Surprising Brexit Vote But …

Posted by Tony on Jun 24, 2016 in POST | Comments Off on Surprising Brexit Vote But …

Not so surprising, when one thinks about it.
National sovereignty and identity are important and globalization is not working and won’t ever work for the people. That’s what everyone can take out of the Brexit vote.
I’ve been following the WSJ coverage and I was pretty sure that while it seemed close, Britain wouldn’t vote out of the EU.
Imagine my shock when I woke up at 2:15 a.m., having fallen asleep on the couch, to the news that the people voted to get out by nearly 2 percent with such a huge national turnout.
In the early 1990s, when I was on the radio in Boston, I thought the formation of the EU was a bad idea in the first place. Look, easing travel visas for the continent, global collectives for trade, etc., sure, a no-brainer. Those can all easily be done without an EU. But economic treason against your own people? Dumb. We have borders, living standards, and national identity for a reason. And while there is congruency between all nations there are also many problems that can’t be fixed by massive bureaucratic collectivism.
Below other comments about Brexit on Facebook this morning, this video popped up. It’s an effectively good long-form about the cost – and mess – that is the EU parliament. It would be good to open the eyes of Americans to do something like this here.
Although, we already have: Martin Gross wrote “The Government Racket: Washington Waste from A to Z,” in 1992, a shocking, line by line tome about money the government was wasting. Billions and billions and billions … I sent a copy to Vice President Al Gore after he was put in charge of “reinventing government” and said, simply, Start here. I got a nice, probably signed by an intern, letter back noting that he had received many copies of the book. Gross released an updated book in 2000. At that point, seven years of Clinton-Gore hadn’t changed a damn thing; it only got worse. Hilariously, in this video, the moderator is complaining about the $2 billion a year cost of the EUP. Our federal government spends half that every year – on new furniture. https://www.facebook.com/voteleave/videos/610353615808233/

A lot of people are already freaking out because the investor class is freaking out, the world will end, etc. Again, Britain probably shouldn’t have joined in the first place. And since when do the chattering liberals care about what “evil” Wall Street or “the rich” investor class thinks about anything? Short term pain for long term prosperity. Sometimes, you have to correct the wrong. And, yes, while Hillary Clinton should be freaking out right now, this has nothing to do with Donald Trump. People don’t want to live in fear and chaos and they are now; they know they are getting creamed by debt and lack of opportunity because of globalization, free trade, millions of unskilled workers being allowed into the United States to compete for fewer and fewer jobs against our low skilled workers, etc.
I’ve been saying this for decades: If we want to help the world’s poor, it’s cheaper and easier for the first world to not have open borders but, instead, assist the third world where they are, to bring up their standards, and create economic prosperity through freedom and rights.
But that’s not what big corporations and the rich people that control both private political bodies in our country want. The powers that be know that they will never be able to deliver our standard of living – phone service, cable, Internet, and utilities at $300 a month, $20K family health care plans, etc. – to the third world. That was the originally plan – if we can bring them up, we can sap all their earnings and make them debt slaves, too. But it’s not possible – there is just not enough money or resources.
Instead, the only way to enrich themselves, is to lower the first world standards of living to the third world. Holly Sklar wrote about this in 1980 in her book “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management.” It stands the test of time. She was right on the money.

UPDATE, here’s the breakdown and percentage of turnout: Note, the United States hasn’t seen 72.2 percent in an election since 1900: