The “leave” campaign was built on lies
The leave campaign to force Brexit was built on a set of lies, such as the claim that leaving the EU would free up 350 million pounds a week for the NHS. This was an imaginary number pulled out of thin air, as virtually everyone now agrees. There will be little or no benefit to the UK Treasury.
Today another lie was exposed. Leave campaigners like Boris Johnson assured us that the UK would remain within the EU single market. Theresa May has now admitted that it will be a hard Brexit, with Britain leaving the single market as well as the EU customs union. Of course there is talk of setting up new trade arrangements (which I applaud), but that’s all very speculative.
It’s no surprise that the campaign was based on lies, that’s standard operating procedure for right-wing nationalist/populist campaigns. Trump did exactly the same. Here is a typical Trump lie:
“The EU was formed, partially, to beat the United States on trade, OK?” he asked rhetorically. “I don’t really care whether it’s separate or together.”
And here’s what really happened:
After World War II, the United States and its allies attempted to create a new world — one defined by rules and order, in which such a devastating war could never happen again.
Do you recall those dystopian novels where they postulate a history where the US lost WWII, and is a colony of Germany and Japan? I feel sort of like we’ve entered one of those, where a Russian agent has become President of the United States:
Donald Trump just lobbed a grenade into the normally staid world of European-American diplomacy, using a joint interview with two of Europe’s biggest newspapers to call NATO “obsolete,” predict that the European Union would fall apart and announce that the US wouldn’t really care if it did, and threaten to potentially start a trade war with Germany over BMW’s plans to build a manufacturing plant in Mexico. . . .
Bashing NATO and the European Union, and alienating Germany, is a plan for tearing apart US relations with the EU — for weakening the agreements that underpin America’s status as the sole superpower and that maintain peace on the European continent.
It also means that Trump is talking about radically reshaping US foreign policy in a way that would significantly boost Putin’s influence while leaving America’s allies scrambling to figure out where they stand and how much they can trust in the future stability of an international system that has brought unprecedented economic strength and stability to the continent for decades.
“What Trump proposes is [American] geopolitical suicide,” Daniel Nexon, a professor at Georgetown who studies great power politics, writes at the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog. “Make no mistake: you should be very worried right now.”
The article then points out how Trump is undermining the economic, political and military agreements that have led to the best period of world history since 1945. It concludes with this warning.
There is only country that benefits from all of these moves: Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Putin’s fundamental foreign policy goal is to restore Russia’s place as one of the world’s most powerful and influential nations. To do so, he wants to restore global politics to the way it was in the 19th century — when European countries saw each other as rivals rather than partners. This kind of “balance of power” world order would allow Russia to divide European powers by forming selective partnerships with some against the others — thus restoring Russian greatness.
Putin’s Russia is too weak, in political and military terms, to accomplish this on its own. The logical end point of Trump’s stated policies, regardless of whether that’s what he intends, is a fractured Europe that would be far less capable of standing up to Putin.
“Every [foreign policy] position Trump takes, starting from total ignorance around [a] year ago, is on Putin’s wish list,” Garry Kasparov, the Russian chess master and dissident, tweets. “Brexit, Ukraine, NATO, EU, Merkel.”
Trump’s stated policy ideas, if implemented, would have the effect of accomplishing much of what Putin has dreamed of, but that the Russian leader may have never have thought possible.
Now, with Trump taking office in a few days, it all seems very frighteningly real. Trump is proposing isolating America from its allies, and isolating these allies from each other. The only power that benefits is Russia, perhaps America’s most significant strategic rival. There is a country that Trump may soon make great again. The problem is that it’s not the US.
We now live in a bizarre alternate reality where Merkel is treated like an enemy and Putin is treated like a friend. Is this what Americans were voting for? On the other hand, you can’t say voters weren’t warned.
Remember those people who said Trump’s campaign was just an act, and that he’d be “Presidential” after the election? Trump may not be a Russian secret agent, but he is sure doing a good job or impersonating one. Some people say that maybe Trump is smarter than the rest of us. Maybe he has a secret plan to fix what’s wrong with the world. Yeah, that’s possible. But it’s also possible that he’s exactly what he seems, a complete lunatic.
PS. Here’s Tyler Cowen:
A willingness to think things through from scratch is in some ways admirable, but dangerous in matters of foreign policy and nuclear weapons, where predictability is at a premium.
Also dangerous when tinkering with the pro-trade consensus that has served the world so well since 1945.
PPS. I’m now going on record predicting that Trump’s promise to abolish Obamacare will be exposed as a lie, within 12 months. I also don’t expect to get the tax cut he promised me.
Tags:
17. January 2017 at 09:46
Funny the RSS feed has more text than the blog itself. There is a P.S. in the RSS feed…
17. January 2017 at 09:54
“I feel sort of like we’ve entered one of those, where a Russian agent has become President of the United States:”
-Actually, peace with Russia is good.
“After World War II, the United States and its allies attempted to create a new world — one defined by rules and order, in which such a devastating war could never happen again.”
-That explains the Cuban Missile Crisis.
“The article then points out how Trump is undermining the economic, political and military agreements that have led to the best period of world history since 1945.”
-Tell that to the people of Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine.
“We now live in a bizarre alternate reality where Merkel is treated like an enemy and Putin is treated like a friend. Is this what American’s were voting for?”
-Yes. I would not like a German puppet in the White House.
“Trump may not be a Russian secret agent, but he is sure doing a good job or impersonating one.”
-Actually, peace with Russia is good.
“Also dangerous when tinkering with the pro-trade consensus that has served the world so well since 1945.”
-Actually, the Mexican economy has continued to fall behind America’s since NAFTA came into effect. But don’t tell Trump or the anti-Trumpists that.
17. January 2017 at 09:59
The Leave campaign was built on truths: that Canada and Switzerland aren’t pining to join the EU, that the EU was an undemocratic institution with Brussels as an imperialist power, that Britain was paying more to the EU than it was receiving from it, and that the threat of Turkish migration alone more than justified Leave.
17. January 2017 at 10:02
“PPS. I’m now going on record predicting that Trump’s promise to abolish Obamacare will be exposed as a lie, within 12 months. I also don’t expect to get the tax cut he promised me.”
-I predict the opposite. Remember, you said there was NO CHANCE Trump could win the Republican nomination. I said in March the only electable GOP candidates in the general were Trump and Kasich.
17. January 2017 at 10:36
Well, Merkel is the enemy. So let’s get rid of her fast. I would endure ten Trumps to get rid of one Merkel.
17. January 2017 at 11:17
I thought Tyler Cowen had a very interesting take on Germany’s relationship with Russia and how its prior leader effectively put them at Putin’s mercy.
I always thought the EU was simply the 3rd 2oth century attempt by Germany to “take over” Europe. Obviously, it did so by persuasion and not war….still.
I could have sworn you have said you were originally opposed to the single EU. Perhaps I remember incorrectly. In any event, I am “shocked” that politicians lie (“if you like your doctor……”)—although I am only taking you at your word the Brexit crowd “lied”.
I did not follow the details of the campaign, but I always assumed they would seek complete separation.
17. January 2017 at 11:38
Harding, You said:
“The Leave campaign was built on truths: that Canada and Switzerland aren’t pining to join the EU”
Do you actually know anything about European politics? Switzerland is in the single market. The Leave idiots said Britain would be as well. Today May admitted that the UK would be outside the single market. The UK would be lucky if they could have a Swiss type deal. If you plan to keep commenting here, then please pay attention to what is going on.
Christian, Some day you’ll find out that Putin is the real enemy and Merkel is now the leader of the free world.
Matthew, You said:
“I thought Tyler Cowen had a very interesting take on Germany’s relationship with Russia and how its prior leader effectively put them at Putin’s mercy.”
Schröder is of course a fool, but Germany is not at Russia’s mercy, indeed Merkel is a strong critic of Putin. Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia.
You said:
“I could have sworn you have said you were originally opposed to the single EU. Perhaps I remember incorrectly.”
Yeah, your memory is incorrect. Of course you are also wrong about the EU being a German plot to control Europe, which is beyond silly.
Here’s a suggestion. Don’t “swear” you know something, if your memory is that bad.
You said:
“I did not follow the details of the campaign, but I always assumed they would seek complete separation.”
What you “always assumed” is not very relevant is it? Isn’t what matters what the Leave campaign promised?
You said:
“I am “shocked” that politicians lie”
This is the sort of remark I get from commenters that later tell me they plan to vote for candidate X because he promises Y. You mean you believe the candidate?!?!?
17. January 2017 at 11:38
E. Harding,
Millions voted for Brexit because they wanted a larger social safety net. These were the Trump voters who wanted to get the government out of Medicare.
17. January 2017 at 12:23
If the GOP reads the CBO reports, you are probably correct.
http://www.businessinsider.com/congressional-budget-office-report-on-obamacare-repeal-2017-1
17. January 2017 at 12:40
Christian, Some day you’ll find out that Putin is the real enemy and Merkel is now the leader of the free world.
Don’t lecture me about Putin please. I know that Putin is the enemy since day one. I knew it when Merkel’s predecessor called him his best buddy and “flawless democrat”. I knew it when Merkel mumbled about the “special relationship” and “strategic partnership” with Putin and Russia in 2007. I knew it when Obama called for a fresh start with Putin in 2008, implying that Bush was being an idiot and way too hard on Putin. I knew it when the whole press and Obama ridiculed Romney for saying that Putin’s Russia is still the “number one geopolitical foe”. It was Obama, Merkel and the 95% of the whole press that have been terrible wrong all these years, not me.
And no, Merkel is not the leader of anything. She couldn’t find a way out of a wet paper bag. She couldn’t find her own buttcheeks with both hands, a roadmap, and a flashlight.
@Cooper
I think millions voted for Brexit because they were deeply disturbed by a very chaotic open-door immigration policy without any adequate controls in mainland Europe. Even Soros said so.
17. January 2017 at 12:43
Scott,
When Obama won, in 2012 (I bet you he’d lose), I had to to DRAMATICALLY update my priors:
http://www.morganwarstler.com/post/35294985965/fiscal-crisis-giant-central-state
You won me over to NGDPLT bc it would reduce Fiscal Crises, bc with massive Fiscal Crisis we could have DC grow: See Obamacare.
—-
But Scottie my boy, Trump has come riding in and put some smart chips of mine back on table…
—-
Note: the purpose of the Euro, from Mundell himself, was to FORCE Greece to become South Carolina.
THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO MAKE EU EVEN MORE LIKE US THAN THE US IS HERSELF – TO BECOME AMERICA PRE-1913.
Re-read that.
The Euro states were to lose the ability to print money and NOT gain a strong EU govt.
Part of that is BREXIT and assorted threats… the Europeans “state” governments get to compete productivity gains (labor), welfare (less is MOAR), but share trade deals, and currency, labor goes where jobs are, lazy go where welfare is…
THAT is the why of the EU.
Finally, BREXIT is not forever, it does’t even if have to be for sure…
BUT FIRST! Trump will put UK to front of line and give it all the free trade juice it needs to stand against and beat EU (GermanY) into submission…. as UK becomes more US like…
This will force the EU DC-wannabe bureaucrats to EAT SH*T and become unto us… let them pay for NATO, ha!
We can help it further along by letting our Putin does Aleppo because we ca’t be that mean ourselves PERHAPS move Russia into a long term – “Hey we can kick hell out of a bureaucratic EU!” play.
Now has Putin given up on being the mob? Not yet likely.
but can he be given a way to secure his $50B and go legit?
Why not?
Lot of smart free market thinkers coming up in ranks of Millennial USSR states. So many coders! So many engineers! No one them long for communism and none of them prefer the mob to becoming US like.
We don’t have to nation build Soviet states, they are not Islamic weirdos.
The problem with you Scott, is you feel more comfortable with a bunch of EU bureaucrats stealing from their betters. than you do with Tony Soprano.
Normal people do not.
Trump is normal person.
He gets we can fix Tony, or at least Tony knows he ca’t killt he golden goose.
17. January 2017 at 13:00
WE WIN
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boom-trump-eyes-10-spending-cuts-20-slash-of-federal-workers/article/2612037
Making good on a promise to slash government, President-elect Trump has asked his incoming team to pursue spending and staffing cuts.
Insiders said that the spending reductions in some departments could go as high as 10 percent and staff cuts to 20 percent, numbers that would rock Washington if he follows through.
17. January 2017 at 13:16
You were against the Euro—a minor detail apparently—-to not being against the EU. So I apologize for conflating the two. You can be an annoying wise guy.
“Just to be clear, I am not endorsing the euro. The system is what it is. It’s a bad system precisely because we cannot trust central banks to do the right thing. And in a world where central banks don’t do the right thing, individual countries need the flexibility to devalue or revalue”. Scot Sumner, June 20th, 2015 on Econolog
So you were for the Maastricht treaty but against the Euro—sorry that my memory failed me. How can you have been for one and not the other?
And Germany and France were the drivers—-And when Le Pen wins the Germans will have lost for the third time.
17. January 2017 at 13:16
“Some day you’ll find out that Putin is the real enemy and Merkel is now the leader of the free world.”
-Some day you’ll find out that Merkel is the real enemy and Putin is now the leader of the free world. Who’s harboring Snowden? Not Merkel.
“Switzerland is in the single market.”
-I know. Did I say a word to the contrary? And you didn’t even say a word about my mention of Canada. I can assure you Switzerland is not seeking to join the EU and would still not be seeking to join the EU if it was out of the Single Market.
“The Leave idiots said Britain would be as well.”
-So Farage is not a “Leave idiot”?
http://www.cityam.com/235159/eu-referendum-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-doesnt-want-to-be-part-of-the-european-single-market
“If you plan to keep commenting here, then please pay attention to what is going on.”
-Your blog, your rules. But, remember, I always pay attention to what is going on. The least you can do is not be hypocritical, especially in your ignorance of the “Leave idiots”‘ lack of consensus on the Single Market issue.
“Russia needs Europe more than Europe needs Russia.”
-Russia can sell oil to China, which is a larger economy than Europe. Europe is not going to find an easy time readjusting if the pipelines from Russia are closed.
“Of course you are also wrong about the EU being a German plot to control Europe, which is beyond silly.”
-No; he’s right.
17. January 2017 at 13:55
Of course you are also wrong about the EU being a German plot to control Europe, which is beyond silly. -No; he’s right.
So Harding which German mastermind is plotting all this? Sumner is right, you are beyond silly again.
I think the predecessor of the EU was a French idea in order to establish mutual controls of the steel industries so that hidden German rearmament was impossible. And the Euro was a French idea as well, when I remember correctly. It was the French condition for allowing German reunification and Kohl was stupid enough to comply (he never cared about economics). That’s the opposite of being a mastermind, it’s being king for a day and fool for a lifetime.
I did forget though that France wasn’t part of NATO for so long. So at least I learnt something new here today which is nice. Thank you for that, I mean it.
17. January 2017 at 14:00
The “leave” campaign was built on lies
I think that’s propaganda. I think the lies were pretty evenly split between both political camps.
17. January 2017 at 15:28
it will be a hard Brexit, with Britain leaving the single market as well as the EU customs union.
How is that lying? There’s not a single relevant British politician who wants this. It’s people like Merkel who want this and they are forcing it on Britain to the harm of both sides.
17. January 2017 at 15:31
Good post. I admit that I find such bold lies disturbing.
17. January 2017 at 16:15
I am shocked, shocked, that politicians spin the truth. The Brits are smart to value their sovereignty and to get out while the getting is good. The E.U. is dysfunctional and its failure is inevitable. Half the countries think the German banks have done what the German tanks could not do. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
17. January 2017 at 16:43
@Christian
-Turns out France was “out of NATO” militarily from 1966 until 2009. That’s why it hardly has any active-duty U.S. troops in it. Politically, though, France continued to remain a part of NATO throughout that period.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7938191.stm
Sorry if I didn’t state that clearly.
Yes; France’s leadership was also a big proponent of European integration throughout the 20th century, but European integration still ended up benefiting Germany more. That’s why Frexit would probably win if a referendum was ever allowed on it, while Deutschexit would never pass.
17. January 2017 at 16:53
Morgan, Don’t believe everything you read.
Matthew, You said:
“You were against the Euro—a minor detail apparently—-to not being against the EU.”
Euro, EU, what’s the difference? I really have some moronic commenters here.
17. January 2017 at 17:44
Funny how Sumner never writes about the lies behind the GROWTH of states.
L.I.N.O.
17. January 2017 at 17:49
It is of course because Sumner cannot perceive the lies as they encourage his own bias. Here is an example of a typical lie about why the EU was formed:
“After World War II, the United States and its allies attempted to create a new world — one defined by rules and order, in which such a devastating war could never happen again.”
See that? No mention of greed, power, and control. No, we’re told these lies about benevolent peaceniks.
17. January 2017 at 17:52
“…in a bizarre alternate reality where Merkel is treated like an enemy…”
That is not “bizarre”. Merkel is a globalist. Globalism is the greater enemy than Nationalism.
Summer is out of touch with reality.
17. January 2017 at 18:14
Why the EU was formed:
https://mises.org/library/european-union-anti-european
17. January 2017 at 19:08
Putin rules the world!
Trump is in his pocket.
Tyler Cowen has long post that Putin had “Gerhard Schröder, who in essence ended up as a paid agent of Vladimir Putin” running Germany, and Germany has been hopelessly compromised ever since as they buy natural gas from Russia.
And Bloomberg intones: “Bromance Between Xi and Putin Grows as U.S. Spats Escalate”
So Putin runs Trump, has Germany hopelessly compromised, and is BFF-bromancing Chinese President Xi.
Maybe we should be glad we are on the inside looking out with Putin, rather than on the outside looking in.
Putin is one crafty dude!
17. January 2017 at 19:31
Scott hasn’t been keeping up with the memes; we are in an alternate reality: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38635518
17. January 2017 at 19:48
Given the advocacy of free trade, if the UK would benefit from being in the EU market, doesn’t that mean the EU is practicing sub-optimal trade?
The EU needs to die a resounding death. Just because Leave isn’t the greatest thing in the world doesn’t change that fact.
17. January 2017 at 20:19
morgan s warstler makes good points in the link to the Washington Examiner, but like Sumner says, don’t believe all you read as I doubt Trump can slash 10% of DC bureaucracy (he hasn’t the power to do so, without Congress) and build up the military, which benefits the Midwest. I personally would hate DC being slashed since our DC area real estate would suffer. Reagan and Bush could afford to do DoD buildups since they had a broader mandate. That said, if the economy does well maybe Trump will get a mandate to do what he wants, like have allies pay more for military protection, build a (virtual) wall, import tariffs and the like. The economy recall is not under the control of the president, so it’s simply good luck if the economy improves under Trump’s watch.
Sumner is concerned about Obamacare and a tax cut, but he really should predict something insane will happen with Trump, like the use of nuclear weapons vs a rogue state like North Korea. Trump is deranged; I see symptoms of megalomania.
17. January 2017 at 20:55
If Trump is serious about controlling spending, he’ll push to rescind the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. I don’t expect him to.
17. January 2017 at 23:38
The UK pays almost L250m a week, so it is an exaggeration rather than a lie. (And the UK doesn’t control the money it gets back, so talking about the net number is also somewhat misleading.)
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/
And getting “hard” Brexit rather than “soft” is more about how things have played out since, so again not sure it counts as a lie.
And if we are counting getting things wrong, the gloom and disaster predicted by the Remain campaign is not looking accurate.
For a sense of the Leave campaign from the inside, see this post:
https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/
His posts are often really essays, full of informed perspectives you don’t get elsewhere. (It is the best blog on politics I have come across.)
18. January 2017 at 02:03
Lorenzo – very good points. The claims of economic disaster of Brexit were a lot more questionable than the claims for the benefits.
I think Scott you are making a mistake equating Brexit with Trumpism. Some parts of it are definitely related, but, although I was for remain, there are definitely respectable arguments for the UK leaving the EU, which don’t rely on nationalism, or anti-immigration or other alt-right factors, but more on local decision making, disgust at the waste and corruption associated with the EU (not the central bureaucracy but the funding of such things like CAP) and the protectionist nature of the overall EU venture (ironically demonstrated by the EU initial response to Brexit). These are real sentiments by many principled people, and it is just not acceptable for people to pretend they don’t exist or their opinions don’t count (especially when they are in the majority).
My expected scenario is that during the negotiations on Brexit, the EU and the UK agrees to accept a sensible Brexit deal where the UK has a special relationship with the EU, maybe including trade benefits, some free movement of labor and some funding into a central fund. This wouldn’t be so bad at all and maybe it would actually lead to some needed reforms of the EU itself. Trying to block the negotiations from happening isn’t going to work when there is this highly attractive alternative compromise solution.
And everyone, please drop the “Putin would love the destruction of the EU so stop Brexit” nonsense. We should not be testing everything against whether or not it benefits Putin, that’s like ascribing Marvel comics evil superpowers to the guy. Its giving him too much respect and worse and it prevent sensible dialogue. Let’s treat people as sincere in their motivations unless otherwise proven.
18. January 2017 at 02:17
“After World War II, the United States and its allies attempted to create a new world — one defined by rules and order, in which such a devastating war could never happen again.”
And this involved
“From 1945 the United States attempted to overthrow at least 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.” (Thanks to William Blum’s Rogue State, Common Courage Press, 2005).
18. January 2017 at 02:30
Also I agree Lorenzo on Cummings blog, it was new to me. This is one of the benefits of the internet blogging system, we can see the thinking of the decision makers unintermediated by the media.
18. January 2017 at 02:41
Germany has been hopelessly compromised ever since as they buy natural gas from Russia.
Germany buys natural gas from Russia since forever. Even during the most critical phases of the cold war the gas trade was always going on, simply because the Russians need to sell as least as much as Germany needs to buy. It’s a mutual dependency.
It’s true that Schröder and Merkel lead a very populist crusade against nuclear power (and Merkel against coal as well) – and so they increased the dependency on Putin even further.
It’s also true that there are many pro-Putin, pro-Russian parties in Germany. The Left Party is nearly 100% pro Russia, the Social Democrats and the AfD are like 60-80% pro Russia (and anti-American). Within Merkel’s party and the Green party it’s about 50:50 (and the Green Party is about 60-80% anti-American as well).
18. January 2017 at 02:54
Scott,
The year 2016 might as well have been a repeat of 1914, as the saying goes, history repeating itself as farce, after the tragedy first time around. In wwI the Western imperial powers proceeded to self immolate and lost their empires as a consequence. Starting with 2016 the West now commits economic and political suicide in the wake of unprecedented success.
What I am really surprised at is the absence of any leader with a clue in the West, except Merkel of course, but she had too much to shoulder to break through the wall of self absorbed morons that rule almost any Western country now. There is not a shred of geopolitical instinct or vision in any Western capital. Not to mention the nationalistic navel gazers in your comments section. The teams of well rounded pros in Moscow and Beijing are laughing all the way to the bank while Western countries keep voting for their respective village idiots. Which, by the way, is causing another big loss of Western influence: It destroys the reputation of liberal democracy. Asia shudders in the way of “Told you so. THAT is what you get if you actually let people vote”.
18. January 2017 at 03:46
Scotty, are you willing to consider that, as an autist, you easily fall for scams ?
Such as – I’m just giving an example – the Cathedral pushing for conflict for Russia ?
18. January 2017 at 04:14
Both sides clearly said that Brexit would mean single market exit. See this compilation of clips saying just that: https://youtu.be/HEDnB0raTQQ
18. January 2017 at 04:16
Both sides clearly said that Brexit would mean single market exit. See this compilation of clips saying just that: https://youtu.be/HEDnB0raTQQ starting around 5 mins
18. January 2017 at 04:30
From Politico–
Kissinger, a longtime Putin confidant, sidles up to Trump
America’s pre-eminent ex-diplomat gets back in the mix. Could he help broker a deal with Russia?
By NAHAL TOOSI AND ISAAC ARNSDORF 12/24/16, 2:34 PM CET Updated 12/30/16, 2:04 PM CET
Back in the 1990s, Henry Kissinger, the legendary former U.S. secretary of state-turned-global consultant, encountered an intriguing young Russian and proceeded to ask him a litany of questions about his background.
“I worked in intelligence,” Vladimir Putin finally told him, according to “First Person,” a 2000 autobiography cobbled together from hours of interviews with the then-unfamiliar Russian leader. To which Kissinger replied: “All decent people got their start in intelligence. I did, too.”
As Putin climbed the ranks in the Kremlin, eventually becoming the autocratic president he is today, he and Kissinger kept up a warm rapport even as the United States and Russia grew further apart. Kissinger is one of the few Americans to meet frequently with Putin, one former U.S. ambassador recently recalled — along with movie star Steven Seagal and ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, the likely next secretary of state.”
—30—
I am disappointed not to see Steven Seagul somewhere in the Trump mix.
But this guy Putin–friends with Trump, ruling Germany through an agent, best pals with President Xi, buddies with Kissinger…is there anyone he is not chummy with, aside from Hillary Clinton?
18. January 2017 at 04:48
The Russian economy is smaller than the Italian, Canadian and South Korean economies. Russian prosperity since the turn of the century is built on energy exports, hence heavily dependent on trade.
They do have nuclear weapons, but what are they good for? Leaving aside their presumed utility to terrorists, what threat do nuclear weapons in the hands of sane people pose? Having them insures you won’t be directly attacked in a major way by another country, but aside from that, what good are they?
The Russian Army does not pose a huge conventional military threat. Their defense spending is less than China or Saudi Arabia, and in the same neighborhood as Great Britain. People working in the Russian defense industry are much older and are paid less than those in the more dynamic private sector. Most of the smart young people work elsewhere or have left the country altogether. Russia would run into horrible logistical problems if they were to attempt a sizeable invasion almost anywhere.
So why should we believe that this medium-sized country represents a horrible threat to all we hold dear?
18. January 2017 at 05:24
Scott, you know why Mundell created EURO. Stop lying. Sad.
18. January 2017 at 05:25
Jeff, you are off on a LOT of your claims about Russia. Oil is more important for government finances than for the general economy. The brain drain is far less severe than India’s or Nigeria’s. Russia’s military is far more effective than Saudi Arabia’s, though far less so than America’s. True, Russia is far less of a threat to the U.S. than Canada is.
18. January 2017 at 05:27
Jeff,
Russia exists to do Aleppo for us.
As long as we will not do it ourselves to crush ISIS, we must give Putin leash on rest of his behavior.
Since Aleppo, anytime your neighborhood is overrun by ISIS, you start ratting them out.
Aleppo mean WE (US with our junk dog Putin) are worse for Muslims than ISIS.
18. January 2017 at 05:52
“Is Russia a great power in economic terms? One method of comparing national outputs is to calculate them at current prices and exchange rates. It is certainly relevant to the ability of a nation to import, to invest in soft power and to cover military expenditures in foreign currencies. World Bank data show that in 2015 Russia’s gross domestic product on this basis was $1,326 billion, which made it the 13th largest in the world. It was therefore in the select group of 15 nations that had a GDP above $1,000 billion.
But a glance at Chart One shows that Russia is a dwarf compared with the world’s only two economic superpowers, the US and China. The US’s output is almost 13 times Russia’s while China’s is more than eight times as large. Evidently, on the most familiar and basic criterion of international significance — national output expressed in dollars — Russia is not among the top nations. It is at best a medium-weight power, jostling for position with countries such as South Korea and Mexico — hardly major players in 20th-century global diplomacy. Let it immediately be conceded that the numbers in Chart One, despite having the World Bank as their source, are not conclusive.”
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/6722
18. January 2017 at 06:13
@Scott
What real economic outcome (not institutional arrangement) would convince you that Brexit was the right choice?
18. January 2017 at 06:16
Lorenzo, Let’s revisit this in a few years. I predict zero money available to use for the NHS, when it all plays out. What do you predict?
BTW, subsidies to UK farmers are most definitely not going to be shifted to the NHS, contrary to the claims of the leave campaign. Almost all developed countries subsidize their farmers; if the leave campaign wants to end that program, they should say so.
Saturos, Excellent.
Daniel, You said:
“Scotty, are you willing to consider that, as an autist, you easily fall for scams ?
Such as – I’m just giving an example – the Cathedral pushing for conflict for Russia ?”
Here’s how I could reply, in kind:
Little Danny Boy, are you willing to consider that, as an arrested adolescent who was bullied in eighth grade, and is still angry at the world, you might fall for the claptrap of white supremacist groups that prattle on about imaginary conspiracies like “The Cathedral”? And then spend all your time sitting in your mommy’s basement, striking out at people who you don’t have to look in the eye, and blaming your personal problems on dark-skinned people?”
Or should I take the high road? What do you think, Little Danny boy?
Matthew, You said:
“Both sides clearly said that Brexit would mean single market exit.”
Are you saying that Boris Johnson, the most famous proponent of Leave, was not a part of the Leave campaign?
Jeff, You said:
“The Russian Army does not pose a huge conventional military threat.”
Tell that to the Georgians, Ukrainians and Estonians. And recall that an attack on Estonia is an attack on the US.
(And PPP GDP is a better measure of economic size.)
18. January 2017 at 06:39
Daniel Nexon, a professor at Georgetown who studies great power politics, writes at the Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog. “Make no mistake: you should be very worried right now.”
Just as you should have been ‘very’ worried about the ‘reds under the bed’, The Soviet Union, nuclear war, the war on drugs, weapons off mass destruction in Iraq, the menace of Daesh/ISIS and now V.P..
Whereas,
“From 1945 the United States attempted to overthrow at least 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.”
“And always keep a hold of Nurse. For fear of finding something worse.”
18. January 2017 at 07:28
Moron Shmoron. My name is Michael not Mathew btw. I was admitting that I remebered incorrectly so why the wiseguy remark?. However, it is incnceivable EU would have been created without a single currency as the so called third stool and the most important one at that (yes I know you would still prefer a single market with multiple currencies). So you were for something that was never proposed.
Further, My Germany comment was half tounge in cheek. The EU reminds me of Marx’s recollection of a Hegel quote in the opening sentence of Marx’s “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” when the latter basically added onto Hegel’s quote on History repeating itself. He suggests Hegel should have added “first time as tragedy and second time as farce”
The sclerotic non democratic rotteness of the EU is history repeating itself as farce. It can never be culturally, monetarily or politically unified and it is worse than all the Brexit style alternatives. Its bad for Germany and bad for Greece etc. There are better ways to get so called single markets under such conditions. Its called trade agreements.
And no, it did not prevent war. The US de facto military rule prevented thru the NATO structure
18. January 2017 at 08:41
Scott,
The most distressing part of this to me is the broader point that roughly half of voters in the developed world are happily voting for charlatans who are clearly bad people.
Boris Johnson is clearly a very bad person. It seems clear he lied in his support of Brexit, and then seemed stunned to win the campaign. He didn’t want it, nor expect it to occur. How does one get more cynical?
And, of course, Trump is a terrible person in so many ways. Le Pen is obviously awful. Good character just doesn’t matter to a large percentage of voters anymore.
18. January 2017 at 10:42
This whole post is lazy ranting.
“I’m now going on record predicting that Trump’s promise to abolish Obamacare will be exposed as a lie, within 12 months.”
The entire GOP campaigned on repealing ACA back in 2012 and in 2014 midterm elections. Every GOP presidential nominee pledged to repeal ACA. This isn’t just a Trump issue.
Even within the GOP, there are many different ideas and plans that often conflict with each other and no clear consensus. Sumner might be right that GOP efforts to repeal and/or replace ACA might fail, but this isn’t completely a Trump factor. And, conservative change is better than big mistkaes and bad changes.
“We now live in a bizarre alternate reality where Merkel is treated like an enemy and Putin is treated like a friend.”
This isn’t bizarre at all. NYT token conservative Ross Douthat expressed this in January 2016:
“My Sunday column argued, fairly strenuously, that mass immigration on the scale of the last two years will put more stress on the politics and culture of Germany than any prudent statesman should accept, and that the German government should do everything in its power to not only limit migration but actually restrict asylum rights and begin deportation for some of the migrants who have already arrived.
This is unlikely to happen; even less likely is the resignation of Angela Merkel, which I concluded the column by suggesting would be appropriate at this point.”
18. January 2017 at 12:16
The “repeal & replace” of Obamacare will move us toward what i predicted at Breitbart in 2010:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2010/02/24/the-key-health-care-question-for-obama/
In the end it just comes down to this:
CHEAPER FORMS OF CARE for people on subsidies
PRICE SHOPPING – see HSAs.
—–
Trump says EXACTLY what I said:
Let states set Essential Benefits
But let citizen buy across state lines.
This is EXACTLY what I wrote 7 years ago.
This will end up being Basic Care + 1 plans where 1 = pregnancy, diabetes, mental health, etc.
We see this is in Credit Cards – sub pars credit card companies register in South Dakota, we see in in C Corps, everyone files in Delaware.
It’s crucial to pricing that that WE BREAK OUT THE KINDS OF SICK PEEPS
And then put them all together, put their money in HSAs and have the shop….
This dismantles the actuarial process…
It also gets us closer to fake boobs, varicose veins, and laser eye surgery.
WHERE THERE IS NO INSURANCE, WHERE THERE IS CASH BEING PAID, FOCUSED PRICE SHOPPING / CROWDSOURCING OCCURS TODAY AND HAS FOR TWENTY YEARS.
Also, yes Scott is lazy, he’s got a real issue on the China & immigrant thing. Understandable, but it has certainly raised the emotional stuff past acceptable.
18. January 2017 at 12:39
Jamie Dimon agrees with me Scotty:
EU Bureaucracy / Brussels bureaucrats – TEAM SCOTT – must BEND OVER and lose power and allow the EU states to compete against one another on labor, regs, and generally race to be South Carolina.
WE WIN AGAIN.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-17/qualcomm-forced-apple-to-exclusively-use-modem-chips-ftc-says
Unless leaders address underlying concerns, “you’re going to have the same political things about immigration, the laws of the country, how much power goes to Brussels.”
The bottom line is that Europe must become more competitive, Dimon said. “I say this out of respect for the European people, but they’re going to have to change,” he said. “They may be forced by politics, they may be forced by new leadership.”
18. January 2017 at 12:51
Jamie Dimon says EuroZone may not survive…
“What went wrong is going wrong for everybody, not just going wrong for Britain, but in some ways it looks like they’re kind of doubling down,” Dimon said in the interview Wednesday at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Unless leaders address underlying concerns, “you’re going to have the same political things about immigration, the laws of the country, how much power goes to Brussels.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/dimon-says-euro-zone-may-not-survive-without-change-in-direction
18. January 2017 at 13:24
“Forecast numbers for 2016 are available, and are incorporated in Chart Two. With PPP-adjusted data, 17 nations have output that exceeds 1 per cent of the global total. The nations do not overlap precisely in our two charts, which shows how difficult the subject can be. A salient message is that Russia is much more important with this different method of calculation. Whereas it accounts for about 1.75 per cent of world output on a current-price-and-exchange-rate basis, the figure is 3 per cent on a PPP basis. It ranks 13th in the world on the former approach, but sixth on the latter.
But does that make it a great power? Can a particular state swagger around and puff itself up relative to the rest of the world if the rest of the world produces more than 30 times as much as it does? And is not this sort of bravura rather odd, when we remember that its relative economic position is flattered by a generous estimate of the value of domestic service production, including such items as haircuts and taxi journeys? Of course, there is ample scope for debate about the merits of the various methods of measuring different nations’ income and output. But it should be emphasised that, on the most favourable possible interpretation, Russia in the early 21st century is no more than a medium-weight power in economic terms.”
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/6722/full?page=2
18. January 2017 at 13:31
I will speak in general political economic terms about the EU, since I’ve demonstrated I know less than nothing about EU politics over the years. I have been very surprised the EMU has held together, I underestimated Tsipras’ incompetence while overestimating his resolve, I overestimated the northern EU’s economic acumen while underestimating their resolve, and I didn’t think any country would leave the EU(non-monetary union), unless it was forced to as a result of leaving the EMU. So, I’ve been wrong about many things.
That being said, perhaps there’s no complex answer needed to the question about what is wrong with Europe. Just sticking to general, non-EU specific principles, the EMU states established a common currency system that doesn’t work, leading to much lower economic growth than otherwise. In addition, non-EMU EU countries have also mismanaged their economies, but to a lesser degree. The citizens of the EU, feeling poorer, are hence feeling less generous toward fellow EU countries, EU immigrants, and non-EU immigrants and refugees that need help. The EU straight-jacket doesn’t provide enough flexibility for historically more independent-minded island countries like the UK. And all of this occurs in the context of a refugee crisis in Syria, among others in places in Africa, which strain a system already under stress.
Perhaps to survive, the EU will need to become less integrated and focus on being more of a common trade market than a United States of Europe under development. That will mean more sovereignty to EU states with respect to the movement of people across borders, at least for a while.
In retrospect, it perhaps shouldn’t have been so surprising that the EMU has held together. Politicians usually seem to prefer worse options with consequences that at least unfold more gradually, dragging out pain and misery over many years. Leaving the EMU would require risking political suicide and the other side effects of a much more immediate, acute crisis.
18. January 2017 at 15:35
I said:
“The Russian Army does not pose a huge conventional military threat.”
to which Scott replied:
Tell that to the Georgians, Ukrainians and Estonians. And recall that an attack on Estonia is an attack on the US.
But according to this page on the World Bank website, Estonia spends 2 percent of GDP on its military, Georgia 2.3 percent, and Ukraine 4 percent. World average is about 2.3 percent now, down from 3.4 percent in 1988. The U.S. spends about 3.3 percent now but spent 5.6 percent in 1988, more than today’s Russian Federation at 5 percent.
So while the world in general is spending less on militaries, Russia is somewhat more militaristic than most, although still less than the U.S. was only thirty years ago.
But what really stands out here is that the countries Scott claims are very threatened by Russia don’t appear to be making much of an effort to defend themselves. So why should we judge the threat as serious when the people most directly concerned don’t?
18. January 2017 at 15:38
Scott
BTW – Jamie Dimon agrees with me on potential RGDP growth if tax and other reforms are implemented.
18. January 2017 at 15:45
Not to burst your bubble, but every political campaign is based on exaggeration and lies, left, right, or center. Used car salesmen, investment salesmen, and those actors on the Home Shopping Network are also lying (or maybe just exaggerating, or omitting key details). Economists also lie, but they cover it up with fancy math (sometimes they lie just to themselves, in the form of confirmation bias). In case you were wondering, Reality TV is often scripted or contrived, and wrestling is fixed too. Santa and the Easter Bunny do not exist either.
Incidentally, the “stay” side campaigned on a bunch of hyperbole and absurd predictions that have not materialized either.
Voters / consumers have become pretty good at discerning when used car salesman, politicians, and actors are not telling the truth. That is why we let ordinary people vote and make their own decisions.
Incidentally, Brexit won mostly because people chose self-determination rather than being ruled by some far-away elitists in Brussels, or Berlin. People will typically choose to be somewhat poorer and free, rather than rich well kept subjects. If you don’t believe me, look at the history of the British Empire since 1776.
Germany is in far tougher spot than Britain. The EU and Brexit critics have made so many overwrought hyperbolic absurd predictions about Brexit, People will be able to say “Hey it was not that bad after all.” Ditto with Trump. It’s very easy to beat expectations when you are called Hitler every day.
18. January 2017 at 20:57
Jeff,
NATO, and our concerns about security in eastern Europe are not about the welfare of eastern Europe. They are a buffer zone for NATO.
If you actually study the history of diplomacy, you’ll recognize this as standard policy, within a balance of power framework.
Too many people try to discuss international relations without a theoretical background or appropriate knowledge of history.
19. January 2017 at 07:24
Sorry Scott but you’ve fallen victim to a carefully constructed lie from the remain campaign here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT8fkefynzM). Their viral video has been debunked and the Boris Johnson quote you linked to is from after the referendum.
19. January 2017 at 10:04
@Scott Freelander,
I am not a child. NATO was an alliance meant to counter the threat of invasion from the Soviet Union and her puppets in the Warsaw Pact. It’s rationale pretty much vanished in the late 1980’s with the collapse of Eastern Europe and the rise of Yeltsin.
You say NATO is a buffer. Buffer against what? The Soviet Union, which really was a threat, disappeared thirty years ago! Tell me, did you think we still needed a buffer against Japan during the 1970’s?
19. January 2017 at 11:17
Jeff,
NATO is clearly a buffer zone against Russia. The idea is that it’s better to fight a war on eastern European soil than that of western Europe. This is especially true, since tactical nuclear weapons could be deployed.
I guess you missed or forgot about the protests in countries like Germany in the 70s and 80s over Germany being ground zero for the beginning of any war with the Soviet Union and German citizens fearing the use of tactical nuclear weapons. US officials assured Germans that we would not use tactical nuclear weapons to help repel a Soviet invasion, but Kissinger, for example, in his secret talks with the Chinese government in the 70s helped reassure China about our commitment to defending Europe by saying that tactical nuclear weapons would be used to obliterate any Soviet offensive. I read the transcripts of these negotiations when they were declassified in the 90s.
The Chinese were concerned about the conventional military draw down that was occurring on the Soviet border, since they feared it would mean the Soviets could put more pressure on their border. This was part of triangular diplomacy.
The closer Russian forces are to western Europe, the better the Russian negotiating position, and not just in Europe. Generally, gains in one region are negotiable with regard to issues of contention in other regions. Gains and losses in foreign policy are mostly fungible.
This is just basic international relations.
19. January 2017 at 11:18
The first sentence should’ve read that many eastern European countries are a buffer zone for NATO.
19. January 2017 at 12:00
@Scott Freelander,
Have you looked at a calendar lately? It’s the 21’st century and you’re babbling on about regimes that disappeared 30 years ago. Wake up, already.
19. January 2017 at 12:42
Jeff,
Obviously communicating with you isn’t productive. The fact that Russia has invaded two of its neighbors during the past generation, both of which are US allies seems to mean nothing to you. NATO wasn’t developed because the Russia controlled an empire called the Soviet Union. It wasn’t even developed because the Soviet Union was communist. It was developed because Russia, as the controller of the Soviet empire, was acting aggressively in Europe.
Is a next door neighbor who pulled a gun on you yesterday to try to settle a dispute any less dangerous today, because he’s wearing different clothes, or has a few different friends?
19. January 2017 at 12:46
Jeff,
I’ll also say that it’s fashionable to think you know more than every NATO member country about their collective security, including the entire US foreign policy establishment. It makes you feel good to think members of the Council of Foreign Relations just don’t get it. You think it’s smart to think they’re all dumb enough to miss a point that seems obvious to you. I’m sure you like to think you know more than the professionals that get paid to deal with these issues every day, but they’re not the ones who are wrong.
If you don’t want to be treated like a child, stop making childish statements.
19. January 2017 at 12:54
Jeff misreads the situation…. ” But what really stands out here is that the countries Scott claims are very threatened by Russia don’t appear to be making much of an effort to defend themselves. So why should we judge the threat as serious when the people most directly concerned don’t?”
You assume the only rational decision Estonia can make in the face of a possible Russian invasion is to spend more on their military…
But Estonia doubling or tripling their defense budget would not make them significantly safer from a Russian invasion…
but doubling or tripling their defense budget would harm their economy… which not only unfairly punishes the average Estonian for no good utilitarian reason… it actually runs counter to Estonia’s security by making Estonia less valuable and attractive to western investment… We only go to war when the 1% want’s too…
It makes waaaay more sense for Estonia’s leaders to put economy over military…. for their own security…
Trump forcing Estonia to spend more on their military while would actually make Estonia less safe…
19. January 2017 at 13:08
I meant to say…. Trump forcing Estonia to spend more on their military while equaly cutting back the US commitment, would not be a break even in terms of security…. it would actually make Estonia less safe…
“Trump forcing Estonia to spend more on their military while would actually make Estonia less safe…”
19. January 2017 at 15:19
At least one point by Jeff seems valid. It really looks like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are spending comparatively little for their own defence. Estonia spends the mentioned 2%, Latvia and Lithuania even less with just 1%. That really isn’t much. The threat for them does really exist, therefore spending so little is not playing fair. It should be a fair share.
19. January 2017 at 15:24
“But Estonia doubling or tripling their defense budget would not make them significantly safer from a Russian invasion…”
Well, gee, if you really believe defense spending doesn’t improve your defense and make it more costly for someone to attack you, then you should be advocating for a 100 percent reduction in our own military budget.
Yes, Estonia is probably too small to be able to defeat a Russian invasion no matter how much they spend, but they can certainly make the Russian victory much more costly. And that prospect might be enough to make the difference between being invaded or being left alone. Is this not obvious?
And Scott Freelander, where do you get the idea that Russia today is as dangerous as the Soviet Union was 50 years ago? Nobody believes that. In the 1970’s they had thousands of tanks ready to storm the Fulda Gap, and we might have had to go (tactical) nuclear to stop them. There’s nothing like that threat today. And why Americans should be spending our money to defend people who won’t spend their own money to do so is beyond me. If doing so were actually protecting some vital interest of ours, you could make a case for it. But Ukraine? How does that threaten us?
19. January 2017 at 15:30
And it’s probably not even worth pointing out that the defense establishment is pretty much always in favor of more defense spending. “Experts” in every area that gets any kind of government funding will always tell you that more should be spent in their area. Citing them doing so does not make a strong argument.
19. January 2017 at 18:00
Jeff, Estonia has a population of 1.3 million people. No matter what they spend on defence they will not be able to defend themselves against Russia. They are reliant on NATO. They spend the required two percent. Why should they spend any more just because they’re unfortunate enough to share a border with Putin.
19. January 2017 at 19:37
Michael, Sorry about the name mixup. The EU without the euro is not at all inconceivable, just ask the 10 EU members that are not in the euro.
The EU is basically the old common market, which has been around since 1957.
Massimo, You said:
“This isn’t bizarre at all. NYT token conservative Ross Douthat expressed this in January 2016:”
You are really hopeless. Almost every time you give a comment that is totally off base. This Douthat remark has zero bearing on whether Merkel is our friend and Putin is our enemy.
Morgan, So the Senate Democrats are going to vote for that health reform? Dream on.
Jeff, Don’t assume that those countries are not worried about the Russians. They are.
dwb, You said:
“Voters / consumers have become pretty good at discerning when used car salesman, politicians, and actors are not telling the truth.”
I guess you never saw any interviews with the Trump supporters. “He’s such a straight shooter.”
Alexander, You must think I was born yesterday. I actually follow the news in the UK, and I know exactly the sort of lies that the leavers were spouting, as they were widely reported in the press prior to the election. The Johnson quote may have been right after the vote, but similar things were said before the vote. They were constantly claiming the UK could get the same deal as Switzerland and Norway.
Jeff, You said:
“You say NATO is a buffer. Buffer against what? The Soviet Union, which really was a threat, disappeared thirty years ago! ”
Good to know that places like Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia don’t have to worry about being invaded!
19. January 2017 at 22:57
Jeff… you went from saying that the fact that Estonia does not spend much on defense Proves that they are not afraid of invasion… to Squirming into an argument that says if Estonia is not gong to be “fair’ to us….screw them…
You went from being wrong… to being deplorable… and acting like that somehow makes your point valid…
wow…
Dude, Estonia’s proximity to russia…it cuts both ways… Sure Estonia is vulnerable…but a NATO AIr base in Estonia makes Russia more vulnerable too…That proximity is more important to NATO than Estonia doubling their defense budget…
Strategic value depends on far more than who spends what… It’s very subtle… Unlike our illegitimate president. That Trump shares your simplistic views about what constitutes the value of good and important ally …is very disturbing…
besides… If you look at what Estonia is doing military… they are doing about all they can… (including universal conscription)… dumping more money into it won’t make them better… (You could demand they pay us like mercenaries I suppose… If you care less about actually making nato stronger)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_Defence_Forces
20. January 2017 at 01:06
They were constantly claiming the UK could get the same deal as Switzerland and Norway.
And why wouldn’t they? You are branding this as a lie when the deal itself isn’t even made yet.
And “could” doesn’t mean “will”. They always said they want such a deal, they never said they will get it to 100%.
There’s a general arrogant tendency to imply that Brexit voters (and Trump voters) are too stupid to understand the simplest things like for example that there’s an opposite (even hostile) camp (Merkel, the EU, the British remain camp), that wants totally different things and that also (most likely) wants to sabotage a successful Brexit at nearly any cost.
20. January 2017 at 04:40
Christian,
You’ve picked up on Sumner’s schtick. He’s always right and when he’s wrong it is because the people are wrong because the people were lied to. And Sumner even goes so far as to say that if Trump proves not to be a disaster then the people are still wrong for having been fooled into voting for him. In other words, even if the American electorate proves to be perceptive in making president a man who ends up making America great again, Sumner will persist in claiming the people chose poorly.
For someone who clings so dearly to the idea of efficient markets it is quite the comedy routine to observe Sumner reject them when they produce an outcome he finds undesirable.
20. January 2017 at 06:19
No Scott I think you care about the truth. Sure there were differing views among some remainers about what Britains relationship with the EU should be. Many probably wanted a softer Brexit than what Theresa May has outlined. Boris undoubtedly would have preferred a Norway style relationship. That’s obviously what he was advocating when he wrote that article (again, after the referendum result). However that was when he thought he was going to be the PM. That, of course, didn’t happen. It’s ridiculous to criticize them for not getting their way when they aren’t even in power. Theresa May (a remainer) is the PM. To say the Leave campaign was based around staying in the single market is just wrong. As shown here (https://order-order.com/2016/10/20/cleggs-single-market-delusion/) all the leading figures acknowledged it would mean leaving the single market. It’s very disappointing that your Trump derangement has driven you to this. You’re helping spread a tired old lie about a good man like Boris Johnson.
20. January 2017 at 07:46
“I guess you never saw any interviews with the Trump supporters. “He’s such a straight shooter”
I totally, always, and without any skepticism believe what I read in the media and on the interwebs. There is never any selection bias at all in those interviews. No sarcasm whatsoever there.
The fact that people’s experience with Trump supporters consists entirely of what they see on tv is exactly the problem. My advice to people living in the New England or Kalifornia bubble is to get out more.
20. January 2017 at 08:05
“Good to know that places like Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia don’t have to worry about being invaded!”
Not like Iraq, Syria or Libya?
‘The Russians are coming!”
20. January 2017 at 10:20
Christian, May just admitted that is a pipe dream, and that the UK will leave the single market. I hope I’m wrong, but as of now it looks impossible. But at least you didn’t follow Alexander and try to deny these claims were being made. So I give you points for that.
Alexander, Read these links and then apologize:
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=leave+campaign+cites+norway+switzerland&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
You said:
“It’s very disappointing that your Trump derangement has driven you to this. You’re helping spread a tired old lie about a good man like Boris Johnson.”
I notice that the dumbest comments come from those who attach personal insults. Your link is beyond useless, citing figures like Cameron and Osborne, who were in the remain camp.
Again, I follow the UK press very closely, probably an hour a day of reading or more. I read the claims about Norway and Switzerland at least a dozen times. To suggest that I don’t know how the Brexit campaign was being fought is an insult to my intelligence. It’s clear that you do not know much about the UK.
dwb, Typical comment–no evidence, just insult my intelligence. Just what I’d expect from a Trump fan. Sure some Trump supporters didn’t believe him, but plenty did.
20. January 2017 at 10:21
Postkey, If you had a brain cell it would be lonely. Also you right now: http://m.memegen.com/qyulzr.jpg
20. January 2017 at 10:45
Scott. Er no. You said the campaign was based on lies (specifically the lie that Britain would remain within the single market). I’ve shown you Gove, Johnson and Leadsom the three leading Brexiters all saying during the election that a vote to leave meant leaving the single market. All you’ve provided is a bunch of articles where journalists speculate about which model we may or may not pursue. You can try and find a quote from the leaders of the Leave campaign saying this but I think you will struggle. Open Britain spent a considerable amount of time trying and the result was their embarrassing video featuring out of context quotes from 2009. The only part the guy from Open Britain was willing to defend was that they didn’t have a clear, unified view and was only able to name Daniel Hannan, a virtually unknown Conservative MEP, as someone who campaigned using Norway as an example. You were wrong and this post is a stinker. Also I didn’t insult you. I thought you applied the term trump derangement to yourself in playful fashion.
20. January 2017 at 11:26
Alexander Hamiliton,
I followed the Brexit campaign on BBC and through other sources. I remember the lies Scott refers to. Boris Johnson is a shameless liar and opportunist who clearly didn’t think Leave would win and didn’t want it to. He’s a moron and of poor character. He made a total fool of himself.
Check out this link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-single-market-brexit-a7104846.html
Johnson is quoted as having claimed the EU would still have access to the single market.
I specifically remember the Leave tour bus with the lie painted on it about the amount of money that could go to fund the NHS due to money saved from leaving the EU.
Cameron and Osborne weren’t perfect to be sure, but they were much higher quality leaders than the UK has now. The Tories are a joke and can only get away with things like this because Labour’s led by that incompetent weirdo Corbyn.
20. January 2017 at 11:37
Scott Freelandar, Same quote. After the referendum when he was campaigning to be PM. He isn’t PM. Theresa May is. I followed the referendum campaign too. I was forced to because I was voting in it. You are totally clueless. He campaigned for Leave when he thought it wouldn’t win?? His career would’ve been over if Leave didn’t win?
20. January 2017 at 11:38
Scott Sumner, I’d like to add the only reason I bothered to comment is that I didn’t like seeing someone I have a great deal of respect for attacking, unfairly in my opinion, a politician I also have a lot of respect for.
20. January 2017 at 11:41
Also, here’s a link to an article about Leave lies in pamphlets:
https://ucl-brexit.blog/2016/06/16/lies-damn-lies-and-leave-eu-leaflets/
20. January 2017 at 11:46
Alexander Hamilton,
Did you miss this Johnson press conference after the Brexit vote? Is he celebrating?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg99c1K9X3Y
Then, I read articles like these:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37439890
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-boris-johnson-foreign-secretary-never-cared-conservative-leader-remain-good-thing-a7322486.html
How closely do you follow your own elections?
20. January 2017 at 11:48
Here’s another one for you:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars
20. January 2017 at 11:56
Those are from Leave.EU the campaign backed by Nigel Farage who I’m not here to defend. 1) You’re basing it on what his body language? Laughable 2) and 3) are both from the same political opponent offering his opinion. Still doesn’t say what you said it does. Duncan says Johnson only backed brexit so he could become PM. May or may not be true. It’s still just the opinion of a political opponent. 4) The ranting of a Remain campaigner in the Gaurdian? Where does he say Boris didn’t want to win?
To answer your last question: Evidently a lot closer than you do. I voted remain btw.
20. January 2017 at 15:06
Alexander Hamilton
L.O.L.
The best you can do? Have to resort to snide comments?
20. January 2017 at 15:09
‘”I notice that the DUMBEST comments come from those who attach personal insults. Your link is beyond useless, citing figures like Cameron and Osborne, who were in the remain camp.” ‘
21. January 2017 at 08:12
Alexander, You said:
“All you’ve provided is a bunch of articles where journalists speculate about which model we may or may not pursue.”
If you are not going to even read my links, then what’s the point of responding to you?
This link has Nigel Farage talking up the Swiss option (also Norway). But I guess you don’t consider him a leader of the Leave campaign.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/688/attachments/original/1462304429/What_does_leave_look_like_published.pdf?1462304429
There are plenty of other quotes from Conservative MPs.
And I didn’t “attack” any specific politician. I simply provided an exact quote.
21. January 2017 at 13:55
The remain camp had at least one fundamental disadvantage: Their lies already materialized. They also had nothing to offer except the status quo. No positive vision, nothing. Only attacks on the Brexit team. In other words: Everybody who was unhappy with the current situation was pushed towards Brexit.
The overall consensus also seems to imply that Obama and Merkel are a) great leaders and b) that the Western world declines since a few years. How could this be true at the same time? Obama and Merkel rule(d) for the last 8 and (over) 10 years respectively. So either the Western world is declining over the last years or two of their two most important leaders during that time are so very competent. Both can hardly be true at the same time because one has to do with the other.
29. January 2017 at 21:00
Scott, please do us a favor and explain how having a good relationship with Russia, and working together with them in areas of common interest is somehow a negative thing?
Every country has a duty, and a moral obligation, to do what is right for their citizenry. Every country has a right to autonomy. Yes, Putin kills political opponents. So what!! Is that our problem? Absolutely not.
Trump never said he wanted to get rid of NATO. What he wants is for members to pull their weight. And like a smart businessman, he is willing to say some outrageous things to get them to the negotiating table.
Trumps foreign policy is common sense. It is very similar to the foreign policy of Theodore Roosevelt — not isolationist, but not interventionist either. Nothing wrong with finding a middle ground.
We don’t need to be involved in every dispute. We should not be in the business of nation building, or trying to spread our democratic ideals. And in case you haven’t noticed, we have done quite a bit of that already. We tried it. It doesn’t work.
There is no place for idealism in foreign affairs.