Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Ipsos MORI- Remain voters:
Should Britain:
Accept EU migrants to access single market 67%
Give up single market to block EU migrants 16%

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:
Should Britain:
Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%
Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

So basically, 52% voted to leave, 66% of them would see a complete decoupling from Europe as long as it means no dirty foreigners messing with the purity of the English experience. That's like 34% of the (voting) population.
16% of the 48% Remainers feel the same way. That's almost 8% of the voting population.

So, 42% of Brits do not care about the economy as long as immigration is stopped.

[grumbler]

God bless Buzzfeed for this bit of map geekery
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisapplegate/why-a-pro-eu-party-could-be-screwed-in-the-next-election?utm_term=.nkjPDWMnx#.ulvk87v3l

That's quite a presentation.  It lays out the dilemma more clearly than I've seen it laid out before, and the message is clear:  the parties need to get on with it and forget about reversing Brexit.

Thanks for sharing.

[grumbler]

Ipsos MORI- Remain voters:
Should Britain:
Accept EU migrants to access single market 67%
Give up single market to block EU migrants 16%

Ipsos MORI - Leave voters:
Should Britain:
Accept EU migrants to access single market 18%
Give up single market to block EU migrants 66%

So basically, 52% voted to leave, 66% of them would see a complete decoupling from Europe as long as it means no dirty foreigners messing with the purity of the English experience. That's like 34% of the (voting) population.
16% of the 48% Remainers feel the same way. That's almost 8% of the voting population.

So, 42% of Brits do not care about the economy as long as immigration is stopped.

So those are the only two options?  One either accepts unlimited immigration or one does not care at all about the economy?

I think that thinking like this is what caused the crisis.

[The Brain]

I think they over-analyse something much simpler: ignorance. Not in general, but how your county/country works. Why would the good people of Cornwall be familiar with the crucial part EU funds have played in their lives?
Most of that happens well over their head, and some stamp on some signs informing that this and that was using EU money to be built will hardly have a big consequence, especially, as  I suspect, local politicians were not eager to point out it was EU funding, not their own jolly good splendid personal efforts, that brought results.

Plus, yes, the mainstream political parties need to hear the grumblings of the grumblers but to what extent? If the grumblers want a way back to the separated nation states of pre-1945, if they want gender equality lessened, if they want Muslims and other immigrants to be second class citizens, should the mainstream listen and change policies? Basically, should the mainstream become the populist fringe parties? What's the point?

Ship. Sailed. In the UK they are the mainstream.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I entirely blame the political class - and the EU. I don't think voters are stupid, I think the vast majority of the time they get it right and hopefully that's the case here. For example I don't think we would have had this result at any other point in our membership of the EU.

I don't like sneering at stupid plebs or, the barely better, left-wing position of convincing yourselves they're all duped by false consciousness and that a corrective course of Guardian reading would make them into sensible, pro-immigration, anti-austerity Europeans. There's clearly profound issues and real pain in deep England that shouldn't be ignored because people are thick.

I can only hope with more age you abandon this sort of idealism. I was probably in my mid-30s when I transitioned from being a classical liberal with a strong belief in the power of democracy and the value in ordinary folk's opinion to an authoritarian who thinks people should have minimal say in things, particularly the dumber/lower income people.

[dps]

The Federal government keeps the money though, the way you guys are saying "withhold" makes it sound like Texas has billions in Federal dollars stashed away in some vault somewhere. If they decline to accept Federal funding for certain programs in a given fiscal year, they just do not get disbursed and remain with the treasury.

If it's fair to bitch about the Feds withholding funds to force states into compliance as not in the "spirit of the constitution", e.g. highway funds, then it's fair to bitch about states punishing their own citizens by not electing to accept Federal funding simply to make political points. 

If the Feds really wanted the citizens of those states to have the funds, they could just give them all credits on their income taxes.  It's not about helping the citizens of those states, it's about the Federal government trying to extend their power beyond what the Constitution grants it by bribing the states into doing its bidding.

[CountDeMoney]

The Federal government keeps the money though, the way you guys are saying "withhold" makes it sound like Texas has billions in Federal dollars stashed away in some vault somewhere. If they decline to accept Federal funding for certain programs in a given fiscal year, they just do not get disbursed and remain with the treasury.

If it's fair to bitch about the Feds withholding funds to force states into compliance as not in the "spirit of the constitution", e.g. highway funds, then it's fair to bitch about states punishing their own citizens by not electing to accept Federal funding simply to make political points. 

If the Feds really wanted the citizens of those states to have the funds, they could just give them all credits on their income taxes.  It's not about helping the citizens of those states, it's about the Federal government trying to extend their power beyond what the Constitution grants it by bribing the states into doing its bidding.

OK, Mr. "The ACW was really about states' rights."

[Valmy]

If the Feds really wanted the citizens of those states to have the funds, they could just give them all credits on their income taxes.

That is completely idiotic and unworkable.

If the Feds were serious they would just do direct cash payments to people? Seriously stupid? Oh my god. You should do comedy.

The fact they are not doing this completely stupid and impractical thing is PROOF THAT THEY ARE POWERHUNGRY DESPOTS!!!!111

[CountDeMoney]

'Murrica = Block grants for everybody!

[The Minsky Moment]

That's certainly an opinion--but the Supreme Court, in the rare cases in which it has addressed jurisdiction stripping, with the exception of Joseph Story's opinion, have conceded congressional latitude in that area is broad, and largely whatever Congress says it is. in Ex parte McCardle they stripped jurisdiction of a case that was already before the Supreme Court, even.

That broad reading of McCardle was rejected in the Gitmo habeas cases. 

[dps]

The Federal government keeps the money though, the way you guys are saying "withhold" makes it sound like Texas has billions in Federal dollars stashed away in some vault somewhere. If they decline to accept Federal funding for certain programs in a given fiscal year, they just do not get disbursed and remain with the treasury.

If it's fair to bitch about the Feds withholding funds to force states into compliance as not in the "spirit of the constitution", e.g. highway funds, then it's fair to bitch about states punishing their own citizens by not electing to accept Federal funding simply to make political points. 

If the Feds really wanted the citizens of those states to have the funds, they could just give them all credits on their income taxes.  It's not about helping the citizens of those states, it's about the Federal government trying to extend their power beyond what the Constitution grants it by bribing the states into doing its bidding.

OK, Mr. "The ACW was really about states' rights."

You've got me mistaken for someone else.  I'm the one who said we should have hung everyone who served in the Confederate Army or government as traitors.  And the ACW was about slavery.

[CountDeMoney]

You've got me mistaken for someone else.  I'm the one who said we should have hung everyone who served in the Confederate Army or government as traitors.  And the ACW was about slavery.

Then stop using the same bullshit logic.

[OttoVonBismarck]

That's certainly an opinion--but the Supreme Court, in the rare cases in which it has addressed jurisdiction stripping, with the exception of Joseph Story's opinion, have conceded congressional latitude in that area is broad, and largely whatever Congress says it is. in Ex parte McCardle they stripped jurisdiction of a case that was already before the Supreme Court, even.

That broad reading of McCardle was rejected in the Gitmo habeas cases.

I believe you're incorrect--I think that that ruling, as it pertains to jurisdiction stripping, focused pretty heavily on "specific wording." The fact that congress did not make it clear with its wording that jurisdiction stripping applied to pending cases, and also that several aspects of the creation of the commission were not actually authorized by the statutes the Bush Administration had used as justification for creating the military commissions. I find no strong argument that it significantly impaired Congress's future ability to aggressively jurisdiction strip, if it does so in a clear-cut, unambiguous manner.

Further, given the plaintext of the Constitution gives Congress authority over what the appellate jurisdiction is, and the very form and function of all courts under the Supreme Court (and even they control the form of the Supreme Court), that if the judicial branch attempted to overreach and countermand this clear congressional power the political wings of government would be in a situation where they were justified in simply ignoring the court's power entirely--a valid mechanism of fixing inappropriate judicial overreach.

[grumbler]

If the Feds really wanted the citizens of those states to have the funds, they could just give them all credits on their income taxes.  It's not about helping the citizens of those states, it's about the Federal government trying to extend their power beyond what the Constitution grants it by bribing the states into doing its bidding.

I've never believed it to be very useful (or even credible) to anthropomorphize the actions of organizations into the organization having motives like this.  It's politics as a superhero movie:  "oh, no, evil Dr Feds is trying to extend his power over poor Missus Hippy!  Light the Bat signal!"

[dps]

You've got me mistaken for someone else.  I'm the one who said we should have hung everyone who served in the Confederate Army or government as traitors.  And the ACW was about slavery.

Then stop using the same bullshit logic.

It's not bullshit logic;  it's federalism--division of powers between a central government and lower governments.  Did you flunk 3rd grade Civics, or just don't want to acknowledge fundamental tenants of American federal government because they get in the way of some agenda you have?  Gotta be the latter, but don't worry, you're not alone--Congress and the President do the same thing, regardless of which party is in power or what particular agenda they're pushing.