BREXIT followed by SWEXIT and DENEXIT

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, without an increase to meet population increases you have problems. 1840s USA had this issue with lack of coins I believe, then the 1849 gold rush solved that.

There was a reduction in cash over a 70 year period, despite population growth.

Quote: Based on Calling in the Big Bills, 1976

From the 1863 National Banking Act during the civil war until 1928, when cost-cutting measures were taken to reduce the federal reserve note to the size it is today increased urbanization, the demand for cash was reduced. At the end of the Civil War, there was about $80 in currency in the United States for each $100 of demand deposits. By 1929 this ratio had declined to $15 per $100.

After that you would think with the rise of real incomes, the invention of credit cards, and the automatic withholding of taxes, union dues, and pension and medical fees would have reduced the demand for cash even further. By 1958 the ratio had reached $25 per $100, and by 1974, $31.32 per $100, close to its 1895 level. ‘The real value (in 1967 consumer prices) of currency per capita in the United States has risen from $78.64 in 1929 to $248.38 in 1975, while the real value per capita of denominations of $50 or more has risen from $20.55 to $90.47. In other words, even eliminating inflation, the average American has almost five times as much money in large bills as he or she did 46 years ago.

The 1976 article came after the Nixon shock, and the elimination of all the $500, $1000, $5000 and $10000 banknotes in 1969 (even though none of these notes had been produced after 1945 and were all from series 1928 or 1934 & 1934A. After the Nixon shock, the production of $100 bills had increased until there was roughly 1 notes per capita in circulation by 1976. The article was the first widely published article to call for elimination of the $100 bill as a crime prevention measure. The author is still alive today.

Since then there has been very little correlation with population growth and inflation. In 1999 the legacy banknotes of the future Eurozone were collectively worth €380 billion. Although there has been some small population growth mostly by adding some small countries there is well over a trillion Euros circulating with over €300 billion in the €500 Euro alone. Only Sweden is actively reducing cash, and Norway is more or less keeping steady. Other than that, the world is awash in fiat currency.

But part of the reason is that Sweden has the highest negative interest rates in the world. Although cash is normally expensive for banks, in Sweden is ridiculously expensive. While normally a bank gets some interest on the cash it deposits with the central bank, negative interest rates means it has to pay for the privelage of storing cash overnight. Coupled with the reduced insurance rates and security expenses because of reduced danger of bank robberies, the banks do not want to deal with any cash at all. But that requires the cooperation of the government which normally requires banks to hold a specified percentage of cash (like casino tables). So the government and the banks are each contributing to the decimation of cash. The official reason is to protect the currency from speculators who would drive it to unsustainable high exchange rates with other currencies, but the Euro in particular.

But I think one of the hidden reasons is to control an increasingly diversifying population.

Now UK wants an election do over, 2 mil have
signed a petition in to hold the election again.
What a bunch of sore losers, 'leave' won by a
few million votes, it wasn't that close. I don't
think they quite understand how this works.

Quote: Evenbob

Now UK wants an election do over, 2 mil have signed a petition in to hold the election again.

The number of signatures means that parliament must debate the issue, but they are very unlikely to hold a second referendum with a 60% threshold to cross.

As David Lammy points out the alternative is simply to ignore the referendum as it does not actually obligate parliament to do anything.



http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR

Leave won by 1.3 million. Not a 'few million'. It's a significant number, but not 'a few'.

They should still follow through with the wishes of the referendum, because that's the point of calling it. The Leave platform was based on lies, half truths and fear. There may indeed be good reasons to leave bundle up in there, but it's quite clear that the Leave Tories used the NHS (which they wish to dismantle) as a bargaining chip in the debate.

The petition is a nonsense. The fact some people said "I voted leave, but figured they wouldn't win..." probably shouldn't be allowed to vote again (irony). But the parliament should stand by the vote until such a point parliament can't operate and they need call a general election. And even then, the new government should be bound by the democratic vote, as unpalatable it is to many.

Cos, that is how it works.

As for borders.... the open borders policy in the EU is -between- countries not into the EU... the restriction on economic immigration into the EU zone are quite tough, and many of the world Socialists view those rules as a good reason to leave the EU. The Leave Tories have already said they don't expect that immigration numbers to change much.

The lack of an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is going to reverberate for a while. I'm not sure how they untie that knot now... the free movement is big factor in the peace between the Unionists and the Republicans. And no, the answer is not NI becoming part of the Republic... that's unpalatable to the Unionists.

Fun times. I have friends over there now looking for ways of moving abroad... and many worried about their jobs (especially the UK nationals working abroad or with half their business in the EU... or their wives and husbands being Europeans).

Personally, I thought the UK had a pretty good deal in the EU and had taken the integration to about the right point, and avoided the craziness of the single currency. Oh well.

I saw a UK resident on the news say
they were paying a ton of money
to Brussels, with Germany and France
and the more successful countries,
to basically prop up the rest of the
EU. So they could have 7 hour work
days, 4 day work weeks, 6 weeks
vacations and every holiday known
to man off from work. You can only
do that for so long till the people
paying for want out.

Quote: TheCesspit

The lack of an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is going to reverberate for a while. I'm not sure how they untie that knot now... the free movement is big factor in the peace between the Unionists and the Republicans. And no, the answer is not NI becoming part of the Republic... that's unpalatable to the Unionists.

Why can't that border be negotiated independently of the rest of the EU? Surely the EU doesn't expect tons of illegal immigrants to come from Belfast.

Maybe it's EU policy. Like once Belfast to Dublin is allowed to be an open border, than Gdańsk to Kaliningrad will be next.

Quote: AZDuffman

You seem to be missing what is happening. 10 years may be short, but 20 is not. And they do want their own law in their own no-go zones. Every time this is proven the left goes nuts. It does not matter that "not all" want something since you can find 1 and "not all" is correct. But you get 15-20% of a population that wants Sharia any it is demonstrated that you get violence and unrest. Europe is quite probably waking up to all of this too late, but we can hope.

I'm not missing anything actually. The statement was made that in 10 years they would be under Sharia, presumably due to increase in the percentage of Muslims. This is utterly absurd. They make up less than 10% in the whole of Europe and less than 5% in the EU. Perhaps you can tell us how many years it would take to get to a majority? Let's even assume they have 5 million refugees flooding in every year (which of course they won't). How many years does it take to get to 50%? Then perhaps you can tell us what would be the process for Sharia to be legally recognised in a secular state. I'll give you a hint, it won't be.


I'm not talking about just one Muslim who doesn't want sharia. Perhaps you should do some research on the subject. A simple google search will take you to any number of surveys and studies. I'm guessing you won't bother though. The truth doesn't fit the hysteria you've been whipped into does it?

Quote: Aussie

I'm not talking about just one Muslim who doesn't want sharia. Perhaps you should do some research on the subject. A simple google search will take you to any number of surveys and studies. I'm guessing you won't bother though. The truth doesn't fit the hysteria you've been whipped into does it?

The truth is as they reach 10-15% of a population, real problems begin. The truth is no-go zones have formed in many places. They ghettoize. They do not need a majority. I have posted links on sexual assaults by hordes of young muslim men on local women as well as other violence. Dearborn, MI has more crime than 4 of 5 cities.

You can post all the feel-good surveys and studies you like and you are correct if you believe I will not read them. I see reality. I have met people that muslims tried to kill simply for not being muslim. Deniers always bring up the "not all muslims" meme. Well, most Europeans never even saw an Indian. Look how that worked out.

Stick your head in the sand at your own risk.

Quote: Pacomartin

Why can't that border be negotiated independently of the rest of the EU? Surely the EU doesn't expect tons of illegal immigrants to come from Belfast.

Maybe it's EU policy. Like once Belfast to Dublin is allowed to be an open border, than Gdańsk to Kaliningrad will be next.

Probably will be, but there are certain parts of the EU deal that means border controls are the same... because once inside a EU country you have free movement across the member states. So an easing of the borders with NI would have repercussions. And as the UK -seems- to want to take a tougher stance on immigration, the same thing applies... any easing of border controls there would mean a route in for the illegal immigrants. The UK has always a different take on the border though than the rest of the EU, so I am sure they will solve it some how.

It's just one more thing... and there's a lot of them. All the UK passports will need reissuing as well.

Quote: TheCesspit

All the UK passports will need reissuing as well.

Why? Unless they were an EU passport, which does not exist AFIK, it is still a British passport.