …When the reciprocity agreement was submitted by Laurier to the House of Commons for ratification by Parliament, the Conservatives waged a vigorous filibuster against the reciprocity agreement on the floor of the House.[7] Although the Liberals still had two years left in their mandate, they decided to call an election to settle the issue after it aroused controversy and Laurier was unable to break the filibuster.[7]…

    …On 7 September 1911, the Montreal Star published a front-page appeal to all Canadians by the popular British poet Rudyard Kipling, who had been asked by his friend, Max Aitken, to write something for the Conservatives.[9] Kipling wrote in his appeal to Canadians, “It is her own soul that Canada risks today. Once that soul is pawned for any consideration, Canada must inevitably conform to the commercial, legal, financial, social and ethical standards which will be imposed on her by the sheer admitted weight of the United States.”[9] Kipling’s appeal attracted much media attention in English Canada and was reprinted over the next week, in every English newspaper in Canada.[9]

    ….The campaign went badly for the Liberals, however. The powerful manufacturing interests of Toronto and Montreal switched their allegiance and financing to the Conservatives. The Conservatives argued that free trade would undermine Canadian sovereignty and lead to a slow annexation of Canada by the US….

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  102. The GOP utterly controls 31 state legislatures and has near control over several more. It takes 34 states to call a Constitutional Convention. Why not do it now and add to the fun?

    Because a convention would not be bound by its instructions, or by the current constitution. It could write a whole new constitution and a new method of ratifying it, just like the Philadelphia convention did.

    And the odds are good that that’s exactly what it would do: write a constitution that’s everything the left dreams of (including abolishing the states), and hold a national referendum to ratify it, at which every person over the age of 12 who is in the USA, whether legally or not, would be eligible to vote.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  103. I have mentioned before I belong to a music forum with members from both sides of the Atlantic, and that Brexit had its own thread in the nonmusical section.

    Reading through it, one point made several times over was on the lines of Putin is happy today, and a lot of the European members think a moderately united and harmonious EU is necessary to keep Putin in check.

    The British members have had a dim view of the whole process and the politicians involved, and feel that they are now facing the dissolution of the UK because Cameron made a totally unnecessary campaign promise. These particular members all voted for Remain, but only one was truly angry about it, the others being merely disappointed in the result. But their general consensus was that the campaign on both sides was lacking in consideration of the real issues, and Brexit if it goes through will not solve problems (for one thing, apparently any trade agreements between England and the EU would force England to accept migrants living in the EU already). The election was seen as mostly scare mongering. One side went “Ohh, scary migrants!” The other side went “Ohh, economic catastrophe!”–and by a slim majority the migrant doomsayers outvoted the economic doomsayers.

    kishnevi (870883)

  104. BTW, if Trump is elected, California will probably consider seceding. Maybe Texas, Alaska, Hawaii and California should set up a mutual “independence” pact.

    Why would Texas want to be saddled with California?

    Milhouse (87c499)

  105. brexit’s so good it’s setting a really high bar for texit

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  106. In one way it would be no more treasonous than dem run cities saying they will not cooperate in enforcing fed law.

    That’s always been their right. It’s protected by the tenth amendment, so denying them that right could be described as “treasonous” in the same loose way that the word is used for any agitating against the constitution.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  107. MD,

    Here’s an article that includes a chart of the redistribution of money among the EU countries in 2013. Note that among the 28 countries listed, Great Britain is the second larges NET contributor, subsidizing the EU in that year to the tune of 10.1 billion Euros. Without the Brit’s contribution, this Ponzi scheme will fail. That’s why there is such panic: with the withdrawal of GB, the EU will run out of other peoples money.

    ThOR (c9324e)

  108. I have heard something about a new (proposed?) law in CA that will essentially end religious -affiliated schools except for actual seminaries.

    They can’t do that. Yoder, among others.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  109. Why would Texas want to be saddled with California?

    Milhouse (87c499) — 6/24/2016 @ 12:43 pm

    Sez a NY mutt.

    Colonel Haiku (436b69)

  110. i got some sapphire to make some classic english martinis tonight and at lunch we walked over and got some cocktail onions at eataly for to garnish

    the ones i got from jewel are too… vinegary i guess

    but these ones are actually oniony so i’m very brexcited to see how these are gonna be in a martini

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  111. This concerns not elementary or high schools, but colleges. It was a proposed California law. All but seminaries and the like would have to abide by several rules.

    Only if they accept Cal Grants.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  112. #105 kishnevi,

    You seem to have a consistently callous view toward nations which wish to control their own borders. That’s not the sentiment of someone who holds sovereignty in high regard.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  113. i know in my heart brexit loves me and only wants good things for us

    at first though I was a little scared cause of how startling it was

    but now I’m so happy

    i never wanna go back to how it was before

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  114. Why would Texas want to be saddled with California?

    Milhouse (87c499) — 6/24/2016 @ 12:43 pm

    Sez a NY mutt.

    Texas certainly wouldn’t want to be saddled with NY!

    Milhouse (87c499)

  115. In the same scenario the Californian will introduce themselves as Americans.

    This is because of the 40 million California residents it seems as if 37 million of them were born somewhere else. I wish they would all go home.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  116. Hi Sammy,

    You might be right about British Parliamentarians eventually voting to leave Brexit, but given how slim the margins were on this vote, the resultant press for a second referendum, and the likely toppling of the gormless Labour leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, I suspect this is hardly a fait accompli.

    Well, actually, doing that would be somewhat difficult, and the EEA might demand almost the same things as are required by EU membership.

    Yes, almost the same responsibilities (including tax input) but with drastically less representation at the EU Parliament, as I understand it anyway.

    Absent some lightning-round negotiations with the EU to maintain current market access within the next two years, though, the EEA is Britain’s only real option that the remaining EU members would be likely to countenance. I don’t think the German or French governments are very keen on allowing the UK to get away with maintaining a similarly cozy trade relationship without acquiescing to the EEA.

    Given that some of my in-laws live in Edinburgh the next few years will be interesting indeed. I get the impression that the SNP, like UKIP, have their own rather bull-headed and probably inadequate understanding of EU membership, albeit coming from a very different political direction.

    JP (bd5dd9)

  117. I am reporting what others are saying about their own country: in this case that Brexit won’t actually keep out the migrants.

    But I am a realist. Border control is useless unless you reform the immigration system first. You can not plug a leak until you stop the incoming flow, or at least slow it down. Build a wall if you will, but that means illegals will simply be smuggled in by sea. Boat people in Galveston…

    kishnevi (870883)

  118. Why would Texas want to be saddled with California?

    #67

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  119. Or, perhaps the “Untied States of America”, just to be annoying.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  120. Not to join together, of course — what would be the point? — but to support each other and balance the exit.

    Except that it’s hard to think of a circumstance that would make both states want to secede at the same time. Whatever make one of them want to leave would make the other one happy.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  121. This web page,

    /http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/britain-votes-to-leave-the-eu-what-happens-now-that-brexit-is-a/

    from The Telegraph, has David Cameron’s slightly over 4 minute speech embedded. he says he will resign by the Conservative conference in Octoberm and he doesn’t think negotiations should begin before that. He said nothing is going to change right away.

    The 2-year countdown clock would be triggered by the United Kingdom invoking Article 50.

    The leave people don’t want to rush, but the official EU does.

    The EU’s leadership has demanded Britain activate Article 50 exit talks “as soon as possible” as they attempt to end the uncertainty over the bloc, “however painful that process may be”…

    …By contrast, the official Out campaign has said there is no need to trigger Article 50 until informal negotiations have taken place – potentially lasting years….

    …Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intension to withdraw, starts a two-year clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain. The terms of exit will be negotiated between Britain’s 27 counterparts, and each will have a veto over the conditions.

    It will also be subject to ratification in national parliaments, meaning, for example, that Belgian MPs could stymie the entire process….

    …Untying Britain from the old membership is the easy bit. Harder would be agreeing a new trading relationship, establishing what tariffs and other barriers to entry are permitted, and agreeing on obligations such as free movement. Such a process, EU leaders claim, could take another five years….

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  122. #119 kishnevi,

    You can claim to report all you want, but you said it better than any left wing kook could ever do … we shouldn’t build a southern wall, because that will just force immigrants to try to enter by other means. Therefore, we should just give up. (LOL)

    In other words, you’re not really animated about protecting our borders. Just stand up and be honest about it, though, huh, big guy?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  123. JP (bd5dd9) — 6/24/2016 @ 1:17 pm

    You might be right about British Parliamentarians eventually voting to leave Brexit, but given how slim the margins were on this vote, the resultant press for a second referendum, and the likely toppling of the gormless Labour leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, I suspect this is hardly a fait accompli.

    The only way out honorable way out is to have a second referendum. And that second referendum had better be held before a second Scottish referendum. But nbobody would want to hold it unless STAY wins this time, or Scotland is satisfied.

    Ultimately staying in the EU,but changing it, may be what some people want. According to the Telegraph (is this correct?) the OUT people actually don’t want to invoke Article 50, but would instead want to keep things keep things at T minus 2 years and holding.

    Given that some of my in-laws live in Edinburgh the next few years will be interesting indeed.

    A lot of possibilities.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  124. Sammy, you have some weird fascination with having a second vote.
    That’s a Democrat tactic to attempt to subvert the will of the people. That’s how Al Franken ended up Senator in Minnesota, rather than Norm Coleman. They kept counting the votes until they got the desired outcome.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  125. Thanks all for comments answering my questions.
    So, the CA law proposed would tell the schools if you want our money play our rules.
    Well, in a hostile world that makes sense, which is why Hillsdale College refuses any type of gov assistance, including students getting money connected to the govt.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  126. Cruz Supporter
    Immigration reform is the most necessary thing to border control. Build all the walls you want, but without immigration reform they will be useless.

    I am for border control that works. You OTOH just want a fantasy.

    kishnevi (80558c)

  127. “Except that it’s hard to think of a circumstance that would make both states want to secede at the same time. Whatever make one of them want to leave would make the other one happy.”

    – Milhouse

    Donald Trump getting elected President might do the trick.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  128. kishnevi,

    I don’t know what an “OTOH” is, but it sounds like something that someone who isn’t very indirect would actually say.
    Immigration reform is great. But building a wall is how you prevent people from getting here in the first place.
    Because once they’re here and they have “families!,” you guys will scream that we’re tearing apart families if we draw a line in the sand at legal immigration reform. Asking people to leave will be characterized as a lack of compassion.

    But you’re living a utopian dream in Florida. So screw the other 49 states, huh? Especially the ones which border Mexico. (LOL)

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  129. 126. Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 6/24/2016 @ 2:07 pm

    Sammy, you have some weird fascination with having a second vote.
    That’s a Democrat tactic to attempt to subvert the will of the people. That’s how Al Franken ended up Senator in Minnesota, rather than Norm Coleman. They kept counting the votes until they got the desired outcome.

    I don;t mean re-count or claiming teh election was too close to decide and doing it over.

    I think David Cameron will not invoke Article 50 and doesn’t want his sucecssor to do so either before things are worked out, but since he’s against the idea he can’t avoid involing it. It will be very hard to form a new British government.,

    As for second chances, I think maybe you;d like that if it were possible for the rep nomination.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  130. Cruz, what it boils down to is this
    Your wall won’t work. It will just be throwing good money after bad. It won’t keep people from getting here. At best, they will simply come a different way.
    You want to have border control? You can’t have it unless you have immigration reform first. By which I mean not amnesty but change the system so people won’t consider sneaking over the border to be the best way to get here.

    kishnevi (80558c)

  131. #131 Sammy,

    You’re comparing apples to fruit loops.
    Wanting a second bite of the apple at the GOP nomination is something facilitated by the GOP, which is a private organization, free to make it’s own rules, thus having the power to change them at will.
    By contrast, Brexit is a national referendum.

    How do you convince yourself that you’re fairly comparing the two?

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  132. “Except that it’s hard to think of a circumstance that would make both states want to secede at the same time. Whatever make one of them want to leave would make the other one happy.”

    – Milhouse

    Donald Trump getting elected President might do the trick.

    Leviticus (efada1) — 6/24/2016 @ 2:20 pm

    So you’re saying we SHOULD vote for Trump?

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  133. Cruz, what it boils down to is this
    Your wall won’t work. It will just be throwing good money after bad. It won’t keep people from getting here. At best, they will simply come a different way.
    You want to have border control? You can’t have it unless you have immigration reform first. By which I mean not amnesty but change the system so people won’t consider sneaking over the border to be the best way to get here.

    kishnevi (80558c) — 6/24/2016 @ 2:47 pm

    So it would work then. Because that would be the purpose of a wall.

    NJRob (a07d2e)

  134. Keeping a burglar out of your living room is useless if he comes in through the kitchen.

    The wall might divert migrant traffic, but it won’t stop it or even slow it.

    You worried about families being allowed to stay by fuzzy hearted lefties. Just imagine boat people off Texas…

    kishnevi (80558c)

  135. I think there was a U.S. flag with 49 stars for one year, in 1959 or 1960. (probably from July 4, 1959 to July 4, 1960)

    http://www.usflag.org/the.49.star.flag.html

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  136. I’m afraid I have zero confidence that anyone will do anything of significance until they do it. As far as I know, he** will freeze over before there is any meaningful “immigration reform”.

    Start being serious about enforcing current law and secure the border with whatever combination of concrete or virtual wall one can.
    What does Israel do?

    No, don’t be ridiculous about hunting down every productive immigrant who has only broken the law by being here,
    but fer cryin out loud,
    we can do a lot better than sanctuary city protection of repeat felons.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  137. There are boat people right now in Florida. The Castro regime gets some, the U.S. Coast Guard get some and others land and are allowed to stay under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.

    Some boat people head for Puerto Rico.

    There are no boat people (in any significant number) off the coasts of Florida or Texas because crossing the land border is easier.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  138. there’s a slowmotion exodus, a quarter million since december, who have made it from cuba to central america, and likely are coming across the border,

    narciso (732bc0)

  139. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 6/24/2016 @ 3:13 pm

    What does Israel do?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/middleeast/west-bank-israel-palestinians-smugglers.html?_r=0

    This furtive predawn crossing is part of a thriving smuggling industry that allows untold numbers of people to pass over, under, through or around what Israelis call the security barrier — for a price.

    The industry offers economic benefits for everyone involved: Palestinian workers earn double or quadruple the wages they can in the West Bank; Israeli contractors and restaurant owners pay less for illegal labor than for Palestinians with permits; and the smugglers collect $65 to $200 for each person that passes. Punishment for those caught is generally being sent back to the other side.

    The system punches a hole in Israel’s system for regulating Palestinians’ access to work inside Israel, and has security implications: Attackers like the two Palestinian men who fatally shot four people this month at a Tel Aviv cafe sneak through as well.

    There is also a wall now along the Egyptian border, built to stop African migrants coming from Egyor, where they were safe more or less, but they wanted to get into a better country. Israel could not send them back to Egot because they were not Egyptian citizens, and a similar situation exists now along the U.S> Mexican border – people from Honduras or El Salvador cannot simply go back.

    The number of what they call “infiltrators” from Egyot has been reduced by about 90%, but it might not be due to the wall, but to the fact that ISIS is now on the other side of the Egyptian border. They confine themselves to killing Egytian police and soldiers, because ISIS has made a high level policy decision not to tangle with Israel.

    No, don’t be ridiculous about hunting down every productive immigrant who has only broken the law by being here,

    Well, that’s exactly what the people who say ENFORCE the LAW! are asking for.

    but fer cryin out loud, we can do a lot better than sanctuary city protection of repeat felons.

    Sanctuary ciies will remain, unless someone wants to start a Civil War, and repeat felons really belong in jail, or on an isolated island somewhere, not in Mexico.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  140. The “wall” is academic. Trump won’t build it.

    What we need is a wall of men. Border guards who will throw illegal crossers into detention centers and keep them there until 1) they prove they are legally in the United States or until 2) they, their families, or their governments arrange for their transportation back home. Just the abolition of the “Notice to Appear” also called “Catch and Release”, whereby illegals are let loose in America on their promise to appear at immigration hearings, will make a big difference, if the expectation now becomes not that Juan will work in the shadows and send money back home but instead will sit in the hoosegow.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. 140. narciso (732bc0) — 6/24/2016 @ 3:25 pm

    there’s a slowmotion exodus, a quarter million since december, who have made it from cuba to central america, and likely are coming across the border,

    Presenting themselves at the Mexican border is anotehr way for Cubans to get into the United States.

    U.S> diplomats interfered with this (there had been free no hasssle visas to Ecuador and then they worked their way up to Texas) but then some got stuck – I think actually maybe it was the Castro regime that was interfering with this. Cubans have bene allowed a little bot to travel. I think they were maybe getting stuck in Costa Rica and not able to travel through Nicaragua.

    The bog exodus is because many Cubans fear that open admissions to the United States might stop when the Castro regime ends so it’s now or never.

    A little Internet research could straighten out the facts.

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  142. nk (dbc370) — 6/24/2016 @ 3:29 pm

    Trump won’t build it.

    he admits that. He says Mexico will build it.

    What we need is a wall of men. Border guards who will throw illegal crossers into detention centers and keep them there until 1) they prove they are legally in the United States or until 2) they, their families, or their governments arrange for their transportation back home.

    And who is going to appropriate the money? You think Democrats will vote for this? You think Republicans will raise taxes? Furthermore, conditions of confinement must be humane – you can’t use existing jails. They’re full. You need both men and housing. And it’s unconstitutional to hold people without charges. You are going to hold people for randsom demanding their ome countries pay money to get them free?

    Sammy Finkelman (7a22e4)

  143. we need a wall for so the illegal immigrants don’t come and do brexit up our bums like what happened in fair albion

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  144. no, sammeh, it’s because there are no fracking jobs in cuba, it’s gotten worse since ben rhodes other roadshow,

    narciso (732bc0)

  145. Camps will do, Sammy. Sheriff Arpaio’s tent city jail can be the model. And it is not unconstitutional to detain illegal aliens or to require them to pay their transportation costs back home. Where do you get that from?

    nk (dbc370)

  146. before gitmo was a jihadi pen, it was one for haitian and cuban migrants, how the wet foot/dry foot carp came to pass, also ft. chaffee arkansas, but that didn’t turn out so well.

    narciso (732bc0)

  147. Watched this unfold through the evening.

    Those of us who have lived in Britain and are familiar with the quirks and politics of that island nation could see how this would play out by simply looking at the tally map. Brits are a magnificent and often infuriatingly stubborn lot. Pride in going it ‘alone’ against the Nazis. The Blitz. Nelson at Trafalgar. Waterloo… over the top against the Hun with only a swagger stick. Stiff upper-lip and so on… Real ‘Bridge On the River Kwai’ stuff. They endure. It’s not an exaggeration. But it may be less important to the young in Britain.

    The elites talking to each other in London badly misjudged this. To be sure immigration worries were a strong issue. But economics was equally at play. For instance, the ‘leave’ vote in The Midlands, which is a region akin to our Rust Belt- remains an aging industrial region that has not seen any quality of life EU benefits ‘trickle down’ in two generations– that is, since the early days of the Common Market- the genesis of the EU. On the other hand, the regions that voted ‘remain’ have benefited greatly– coastal towns, yuppies in London’s ‘city-state’ boroughs and all of Scotland. Scotland, BTW, thrives because it offers the EU goods and services it wants– from Scottish beef to wool sweaters.

    Britain has always had an island mentality with respect to Europe and their EU participation was qualified all the way– from maintain passport controls to keeping the pound sterling and to adopting the Euro. Even the ‘Chunnel’ was a battle.

    The real story here is the strong possibility of Scotland having another referendum to become independent to stay in the EU and break with the UK. It would be a justified referendum given all of Scotland voted to remain in the EU. It would be the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. And other EU nations can now feel justified to have a referendum to stay or leave as well.

    The break-up of the United Kingdom in our lifetimes would be a stunning historical prospect.

    Less than 150 years ago, Great Britain was a thriving empire. Today– a day after this vote– it has moved a step further toward irrelevance as a world power in this new age. It’s a warning from history– as the social and economic trends of Britain a century ago are what we see emerging in America today. And what America may experience 70 years from now– or less.

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  148. “And the world would not end if Texas left the U.S. So: congratulations to Britain on regaining its autonomy, and (with my thanks to Kevin Gutzman for the term) I say: on to Texit!”

    The world, no. Texas? Yes.

    As Trump would tell any Texan, ‘The Alamo? You lost, looza.”

    DCSCA (a343d5)

  149. I say let texit happen. The majority of the immigration problem will be solved. The cruzers can live their fantasies of shooting the border crossers on sight. It will be a grand party until Mexico sends their military and narco gangs in. When the smoke clears the us mil will retake what will be a permanent territory with the same representative rights of Puerto Rico.Oil is a wonderful nutritional supplement. The macho comments about those Texans are cute but delusional.

    spokanebob (332dde)

  150. if texit happens harvardtrash ted gonna have to work for a living

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  151. 149. That’s what a lot of rest of the country secret hopes. Bragadoccio payback is like hitting your limit on a Sears charge.

    But Cruz is like a lot of your Cuban American and hard Tejano neighbirs- tells you want you want to hear.

    urbanleftbehind (1d5bfb)

  152. No, that’s Trump..

    kishnevi (dfdff5)

  153. Mr. Trump is so good

    he’s like brexit for your head

    free your mind and the rest will follow

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  154. That didn’t even include Honduras or Egypt.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  155. or food stamp multiplier effects

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  156. 147. nk (dbc370) — 6/24/2016 @ 4:18 pm

    Camps will do, Sammy. Sheriff Arpaio’s tent city jail can be the model.

    That might be a little bot cheaper, but they would still have to be built. They won’t be.

    And it is not unconstitutional to detain illegal aliens or to require them to pay their transportation costs back home. Where do you get that from?

    Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)

    (I got that actually from background in stories in the newspapers)

    The Writ of Habeas Corpus would prevent the indefinite detention of any such detained alien.

    But there’s another case, that might better apply to what you are talking about.

    Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U. S. 206 (1953),

    So as it stands now, anyone ordered deported cannot be held more than six months (unless they are appealing their deportation) but someone who never was officially admitted can – but we’re talking about somebody stopped at Ellis Island. (in the old days, and under current law, the ship that brought the person to the United States is compelled to take the person back, upon pain, I suppose, of being the right to land in the United States. When somehow hired to bring someone to the United States never had, and isn’t interested in, gaining the legal right to transport someone to the United States, and isn’t even there, that provision of law is not of much use.

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/678/case.html

    A statute permitting indefinite detention of an alien would raise a serious constitutional problem.

    Also, true, Zadvydas v. Davis only deals withe cases where no country will accept somebody. The issue of where what a country won’t do is pay the U.S. government compensation for the cost of the trip, has either never come up, because nobody ever tried it – only a company might be forced to do this – or it is something that was ruled aaginst long ago.

    Countries are not in the habit of paying for transportation back of their citizens who have been deported or otherwise forced to, or find it very advisable to leave a country. The United States does, for U.S. citizens who want to come back (and may bill the citizen later)

    Sammy Finkelman (c41e9f)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6181 secs.