I usually don’t read your posts because they are too long. I wonder if they are always filled with inaccuracies.
The Feds can enact unilaterally whatever laws they want, at the end of the day democracy will prevail. The International Community has always accepted 50%+1. Ottawa, just like every other capital in the world, has accepted last Thursday’s vote however slim it was. It’s up to Quebecers and Quebecers alone to determine their political future. Just like it’s up to the Scots or the Catalans or Albertans if they so wish in the future to determine theirs.
What the Supreme Court should have looked at is how the Feds broke every referendum rule in the book in 95 and how they committed corruption in subsequent years in what is now known as the Sponsorship scandal.
so you saying what the supreme court should do somehow validates your argument? if the rules are laid out as 50% of the eligible voting population, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. and f$^*k the international community. would the international communitiy accept 50%+1 if only 20% showed up to vote, unlikely. the international community accepts the Brexit vote because it was stated that 50%+1 would count. this is the case for most other votes. you can’t create a causal relationship between 50%+1 and international acceptance when most referendum votes blatantly state that 50%+1 is valid PRIOR to the vote. the Canadian Feds will lay it out as 50%+1 of the eligible voting population. the international community can’t do anything to violate Canada’s very fair constitution. i doubt many in the international community would argue hard against 50%+1 of the eligible voting population if that is the fed’s official stance prior to election. the fairest possible voting setup is that a vote for change should always be a majority of those eligible. i don’t see how you can disagree with that. it’s not like you’re voting for a politician. you’re voting to drastically change how your country is run and structured. because issues related to educating the population of these consequences, the majority of all voters should be required as the poor and dumb are always going to be misrepresented.
Interesting that the FTSE is up Post-brexit now, while EURSTOXXs is down. Media sure played up the collapsing market panic in the days after Brexit. They report on the huge surge since and British outperforming every other market since? Nah. Of course not. Bunch of cheap charlatans. Them and the economists. Oh well.
If you owned British stocks, you would still be poorer after Brexit, due to GBP depreciation. The rebound in UKX is partly because the largest British companies earn a lot of revenue overseas, and now that is counted as more units of GBP. This does not mean their real earning outlook has improved. In addition, UK will probably have large amounts of new QE, that also devalues the currency but boosts asset prices. For globally integrated market like UK, and especially one that imports almost everything, nominal value of assets is very misleading.
Thats before the EU is done with it. If the EU had any backbone they would respond with pretty harsh trade terms as they need to make an example out of them. At this point the UK should be treated no different from non European countries like China.
How are corporate tax cuts feasible for UK with the negative economic impact of Brexit (Brecession)? While the Leave campaign promised a more favorable business climate, the reality is that the UK’s fiscal position has become more constrained. Any subsidy to corporations must be balanced by taxes on the income of citizens, from cuts to pensions, or by further weakening the country’s fiscal position. Realize also that UK’s debt has been downgraded by rating agencies, and any non-GBP debt they have issued will now be more expensive to service (I’m not sure if they are net borrowers in non-GBP though. So this might have an opposite effect).
^ I’m not sure it’d be smart for anyone to be part of an economic union that would cut off its nose to spite it’s face. The EU needs trade with Britain. Eventually the emotional folks will move out of the way and the rationals will hammer out a trade deal that is best for both sides. By the way, the EU is in the final stages of negotiating a free trade agreement with Canada that is pretty liberal. The UK doesn’t need to be treated special. If they get a deal like CETA, and they should, they’ll be fine.
No, the U.K. needs the EU more than vice versa. Secondly, these deals aren’t always about a rational economic agenda. There’s a political and strategic agenda as well, and since the UK has fallen afoul of it, the EU needs to make a statement if it has any dignity. Giving the UK a sweet trade deal would be counter to the plan. That’s IF the EU takes itself seriously.
Not really surprising. Everyone who pushed the UK people to vote for Brexit, with no plan in place, are now quitting. Responsibility for our actions? Work? Yuk! We just wanted the easy job of yelling for change!
The UK’s economy is also smaller than the EU’s (like 20% or so). Therefore, any mutual reduction in trade will probably be more meaningful to the UK than to the EU. Also consider that, to some extent, UK and EU are competing for the business of certain multinational entities. Financial services is a good example; EU can now force banks to open offices in EU countries, draining tax revenue from London. Now that UK will no longer pay EU subscription fees, EU has a somewhat smaller stake in UK’s economic well being. The argument is not just about absolute level of trade, but who can take the most benefit from any new agreement at the other party’s expense.
