EU Vote

[Ginger]

No current politician, left or right, seems to be able to state truthfully what is best for the country. They are, almost without exception, a shameful shower who have visited immeasurable suffering to hard-working people whilst filling their own coffers.

Hear, hear! I am fed up to death with the Left and the Right both. I want someone who elevates national interests above anything else.

[Robert]

Cameron and Blair - two sides of the same counterfeit coin.

[Pcdunn]

Hear, hear! I am fed up to death with the Left and the Right both. I want someone who elevates national interests above anything else.

That would be nice. I suspect Trump will only elevate his own interests, frankly. But if his rhetoric resounds with you, go for it. Still a free country...

[Ginger]

That would be nice. I suspect Trump will only elevate his own interests, frankly. But if his rhetoric resounds with you, go for it. Still a free country...

As long as he destroys the current system, it will be a net gain, even if he can't build anything atop the rubble. I do honestly think that the man is far too vain to not want to be remembered as the best possible POTUS, though. He owes nothing to either party, has no favours to pay back, has no underlings for whom to pave the way. He's all about personal popularity. I think he's exactly what America needs.

[Robert]

An idle question : to the best of people's knowledge, and allowing for inflation, has any American President been as rich as Trump (before taking office, I mean)?

[Limehouse]

....and there ladies and gentlemen is possibly the best thing ever posted on the internet...

All in it for themselves or their mates no matter what Party they belong to. Bunch of selfish greedy liars... 'who will be blamed for nothing...'

Many thanks Geddy. It came from the heart, believe me.

[Mayerling]

An idle question : to the best of people's knowledge, and allowing for inflation, has any American President been as rich as Trump (before taking office, I mean)?

Hi Robert,

An idle, if detailed answer:

1) George Washington (possibly the richest man in Virginia in 1789 - 1799, when he died, and among the richest men in the 13 states).

2) Thomas Jefferson (also very wealthy when elected - but he was a compulsive spendthrift, and his love of literature and culture was enhanced by his being our Minister to France in the 1780s; he would eventually go bankrupt several times, have to sell his library to the nation to recreate the Library of Congress after the burning of Washington, and finally had to be rescued by a national lottery - it did not help matters he continued to spend like there was no tomorrow)

3) James Madison (also very wealthy - and, unlike Jefferson, not a spendthrift; unfortunately when he married Dolley Todd he inherited her son, Payne Todd who was a total wastrel; he had him through his Presidency, and even got him a government job as the "secretary" to our peace mission to Ghent that ended the War of 1812 - Payne didn't do much, but enjoyed the gambling hells and bordellos in Europe; after the Presidency he still had Todd, who did not help him much as the agricultural economy of Virginia hit a slump in the 1820s and 1830s; Madison died in 1836, and Dolley (who loved her son) made the mistake of putting him in charge of the remaining Madison estate. He ran it into the ground within four years. Fortunately Dolley remained a leading figure in Washington, D.C. society until her death in 1848.)

4) James Monroe (like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, a member of the upper crust planters of Virginia. He like Jefferson and Madison had huge expenses as government employees, and watched the agricultural decline of the early 19th Century; after his Presidency he left Virginia and moved to New YorK City living in Manhattan with his daughter and son-in-law; he also brought suit against the Federal government regarding money he spent on foreign diplomatic tours in France (he was involved in the diplomatic work leading to the Louisiana Purchase, and in the 1790s he plotted with Wolfe Tone and General Lazare Hoche for the French invasion of Ireland tied to Tone's revolt of 1798)).

5) Andrew Jackson (Not quite as rich as the Virginia dynasty, but he was a successful attorney, and land - plantation owner ("the Hermitage" in Nashville, Tennessee), before he turned to a military and political career. Eventually he returned to being a plantation owner. Once he did get into bad financial problems - in the banking collapse of 1796, he found the banks he dealt with calling in loans used for buying land - he survived, but he always mistrusted banks after that - which made his attack on the Second Bank of the United States understandable.).

6) William Henry Harrison (From an old Virginian plantation family - his father signed the Declaration of Independence. He settled in Ohio, and (after a brief flirtation with learning about medicine) he opted for a military and diplomatic (Grand Columbia under Simon Bolivar, whom he disliked), and political career. When not holding office he worked his plantation.)

7) John Tyler (Plantation owner in Virginia, when not holding public office (Governorship, U.S. Senator, Vice Presidency, Presidency), but after his Presidency he was the first President to head a Univiersity (William and Mary College; the others are James Garfield (Hiram College), Woodrow Wilson (Princeton University), Dwight Eisenhower (Columbia University)).

8) Zackary Taylor (Plantation owner in Louisiana - he was from Virginia, but spent most of his career as a soldier, fighting Osceola in the Florida Everglades, and then building up his reputation in the Mexican War, leading to his one political office as President.).

9) Theodore Roosevelt (family were in New York City society, but not the highest level - old Dutch family. His father was in the glass industry, and in the wake of the Chicago Fire of 1871 made a mint selling glass (for windows) in the rebuilding of that city; TR would never have real difficulties about money, but he married (twice) and had all six kids to care for. In 1888 his friend Henry Cabot Lodge got the editor of the American Statesman Series of biographies to give TR assignments for the biographies of Gouveneur Morris and Thomas Hart Benton. Roosevelt (in Lodge's words) "needed the money". TR would augment his living by writing ("The Naval War of 1812"; "The Winning of the West"; "Oliver Cromwell", his various books on his hunting trips) for the rest of his life. Fortunately, he was an excellent writer.)

10) Herbert Clark Hoover (an expert mining engineer (diploma from Stamford University), Hoover was involved in mining around the globe (he was in China in 1900, and involved in the defense against the Boxers); he was worth about $5 or $6 million dollars (in 1929 dollars) when elected. Ironically he always mistrusted stock investments on the Stock Exchange.))

11) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the Roosevelt family's upstate group - Franklin's father was a member of the Board of Directors of the Grand Central Railroad, and his mother Sarah Delano was from a wealthy family of traders in the China trade (historically, this was a bad thing, because Sarah's stories of life in China in the 1860s and 1870s colored Franklin's imagination, making him think himself an expert in Chinese affairs in the 1930s and 1940s when he barely understood them). In his years recovering (if at all) from his polio, he got involved in "investments" involving zeppelin lines across the U.S. - which never were built, and digging for the "Oak Island" treasure. At the time of the 1933 inauguration he was worth about the same as Hoover. He also was an avid stamp collector up to his death, but I don't know how much the collection was ever worth.)

12) John Fitzgerald Kennedy (after the death of his brother Joe Jr. in World War II, he is the oldest son of Joseph Kennedy Sr., Wall Street wizard (who got out of the market in September 1929); Joe set up multi-million dollar trust funds for all his sons and daughters. At the time of his Presidency J.F.K. is worth about $10 million dollars. Joe Sr., (reputedly) also set up a sum to encourage Jackie Bouvier to not divorce his son over his affairs (before and during Marilyn); Jackie, of course, would later marry Onassis for her children's security.).

13) Lyndon Baines Johnson (While born in straightened circumstances, Johnson was lucky enough to marry Lady Bird Johnson, who was wealthy, and owned a radio station among other properties. Johnson was able to concentrate on politics for most of his career as a result. Professionally he was a lawyer.).

14) George Herbert Walker Bush (His father Preston Bush was a Senator, but also a big wig in the oil industry; George Sr. was (like LBJ, and JFK) able to consider and pursue a career in public service as a result.)

15) George W. Bush (From inheritances, he too had a cushion of cash to float on. He even owned a baseball team ("Texas Rangers" I believe) for awhile. However he was not the best businessman. Many wonder if he was even a fair President.).

Those are the richest Presidents. Many of the others were "comfortable" as lawyers. Two (besides Jefferson) did go bankrupt, (Grant, who wrote his memoirs to leave an estate to his family - his money was lost in a stockbrokerage collapse caused by a crooked partner named Ferdinand Ward; Truman, whose clothing shop went belly up in 1922, would be a public servant unti 1953, and then a successful writer).

Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Who, or what, is 'the left'?

I don't define myself in relation to anyone. Stop telling me who I am and why I exist.

No current politician, left or right, seems to be able to state truthfully what is best for the country. They are, almost without exception, a shameful shower who have visited immeasurable suffering to hard-working people whilst filling their own coffers.

Yes you did. You somehow turned a discussion surrounding whether or not Britain should remain a part of the EU, into a choice between two Tories. And, that pretty much tells anyone what they need to know about your political bias. Only 'the left' in their ridiculous, unfathomable, impenetrable minds could possibly do this.

And, you know exactly what 'the left' is. You claim it as your political position when the cap fits.

And, furthermore, for you to claim at this juncture that 'left' and 'right' are equally liberal with the truth is bordering on the ridiculous given your posting history which pretty much amounts to: "two legs good; four legs bad".

Who ya trying to kid? You don't believe they're all 'a shameful shower'. You're a fully paid up member of 'the left' who repeats the party line verbatim, except in this case for some strange reason.

I grant you that the Tories are not my cup of tea, never voted for them and never will do, but I absolutely can't stand the 'left' because they'll say anything depending upon the occasion; just as you have you done here. At least Boris Johnson, whom you mentioned, has principles that he stands by, toff though he is.

[Robert]

Thanks Jeff. As usual, detailed but never idle.

[Limehouse]

Yes you did. You somehow turned a discussion surrounding whether or not Britain should remain a part of the EU, into a choice between two Tories. And, that pretty much tells anyone what they need to know about your political bias. Only 'the left' in their ridiculous, unfathomable, impenetrable minds could possibly do this.

And, you know exactly what 'the left' is. You claim it as your political position when the cap fits.

And, furthermore, for you to claim at this juncture that 'left' and 'right' are equally liberal with the truth is bordering on the ridiculous given your posting history which pretty much amounts to: "two legs good; four legs bad".

Who ya trying to kid? You don't believe they're all 'a shameful shower'. You're a fully paid up member of 'the left' who repeats the party line verbatim, except in this case for some strange reason.

I grant you that the Tories are not my cup of tea, never voted for them and never will do, but I absolutely can't stand the 'left' because they'll say anything depending upon the occasion; just as you have you done here. At least Boris Johnson, whom you mentioned, has principles that he stands by, toff though he is.

Since you know my posting history so well, you would know that I have challenged your sweeping lumping of 'the left' into one immoveable mass previously. 'The left' is made up of many factions (just like most political movements) and many shades and I am well to the centre and frequently challenge the 'party line' as you call it. It is certainly no secret that I am a socialist, but that certainly does not place me in the 'hard left' category and it does not mean that I respect all politicians who claim socialists leanings - with one or two exceptions.

My point about 'in with Cameron or out with Johnson' is a very valid one since they are both members of the party that is currently governing the country and, incidently, both members of the party that took us into the EEC (as it then was). Neither of them have a consistent record of thought when it comes to EU membership - and neither does Corbyn come to that.

Finally, I have previously, on several posts, referred to politicians as a shameful shower, referring to both the left and the right. I admire very few of them, even though I know several personally.

You don't know me. You don't know what has shaped me and continues to shape me so do not dare to tell me who I am and what I believe. It is because of people like you that I rarely venture on to this site any more and I am not going to discourse with you any further.

[Beowulf]

After reading a NYT article about E.U. warns Britain on "Brexit" you'll pay if you leave us" for myself, if someone were to threaten me against a decision I'm making, it makes me want to choose the one I'm being threatened to not do.

I know that is just human nature, and perhaps leaving really is a bad idea. I do not know at all. I'm not knowledgeable on this, but it makes me think the one threatening is the one who gains from my not doing it. Not me.

It's not often someone threatens one to stop doing something for THEIR good. Usually the 'threater' is made because they are losing something THEY want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/world/europe/britain-referendum-brexit-european-union.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Mayerling]

Since you know my posting history so well, you would know that I have challenged your sweeping lumping of 'the left' into one immoveable mass previously. 'The left' is made up of many factions (just like most political movements) and many shades and I am well to the centre and frequently challenge the 'party line' as you call it. It is certainly no secret that I am a socialist, but that certainly does not place me in the 'hard left' category and it does not mean that I respect all politicians who claim socialists leanings - with one or two exceptions.

My point about 'in with Cameron or out with Johnson' is a very valid one since they are both members of the party that is currently governing the country and, incidently, both members of the party that took us into the EEC (as it then was). Neither of them have a consistent record of thought when it comes to EU membership - and neither does Corbyn come to that.

Finally, I have previously, on several posts, referred to politicians as a shameful shower, referring to both the left and the right. I admire very few of them, even though I know several personally.

You don't know me. You don't know what has shaped me and continues to shape me so do not dare to tell me who I am and what I believe. It is because of people like you that I rarely venture on to this site any more and I am not going to discourse with you any further.

Actually Limehouse, although you are writing from the perspective of a resident of the United Kingdom, I know precisely how you feel. It is how I feel at the November Presidential choice of Hillary v. Donald. It is how I feel having worked for three decades in the New York State civil service, and seen the shenanigans involved in promotions by the appointed heads of agencies - a situation that most people never observe, but is so much an example that the old concept of "jobbery" still exists to this day - most likely in all countries. It also colors memories of how my agency was basically undercut by mismanagement, some of it planned by the favorites of former governor Cuomo [the first one] in a scheme to shelve us into a larger agency that did not handle what we handled (as an "economic" move - a better one would have been to cut executive salaries by 25% or so). I have less respect for elective officials now than I did when I began to work for the government, and it is due to what I experienced.

Jeff

[Svensson]

After reading a NYT article about E.U. warns Britain on "Brexit" you'll pay if you leave us" for myself, if someone were to threaten me against a decision I'm making, it makes me want to choose the one I'm being threatened to not do.

I know that is just human nature, and perhaps leaving really is a bad idea. I do not know at all. I'm not knowledgeable on this, but it makes me think the one threatening is the one who gains from my not doing it. Not me.

It's not often someone threatens one to stop doing something for THEIR good. Usually the 'threater' is made because they are losing something THEY want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/wo...=top-news&_r=0

I think this needs to be seen in the context that Britain has in the past been seen as a cherry-picker in the EU. They have special status on a number of issues and Cameron has negotiated further concessions from the EU back in February that will come into force if Britain votes to remain in the EU. What Schäuble, and many others are saying is that in the negotiations of the new status with the EU, there will be no special status for the UK. There are basically four options available to he UK and one of them can be negotiated.

"in is in" -> The UK will remain a member under the current system and the changes that Cameron has negotiated will be implemented.

"Out is Out" -> The UK can take up one of the options that already exist. The EU will not negotiate a "special option" for the UK (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf).

Yes, Schäuble is a tough bar-steward and he usually means what he says. This works both ways.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I think this needs to be seen in the context that Britain has in the past been seen as a cherry-picker in the EU. They have special status on a number of issues and Cameron has negotiated further concessions from the EU back in February that will come into force if Britain votes to remain in the EU. What Schäuble, and many others are saying is that in the negotiations of the new status with the EU, there will be no special status for the UK. There are basically four options available to he UK and one of them can be negotiated.

"in is in" -> The UK will remain a member under the current system and the changes that Cameron has negotiated will be implemented.

"Out is Out" -> The UK can take up one of the options that already exist. The EU will not negotiate a "special option" for the UK (http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf).

Yes, Schäuble is a tough bar-steward and he usually means what he says. This works both ways.

It also needs to be seen in the context of the EU as a political and legal union - that was always the intention on the part of the French and Germans.

It should also be noted that the people of this country voted to join due to the trade agreement, not as a road to political integration.

At this juncture we have no option but to leave for any person who believes in the sovereignty of this nation.

[Svensson]

I don't buy this whole "sovereignty" thing anyways. If anything, it is an emotive argument but reality is that absolute sovereignty does not exist in today's world. As soon as you are part of an organisation (i.e. the UN) you agree to be bound by its rules (for example, UN Human rights charter, etc). It means that a UN member no longer has the "sovereignty" to commit crimes against humanity, etc. If they do, they are hauled into a UN or ICC court that takes precedence over local courts. There is nothing wrong with that and I would even go a step further and applaud and support this.

On a smaller level, it also means that when you enter an agreement, there needs to be an arbiter in case conflict arises. It is there to protect both sides who take part in the agreement, or all 28 sides in case of the EU. This makes sure that the trade between all 28 countries is fair. For example, EU law forbids nationalisation of Services that are traded Europe-wide. In particular:

Gas, Electricity and Financial Services can be traded across the EU. A gas provider from Kent can buy their supplies from another provider in another EU country. The EU law does block state governments from nationalising gas suppliers and, with state subsidies, be able to undercut all other gas suppliers in Europe. So an EU law that has supremacy over national law is there to protect the European gas-market. Such a law is actually necessary for the free movement of goods and services to work, otherwise, there is no point to it.

And here is the thing: the EU works on those principles (as do other large trade areas, i.e. the United States) and if the UK wants to have access to this trade area after Brexit, they would still need comply with these rules, otherwise British Gas will not be allowed to trade in the EU. The only alternative to Brexit is to have no relationship with the EU at all and go down the road of hundreds of bilateral agreements.

Edit: And at a time when a US presidential candidate is openly talking about an immigration policy based on Religion or culture, (not nationality), talking about Racial profiling and where Ted Cruz has suggested that "Muslim Neighbourhoods must be secured" (whataever that means), I find it actually re-assuring that there is a higher legal entity to protect certain humanitarian areas from potential abuse by the state.