Embarrassed and Disgusted

Don't like politics? Or swearing? Don't read this, the usual Theranos/tech stuff is here.

Dr Seuss Cartoon from 1941

Being both British and American, I've joked for the last two years that I am embarrassed by my government on both sides of the Atlantic, but it's not really a joke. I'm truly embarrassed, and disgusted by them both. I thought Britain was out in front with the self-harm of Brexit, and then shot into the lead with the Windrush scandal. For the Americans here who don't know, that's when the "hostile environment" policies of the Home Office, primarily to appeal to the racism of a segment of the British electorate, resulted in British citizens being deported to countries they had either never been to, or not been in for most of a century, because they couldn't find ridiculous amounts of paperwork for every year of their life from 1973 on (the same Home Office had destroyed the relevant govt records a few years prior, so sad). But this week the US takes the lead with a deliberate policy to separate children from parents at the border, even when claiming asylum. The administration seems torn on whether to gleefully claim it such as with Miller, "God says to do it" from AG Sessions, or pretend and deny that it's even happening like Sec Nielsen. Whatever, it's clearly part of a policy to appear tough, traumatize kids, "trigger the libs", rile up the base with xenophobia, use children as bargaining chips to get a pointless wall paid for, and keep America from becoming less white.

Democrats can apparently end this if they just will bow to Trump's demands. We're literally at the "I didn't want to hit the kids. But you made me hit the kids because you didn't do as I said." stage of this administration.

Oh but wait a minute, Obama did something like it too, didn't he? That significant change in policy was years ago, not last month? Ah, well in that case it's all OK, isn't it? No it's not, and if you want to defend this type of policy with what-aboutism then fuck you. Trump seems determined to destroy anything Obama did, from the PPACA, through the Iran deal, to the Paris Climate Accords, but apparently on this there is just nothing to be done.

It doesn't matter if anyone did it before, it's happening now. It's not a requirement of law, but a choice of the administration to enforce in this manner. It could be ended immediately, but it isn't going to be, because this brutality is the goal, the purpose of this action. We're separating families and then brutalizing the kids, and sometimes deporting the parents without the kids. Kids upset and want to hug their sibling? No, not allowed. Tell kids their parents are dead? Tell parents their kids are lost? And conditions so bad there are reports of suicide? It's disgusting.

I've been lectured multiple times by Republicans these last two years that people have a "values matrix" and I don't understand that they value things differently (and the clear subtext always is "better"). First of all, is that a talking point somewhere because I've had a ton of folk hit me with that? Second, so your values are destruction of families, degradation of the national discourse, removal of healthcare benefits for most, support for dictatorial regimes, alienation of allies, destruction of the western alliance, and child marriage, or are they all worth it for a tax cut for the rich and a few judges? You know you can call yourself a Republican and not support Trump or this type of policy, right?

Democrats like me are just sore losers, don't understand what real Americans are. Except I'm not a Democrat, there seems to be a thinking in the US you can only me a member of one of two tribes. And I am an American, same as any whether it's from a big coastal city, or slap bang in the middle. Every American is a real American.

Don't like what I'm saying? Report me to ICE. They're the new force to intimidate if you don't like what someone is saying. Want to travel on a bus? Better be a US citizen (and white, let's be honest that will help a lot there). And it seems they're up for deporting green card holders who've been in the country for 50 years, and are now coming to take citizenship from naturalized US citizens who have filled their forms out incorrectly. What, they won't ever abuse that type of power and I'm overreacting? I'll point you to the above Windrush issue where that's what happened, and people born in the UK who had never left the country were getting deportation letters (even when they are white!). Trust a bureaucracy to deal with that correctly? On a zero tolerance, potentially life-or-death process? Have any of you ever been to a DMV? 

And why does the news just keep showing boys in these detention centers? Where are the girls and the babies? You know, the 'valuable' ones. If I start hearing that some lovely white Christian families are selflessly adopting the cutest of these kids to 'help', and sadly the parents get deported without them, then that's truly some Handmaid's Tale shit right there.

And for the selfish among you who still don't care, you do realize that eventually they'll come for you too? That to protect yourself, protect the weakest among us. Those without voices, those easily targeted, those that the powerful would demonize. If a society looks after the weakest, everyone is protected.

When I became a US Citizen, I was aware of the darker side of our past, but still believed in the ideals of the nation. To become a more perfect union. This is not the country I became a citizen of.

Everyone proud of their country today? 

Mount St. Helens National Monument and the US Forest Service

I just spent yesterday at the Mount St Helens National Monument, and wanted to recommend it to anyone who passes through southern Washington or northern Oregon. Not to be missed, the US Forest Service do a great job of keeping it maintained, accessible, and making it educational.

Their budget is around $5.5 billion, which sounds a lot but there are a few things to consider - the maintain nearly 200,000,000 acres of public land (mowing my 0.1 acres of lawn is pain enough...) and nearly 400,000,000 acres of private land, manage forestry and mineral extraction, and then the most visible part to the public - keeping lands and national monuments open and available for education and recreation. That results in an estimated ~$35 billion of economic activity such as tourism. Seems a pretty good return on investment for the country.

Amazingly, half of that budget is spent fighting fires, so when you hear the calls for eliminating various agencies and reducing their budgets, remember that a lot of these agencies are a victim of their own success. Perhaps they should let a few towns burn down now and then to remind people that forest fires can be bad...

I'm only half joking there, because 20 years ago the cost of fire fighting took up 1/6th of their budget and it's been rapidly increasing since. They estimate it's going to double again in the next 30 years.

Changing climatic conditions across regions of the United States are driving increased temperatures— particularly in regions where fire has not been historically prominent. This change is causing variations and unpredictability in precipitation and is amplifying the effects and costs of wildfire. Related impacts are likely to continue to emerge in several key areas: limited water availability for fire suppression, accumulation at unprecedented levels of vegetative fuels that enable and sustain fires, changes in vegetation community composition that make them more fire prone, and an extension of the fire season to as many as 300 days in many parts of the country. These factors result in fires that increasingly exhibit extreme behavior and are more costly to manage. 

The six worst fire seasons since 1960 have all occurred since 2000. Moreover, since 2000, many western states have experienced the largest wildfires in their state’s history. 

In addition, more and more development is taking place near forests—an area referred to as the WildlandUrban Interface (WUI). Increasing densities of people and infrastructure in the WUI makes management more complex and requires more complex and requires more firefighting assets to ensure an appropriate, safe, and effective response that protects lives and property.

We're living with an administration that's trying to remove national monuments, sell off public lands to private only use, and is slashing budgets for departments like this - the FY2018 budget looks to be reduced by nearly $1 billion. The service keeps up with the firefighting - it has no choice - but this is at the cost of deferred maintenance and reducing other activities which support the land and recreation. At some point, this is going to the the US Forest Firefighting Service, and that's all. It may seem a minor thing when we're dealing with other major, immediate, crises, but the US Forest Service provides a critical function for our country, and we need to support it.

On a happier note, the trip into the Mt St Helens Monument was fun. Stop at the visitors center about 5 miles in from I-5 for the educational side, then drive up about 50 more miles to the observatory for some fantastic views of the volcano.

There are a ton of trails and other parts of the monument to access, we barely scratched the surface. Try and go if you're ever in this part of the world, and support the US Forest Service whenever you can, we all rely on them for way more than most realize.

Picking on the Little Guy

If you don't like politics, stop reading. For those who have to live in this world...

Anytime a politician or those in power target the poor, the powerless, minorities, and those who have no means of defending themselves, then take a close look because they are most likely either looking for a scapegoat or trying to deflect and distract from something else. 

No-one should be singled out based on gender, sexual orientation, religious choice, race, socio-economic class or anything similar. Any country that is diverse in its population and works to integrate, not separate, will be stronger because of it. Moreover, a country that looks after the weakest of its citizens is a society that will be just to everyone.

Authoritarian regimes get their start with scapegoats from small groups outside the mainstream. We should have zero tolerance for any such discrimination from our government. The recently tweeted 'trans ban' is exactly such an action. If someone meets the physical and mental requirements for the military, or any other role, they should not be discriminated against.

As an example you have likely already seen, I give you Kristen Beck, a transgender Navy SEAL. Kristen seems like exactly the type of warfighter we want, and wouldn't let things like 'bone spurs' get in the way of serving. Her quote sums up the entire situation perfectly:

It's a leadership issue, not a transgender issue.

America is better than this, and such divisiveness can't be allowed to stand. What is happening right now is not normal, and we can't allow it to become that way. To those who don't care about such people, let me make this pretty clear - Donald Trump doesn't care about you, or your tax cuts, or your coal mining job, or whatever you thing you can get from dealing with the devil, and one day you will be the target, no matter how white or male or Christian you are. Defend the little guy, and you're defending yourself.

Oh, and it's just the decent thing to do.

Science Makes America Great, and President Trump's Budget Aims to Destroy It

President Trump's first budget proposal is calling for dramatic cuts to many agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of the leading funders of research in the USA - the NIH would face around a $6 billion cut (~20%). The NIH is the largest funder of medical research in the world, and back much of the medical research in universities and labs around the country. Many of the medications and treatments used today had their start in NIH grants, and key research leads to entire industries, such as what arose from the Human Genome Project. The NIH have a nice list of the value they add to society, the economy, and our lives, here.

In large part it's the Research and Development funding from the US federal government that makes the USA the global leader in technology. Studies demonstrate that funding at the R&D level result in up to $8.38 of economic activity 8 years later for each $1 invested - infrastructure debt, that supposedly we'll find $1 trillion for under the mattress, would be expected to show around $1.92 return per dollar within a few years, and about $3.21 over 20 years. 

By a factor of 3 or more, spending on basic R&D returns huge economic benefits to the country compared to infrastructure, and it's simply short sighted to cut. (Of course a functional infrastructure is also needed, hard to drive to your research lab without roads! But it's not a binary either/or choice - and 'infrastructure' like a pointless/counterproductive border wall will cost more than is saved with the NIH cuts) This has been something that every administration for over 40 years has recognised, and can be seen in data collected by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The Clinton years saw a massive rise in NIH spending, and we're reaping the benefit of that investment now. Even in the Bush through Obama years, while NIH remained flat (barring the ARRA boost), other agencies saw an increase. The cuts in the Trump budget are unprecedented in the last half century.

The smartest students from around the world come to US universities to study, both as undergraduates and researchers - and the US gains the best and the brightest of the rest of the world, and without paying the cost of raising those people. It's a huge net positive for the country, especially when those people stay, become citizens, and have children, as people tend to do when they are welcomed and given a chance to contribute. Those children of immigrants themselves are typically far more likely to contribute to the advancement of the country in science. Consider this statement from a Forbes article on immigrants:

A new study from the National Foundation for American Policy found a remarkable 83% (33 of 40) of the finalists of the 2016 Intel Science Talent Search were the children of immigrants. ... In fact, 75% – 30 out of 40 – of the finalists had parents who worked in America on H-1B visas and later became green card holders and U.S. citizens. That compares to seven children who had both parents born in the United States.

So this science spending results in economic returns of at least a factor of 8 within 8 years, and encourages smart, law abiding, company founding, job creating immigrants to come to the USA, have children who are then the most driven of their generation, will improve society and the economy decades from now, and make sure we can all retire well in a booming economy. Why would you destroy that?

Well allow me to answer that. It could be you are:

A) Ridiculously stupid and short sighted, utterly unaware, and uncaring, of the consequences
B) An idealogical zealot intent on destroying goverment at any cost
C) Racist and want to discourage immigration
D) Intent on damaging the tech industry out of spite
E) An agent of a foreign power intent on destroying the long term effectiveness of your enemy
F) All of the above

Given this current administration, it's 'F', with each person in it more of one of those than the other. Bannon and Miller are simply white supremacists and want to end all immigration, legal or not, to the country - they've literally said "legal immigration is the real problem". The tech industry has been vocal in its opposition to the Executive Order that has now been rejected by the courts twice, and by cutting science funding it harms them, despite the negative consequences to the country - a price the likes of Bannon would pay given he doesn't like the race of many Silicon Valley company CEOs. Price, as head of Health and Human Services, is a member of a group that is anti-vaccine - which is one of the greatest success stories in saving lives and health in the 20th Century. The President shrugged his shoulders last week claiming "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated", which even for Donald Trump manages to rank as one of the dumbest things he's ever said (despite the pretty stiff competition). 

And then there's the 'agent of a foreign power' - Vladimir Putin must be giving himself a hernia from laughing so much at the self inflicted damage the USA (and the UK with Brexit) are inflicting on themselves. There's no proof it's a direct agent doing this, but "useful idiots" helped into positions of power are achieving what Russia and other unfriendly nations can only dream of.

While the administration has to get this budget through Congress (Republican controlled and so far they seem unwilling to stand up to even the most ridiculous of his behaviours, even when he literally fabricates a felony perpetrated by his predecessor.) but the President has lost on pretty much everything he's pushed as signature policies over the last 2 months (still waiting to be "so sick of winning"). Hopefully the worst of this will be stopped, but will only happen if Congress sees their own hides, or money to their constituencies, threatened. Sadly, 'upset scientists' is not a key demographic - at least not yet - and regardless of what happens here, it's clear that the President and his administration are intent on gutting one of the great American success stories of the last half century.

Science is global, it doesn't care about national boundaries, and published research is by definition known to all, not restricted to a few. Scientists want to educate children to be knowledgeable, thoughtful, inquisitive, and also work with the best and the brightest wherever they are, whatever their gender, religion, race, or country of origin. It's what's raised our life expectancy, our quality of life, our productivity, and our opportunities, and been part of what has kept the USA as a global leader. And all these things are antithetical to a group of people mired in the past, who are wanting to divide us based on religion and race, and destroy one of the most critical things that Made America Great.

What can we do? It's important that those who will vote on this budget know these cuts are counter productive. Call your House and Senate representatives, let them know this can't be allowed to pass in the budget. Make no mistake, there's no sense or logic in these cuts, and the country will be damaged because of them - and for the people proposing this, that's seemingly the intent.

Right vs Wrong

It's not about Right vs Left anymore.

It's about Right vs Wrong.

Old labels, old enmities over the trivial that we could afford when times were easy, don't apply anymore.

Everyone who knows right from wrong has to work together no matter what tribe we used to think we belonged to. 

We can't be divided, we have to stand up for the weakest and easiest targets, no exceptions.

Support those who stand for what's right, condemn those who promote and enable what's wrong. 

There's no hiding anymore, no more abdication of responsibility. This is where we learn who we really are. Don't disappoint your children.

Word of the Day

Kakistocracy

noun

Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.

Brexit: Who's to Blame?

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

John Philpot Curran

You may have missed it, but last Thursday the UK voted in a referendum and the people have said, 52/48, that they want to leave the European Union. EU membership has been a contentious issue in the UK for decades, and following economic crises and a large influx of immigrants over the last decade, there have been calls to leave, mostly from within the Conservative Party. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, had to promise a referendum to keep his revolting party in check.

The 'Remain' camp focused on the benefits of the EU, logically pointing to the studies showing the net positive effect on GDP, jobs, trade, freedom of travel. Their numbers, when presented, were generally considered to be accurate and a fair representation of the costs and benefits of membership. The overall net cost of around 15 billion pounds out of a 1.9 trillion pound economy, or around 0.75% of GDP. Access to a single market of 500 million people, and freedom of movement and working rights in 28 countries was guaranteed as part of this.

While there are real arguments to be made regarding the benefits of the UK leaving the EU, the 'Leave' campaign ignored them concentrated on four main topics:

1) Unelected EU bureaucrats determining UK policy

2) The membership fees can be used for other things in the UK like the National Health Service

3) Immigration was out of control and needed to be stopped

4) The UK economy will be stronger out compared to in

Generally the numbers presented by the Leave camp were derided as fantasy and plain lies, and sure enough following the vote their key figures admitted that the NHS wouldn't be receiving 350 million pounds more a week, nor would immigration fall as a result of leaving the EU, and that a recession is now likely in the UK if not much of the rest of the world.

Their entire campaign was based on lies and an emotive call for the UK to 'take control' and to have its own "Independence Day". There was nothing of actual substance, no plans, no specifics, just promises that everything would be better if we can just get away from the nasty foreigners. To quote Tony Blair's take:

“There are two odd things. One is the desire to shake up the system, even if when you ask what shaking up the system means people aren’t clear; so there’s this populist tide left and right which says ‘the system is broken, and I’m gonna fix it’, and when you say how, they say ‘this country is gonna be so great’.”

There is a laugh in the room. “That is literally what the Brexit case was, by the way,” Blair adds.

Boris Johnson and Michael Gove led the 'Leave' campaign, and you can see following their victory that they couldn't possibly be happier about the result.

Or, rather, they look like two men who thought that they could jump on the bandwagon, make political points with the Leave constituency, while knowing that the 'Remain' campaign will win and they'd never have to actually deliver on their promises. Promises they themselves didn't believe in. They're having to face up to the facts that all those 'experts' that Gove dismissed were actually right and 'Project Fear' was not scaremongering but an accurate portrayal of the consequences of Leave.

Come the 'Leave' vote win on Friday, and what does Johnson say? "No need for haste. We cannot turn our backs on Europe. We are part of Europe." regarding invoking Article 50 and starting the exit. They don't just look glum because they know the horrendous problems they've just caused for the UK, the EU, and the world - but because Prime Minister David Cameron resigned, reportedly saying to aides "Why should I do all the hard shit?", and placed the problem of their creation squarely in their laps. It's the one thing in the last few years David Cameron has done that I agree with - Leave need to deal with the consequences of their actions and there's no avoiding it.

Here's the problem with that - there is no plan. They had no idea they would actually have to do the work, that it would happen. Perhaps the single biggest event of the last 60 years for the UK, and no one had a plan. Nothing.

IT WAS a troubling exchange. On live television Faisal Islam, the political editor of SkyNews, was recounting a conversation with a pro-Brexit Conservative MP. “I said to him: ‘Where’s the plan? Can we see the Brexit plan now?’ [The MP replied:] ‘There is no plan. The Leave campaign don’t have a post-Brexit plan…Number 10 should have had a plan.’” The camera cut to Anna Botting, the anchor, horror chasing across her face. For a couple of seconds they were both silent, as the point sunk in. “Don’t know what to say to that, actually,” she replied, looking down at the desk. Then she cut to a commercial break.

So now the country has a lame duck soon to be ex-Prime Minister and a looming leadership election within the Conservative party, with Boris Johnson touted as a favorite. I'm not quite sure why anyone thinks that, as he will be utterly despised by 48% of the electorate, minimum. George Osborne, the pro-Remain Chancellor disappeared from Thursday until Monday, when he made a rather weak speech on Monday to calm the markets, but also ruled himself out of the running for leadership and Prime Minister. Sensible man, it's a poisoned chalice after all.

The mechanism for choosing the new Prime Minister is wholly from within the Conservative Party itself, so the amusing thing is that while "imposition of leaders and laws" from the EU was a big point for the Leave side, the UK will now likely get a Prime Minister it never elected into office.

On the opposition side, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, is now under attack from his own party. Just as leadership from him was needed, his own shadow cabinet mounted a campaign against him - as of now 23 of the 31 cabinet members have left, and there is a move to unseat him as leader of the party. Perhaps the Labour party sense an impending election, and want a different leader, one they feel is more electable - but regardless, at this time of crisis they have made themselves irrelevant as leaders.

Of all the national politicians in the UK, I've seen just one that has acted as a leader and a statesman, and that's Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish Nationalist Party, First Minister of Scotland. She has remained absolutely calm (or at least appeared to), issued clear statements about the situation, reassured the public that while things are uncertain Scotland would continue to be governed well, and that people from the EU are welcome in Scotland. Her statement last Friday seemed to indicate that she knew the impending vacuum of leadership that would exist in the UK.

"The final point I want to make this morning is this one. The Scottish government will be working hard to protect Scotland's interests in the period ahead and in the wake of the referendum result.

"But as we do this, we will not be taking our eye off the ball of the day to day business of government. As Westminster is engulfed in political turmoil and as a vacuum of leadership develops, I want to make clear that Scotland is led by a stable and effective government.

"We are focused on making sure that Scotland's interests are protected but we are also determined to continue our work and further improve our schools, our hospitals and our economy.

"As First Minister, I am focused entirely on governing this country in the interests of all of the people of Scotland. That is my overarching priority."

As good a job as she is doing, the First Minister can only speak for Scotland. It's clear that England has no effective leaders (with the exception of Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, who appears to be fighting hard for his city), no-one with plans, no-one with both authority and the desire to take control and move things forward. It's no easy task - there are no good choices, no 'win-win' solutions. It's a terrible set of choices, all of which have major consequences for the UK. And there should be consequences - multiple governments allowed this situation to arise, multiple warnings were ignored. Something of this magnitude can't be allowed to occur without cost as a warning to future generations that everyone in your country matters, that voting matters.

So, at this time of the greatest crisis the UK has faced since WWII, who is in charge for the UK? The answer is "no one", and that lack of leadership is not so much the effect of the Brexit vote as it is the cause. We're in a world where things have been 'easy' for decades, where stances can be taken not on principal or because they are right or best, but because they advance a politician's career. It's a game to be played, and the consequences are minimal - until they're not.

We need not just a change in leadership, but how we as voters demand accountability from our politicians. I actually believe that most politicians are there trying to do their best for their constituents - they may not be very good, they may hold differing views, but they are trying to do what's right. And then you have the Johnsons and the Goves, who risked national and global economic meltdown to advance their careers. We have to learn to see which of these is which, and swiftly remove those who are disingenuous while supporting those who work for their communities.

We simply cannot afford to tar all politicians with the same brush, to ignore them, and to leave no-one in charge. Someone has to negotiate, to make the laws, to speak for the people. We need them, and it's our responsibility as voters to make sure they are the best we can get, that we research their claims, we understand the reality and if they lie to us, then vote the bastards out.

So to answer the question - "Who's to Blame?":

We all are.

Brexit - What the UK Vote on Leaving the EU is Really All About

It's hard to have missed in the news the recent discussions on 'Brexit' (British and Exit) - the referendum on the 23rd June by the UK population on whether the country should Remain in or Leave the European Union. This is a major issue determining the future of not just the UK, but potentially the EU itself as a British exit could start the same process in multiple other European countries. There are many factors that are driving this, and the ones that get highlighted most often are the "self determination" and "economic control", but what rarely is covered is the reality of why this is happening. In the end it comes down to the same old thing - money and power of the privileged few using the cry of "for the people" to line their own pockets.

First some background - skip down to 'The mechanism to make Brexit happen' if you're familiar with the history of the EU. The European Union was birthed in 1957, with West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Belgium creating the European Economic Community (EEC) for the purpose of some economic integration. In 1961 the UK, Denmark, Norway, and Ireland applied to join, however France vetoed their entry nominally on the concern that they would increase US influence on the EC, but was suspected to simply be that France didn't want to be supplanted in importance in the organisation by the UK. Those countries joined in 1973, to be joined in the 1980's by Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

In 1993 the EEC became the European Union (EU) and the political and economic ties between the countries strengthened, with the member countries being subject to some amount of EU law, but also a large reduction in trade barriers and importantly was the right of all citizens of the EU to free travel - that is any EU citizen can travel, live, and work in any other EU country with no legal restrictions. This alone was a huge benefit to the citizens - normally capital is free to move across national boundaries, but labor is not, and this was a huge leveling of the playing field for the average citizen who suddenly had a much larger market in which to apply for work.

There was also monetary union for many of the member states, and in the early 2000's the Euro became available. This was a single currency for all the member states, and tied the interest rates of those countries to the European Central Bank rather than their own central banks. The UK elected not to join the single currency and kept the pound, as the UK's economy was more service oriented and didn't match the economic cycles of the rest of the EU, and to surrender interest rate policy would not be financially prudent. In 1992 there had also been a run on the pound and the UK had been forced to remove the pound from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), and this was still in the minds of most politicians.

The last major expansions of the EU in 2004 and 2007 added many eastern European countries to the membership, and Hungary, Romania, Poland, and others gained all the benefits of membership, including the right of their citizens to travel and work in the EU. These were definitively poorer countries and there was a large migration of their workers to the richer EU countries, and the UK took a large share of them. Many of the lower paid jobs such as shop work, manual labor, cleaning services and so on were taken by these groups, as well as an influx of skilled trades such as joiners and plumbers. Like many immigrants, they would work harder, for less pay, and in worse living conditions that the natives and suddenly there was competition for these positions. Poorer locations in the UK started to become eastern European areas, and this change raised further ire among natives especially in times of recession and high unemployment. Basically, just what you see the world over when there's a large sudden immigration, such as when Italians or Irish emigrated to the USA.

The post 2007 financial crisis then highlighted flaws in the EU monetary union system - some of the countries that had been allowed to join the EU had done so when they weren't truly ready to do so, and when the crisis hit places such as Greece and Ireland, they had no way to control interest rates to benefit their population. Instead, they had to deal with policies essentially set by the larger countries of France and Germany who had no incentive to help at the expense of their own people. This led to severe austerity in these countries, and stressed relationships as it became clear that it was still far from a unified Europe when things got difficult. It's also worth noting that banks such as Goldman Sachs were behind the scenes, helping cook the books and in the end making things far worse for the ordinary citizen.

The UK had never been as committed to the EU as France or Germany, and in particular the Conservative party under Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's made it clear they weren't going to play nice. Over the years there has been some resentment between the UK and continental Europe, in part because the UK still acts in many ways like it runs an empire as in the pre-WWII days, partly because as one of the larger economies they contribute more in direct payments than they receive back, and that France in particular manipulates the system to benefit itself (as should any country, but there's just a certain animosity between the two). Much of it though was based on the populist press in the UK, the "Red Tops" like The Sun, who realised that headlines that enrage their readership always result in more sales. Unlike the US, these papers in the UK had great sway over the public, and their blessing could win elections for parties, or destroy politicians they disliked. 

The Conservative party have never been truly united on being in Europe, and have always had a wing of the party pushing for separation. The current Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, needed to placate his anti-Europe wing and called for a referendum as part of his manifesto last election cycle. Hence the vote.

Here endeth the history lesson...

The mechanism to make Brexit happen

So what fuels the real pressure for the Brexit vote? The mechanism by which it will happen is the voting public and the ballot box, and first we should look at the conditions that drive around 50% of the public to vote for leaving. First has been the diet of "faceless EU bureaucrats dictating your lives" stories in the press, but that has been going on for decades and is just a different faceless bureaucrat from one in London. What is really different now for most voters comes down to three things - globalization whereby jobs can be shipped offshore and productivity gains of those still working go to the already rich and not them, a growing distrust of major institutions and "politics as usual" (something seen the world over), and a sudden increase in immigration from poorer nations. These are perfect conditions for the rise of nationalism, and parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) gain votes on thinly disguised xenophobia, while groups such as Britain First use the guise of "Taking Our Country Back" to cover their racism. They have good marketing departments, but these are essentially the modern version of the National Front, led by small people who take great pleasure in being able to manipulate the anger and resentment of others, but pretending to do it for the benefit of others. Sadly, as with Donald Trump's manipulation of a similar type of abandoned voter in the US, it can lead to aggression and violence, as was tragically seen in last Thursday's murder of a Member of Parliament, Jo Cox. These people are angry about the takeover of their country by certain groups, and are looking for someone 'to do something about it'. The best description of this I have heard is:

The UK is being brought down by an evil conspiracy of single mothers, poor people, and immigrants, trying to subvert her sovereignty. Fortunately the country can be saved by a plucky group of ex-Eton schoolboys, billionaires, and media moguls who are valiantly resisting them.

Any time the poor and powerless are being blamed for major issues, you know someone is trying to distract you - and so we turn our attention to the real cause of Brexit - the billionaires and media moguls.

The real causes of the Brexit referendum

As mentioned earlier, the UK is heavily influenced by the newspapers, in particular the Red Tops like The Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch. He's used to having access to the highest levels of the UK government, acting as Kingmaker in elections, and influencing policy in his favour. He has little such access, however, across the rest of Europe, and fears that further integration in the EU will limit his influence. He has been quoted to have said

When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.

And that, in a sentence, is why one of the most powerful media moguls in the world is pushing for a reduced role of the EU in the UK. Not for the betterment of the UK, or for its people, or because of an injustice - it's power, influence, and the associated money, plain and simple. 

This also applies to many of the characters leading the Brexit 'Leave' campaign side such as Boris Johnson (ex-Eton schoolboy, former London Mayor, and leader of the Leave side) and Nigel Farage - men who are known and are of some importance in the UK, but somewhat meaningless in Europe. Too small to play on the big stage, these small fish would rather ensure the entirety of the UK remain in a small pond for their benefit. Perhaps they even believe their own publicity, but Martin Fletcher of The Times newspaper summarises Boris Johnson's history with the EU here, and points out his pettiness, willingness to fabricate negative stories of the EU, and his pleasure in the attention such lies brought him.

Johnson later confessed: “Everything I wrote from Brussels, I found was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party, and it really gave me this I suppose rather weird sense of power."

Quite simply Boris Johnson is continuing the power trip he started nearly 30 years ago, but this time gambling with the future of a continent and even the world economy. It has led to a remarkable attack from former UK Prime Minister calling Johnson 'dishonest' and the Leave campaign 'deceitful'.

Finally we come to the billionaires. The UK has an outsized financial sector, contributing a large % of the overall economy, and dominating industry especially in the capital - Financial Services contributed around 12% of taxes in the UK in 2012. London is the financial capital of Europe, rivaling New York and in some ways exceeding it, with differing and some would say laxer regulations on what can go on. For many years it has been the recipient of money coming from all over the world, particularly from Russia and the middle east, with suspicions as to the legality of the source of much of it. As with all major financial centers, there is plenty of fraud going on - and the EU is more likely to place legal restrictions on this. Money hates feeling it is restricted, and regardless of the costs to others, believes that the influence it has on London and UK politics far outweighs what it can achieve in Europe as a whole. By ensuring a British exit from the EU, parts of the finance industry in London wants to make certain it can continue without restrictions it fears.

Interestingly, this desire to leave is not universal in the financial sector - many of the larger banks and financial institutions fear reduced access to EU markets and a diminished role in time. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan warns of 'massive dislocation' should Brexit occur. The split in opinion seems, similar to the differences with the political characters, to be between the small and the large. To quote the Financial Times:

Smaller groups and the people who have spent their lives working in them are much more likely to want to leave; bigger, international institutions overwhelmingly favour remaining in the bloc.

It's not often I find myself agreeing with the large banks, often I use that as a warning sign, but in this case I agree with them. 

So to summarise - while you may hear the Brexit is all about self-determination, controlling immigration, or economic freedom for average citizens, remember that is simply the smoke screen and justification for the real agenda. It's for the oldest possible reasons - money, power, and ego.