Peace Scientists work for peace

European Union


Brexit vote proved UK citizens are more stupid than Americans. SJ Dodgson MJoTA 2016 v10n1p0626

The statement that voting to leave the European Union proves that UK citizens are more stupid than Americans came from an Australian commentator, Richard O'Brien. A lot of statements have been published since Jun 24, 2016 04:00am GMT when the results of the UK referendum was called for Brexit.

I read through the arguments about leaving, Brexit, or staying, Remain, and was most convinced by the Guardian video I posted below earlier in June, and published an essay about why remaining was a good idea. You can read it below.

Unfortunately, the nature of who I am and what I write about is likely only to be seen and read by highly educated folks, and they were not the folks who voted for Brexit. 

Folks in the north of England, which was once highly industrialized and humming, they voted to leave the EU, they voted for Brexit. These folks feel disenfranchised and left out of the honey pot that overflows in London where living quarters would cost them the wages of several lifetimes. For once in their life, these folks were given a chance to do more than press their noses against glass, they were given at a whack at a ball, and decided that all their misery was due to Europe. Because England, with its long history of hanging, transporting, colonizing, clapping into military service as many poor as possible, England could not be the cause of their lack of opportunity, their discontent. It had to be the foreigners.

I have difficulty believing that all those geniuses who went to wonderful universities could not make a convincing argument to convince the angry Brexit voters that Remain was in their best interest. 

What hit me forcefully is that altering rules, regulations, jobs, alliances could be subject to a 50:50 vote. In the US we require a majority of 60%, maybe more, for every region, to change the constitution. And this referendum was equivalent to that. 

I had forgotten how stupid most people are; willing to opt for the easier solution because it takes less energy. Biting off your nose to spite your face. My Dodgson ancestors who were foundations of the London financial system and hence railways, they are twirling in their graves. And they all spoke German and French.

But did the majority of voters really vote to leave the EU? From reports from voters in the UK, parts of London were flooded and public transport was shut down. Which suggests that horrible weather related to climate change affected the election, and no allowances were made for voters being unable to vote. 

But indeed is all lost? Is the UK splitting off from the EU (European Union) inevitable? Perhaps not.

On Friday Jun 24 2016 a petition was started for a debate in UK parliament over the referendum results. The petition calls for a second referendum on the grounds that under 75% of the electorate voted, and of these, under 60% voted for Brexit.

Another possible rescue could be from the UK parliament. To leave the EU, an act has to be passed in parliament that triggers the Lisbon Treaty Article 50, at which time the clock starts ticking and the would-be exiter has exactly 2 years to exit. 

The problem with this is first, that both sides of the aisle did not want to leave the EU, and members of parliament supporting Brexit may be too few to pass an act. Second, senior leadership in both the governing Conservative Party and the Opposition Labor Party have both collapsed in the wake of the referendum. 

I am hoping that indeed this whole business ends up not in severing ties with the European Union, but as a midsummer nightmare. A really bad scare that makes everyone try harder. Because 71 years without Germany trying to kill my relatives is a really good innings. I want them working together, making up rules. Not machine gunning down each other.
Brexit: or Remain? SJ Dodgson MJoTA 2016 v10n1p0602

I grew up in the shadow of World War II and heard nonstop about what Germany did and how they cannot be trusted. German prosperity in postwar years  sticks in the throats of the less fortunate: why are they doing better than us? 

Because, my child, if Germany did not do better than most of the rest of us, they would be trying to kill us. Get over it. And I know. I married a German, and when he became demented and handicapped, the German courts decided he had of his own free will decided to stop all contact with his only children and family. Whom he adored.

Germans have a very strong feeling that all the rest of us are not terribly human, and do not have the rights of Germans. Luckily, a whole lot of other countries make up the European Union, and slap Germany down when needed. We need to continue that.

Get over your disgust at the European Union, and see what a wonderful job they have been doing. They have streamlined pharmaceutical drug approvals, they have eliminated borders, they have created a single currency which started off being on par with the US dollar, and rapidly became worth more. I am a life scientist, and what made me fall in love with the European Union was the following guidance: "Open access for all publications of research funded by partially or fully public funding, EU initiative". Wow! Spectacular!!!!

Do they need to be more democratic, more accountable? Definitely. The huge costs of maintaining itself could certainly be reduced and democratic representation needs to be improved. The European Union is trying hard to maintain peace and stability, with some success. Their mission is constantly sabotaged by France insisting on monthly 4-day sessions in Strasbourg which is a long drive from Brussels, fishing quotas in Scottish waters that make Scots apoplectic, unbearable cruelty to Greece. However, Germany has not shot at or bombed any of my relatives since 1945. Let us make sure that continues. L'Chaim!
Scotland click here
Wales click here
England click here
Ireland click here
News feed from the Economist

Latest Top (10) News


A geopolitical row with China damages South Korean business further

Closing time came suddenly

IN A cosmetics emporium in central Seoul, rows of snail-slime face-masks sit untouched. Not long ago, visiting Chinese tourists would snap these up as avidly as a designer handbag in New York or anything from London featuring the Queen. Yet now their rejuvenating properties are failing to lure the country’s shoppers. Seo Sung-hae, a salesman, says business has slowed to a snail’s pace, because of a drop in the number of Chinese visitors. “We used to have 100 customers a day, but after THAAD, there are almost none,” he says.  

THAAD, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defence, is an American missile-defence system designed to guard against North Korea that was installed in South Korea starting in March. Chinese authorities protest that its radar could be used to spy on its territory. Chinese newspapers have encouraged consumers to boycott South Korean goods. The plan was to “bully” Korea into ditching...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:34 +0000



A property billionaire rescues Harvey Weinstein’s studio

AS DISTRESSED assets go, the Weinstein Company (TWC) is uniquely distressing. Much of its value was bound up in the brands of its eponymous founding brothers, one of whom, Harvey Weinstein, has been accused of sexual harassment and of assault by dozens of women in the film industry in America and elsewhere. Amazon Studios, Apple and some television networks have hastened to cut ties with the studio, unwind production deals and remove Mr Weinstein’s name from credits. Mr Weinstein’s accusers may well sue the company. It was already heavily indebted after a recent string of box-office flops.

Who would see an opportunity? Aside from TWC’s particular troubles, independent films are a tough business, and the studio has had to haggle with creditors. But for a vulture investor some of the studio’s assets hold value. On October 16th Thomas Barrack (pictured above), chairman of Colony Capital, a private-equity firm, said he would immediately put an undisclosed sum of cash into TWC and look...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:34 +0000



Saudi Aramco’s IPO is a mess

THE proposal to sell shares in Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, stunned the financial markets last year. Muhammad bin Salman, now Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, promised that it would be the biggest initial public offering (IPO) of all time, valuing Aramco at $2trn. It was to be the centrepiece of his plan to transform the Saudi economy, reducing its dependence on oil. It was meant to foster financial transparency and accountability in one of the world’s most hermetic kingdoms. Above all, it would cement the young prince’s image as a bold moderniser soon to inherit the throne.

Alas, youthful impatience appears to have got the better of him. His tendency to micromanage the IPO and vacillate over where Aramco should be listed has caused delay and confusion. Matters came to a head this week when advisers, speaking anonymously, and company executives doing the same, gave conflicting reports, suggesting a mutinous atmosphere.

The kingdom’s advisers say...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:34 +0000



Why Airbus’s tie-up with Bombardier is so damaging for Boeing

Alabama bound

LIKE an airliner in service, Bombardier’s C-Series programme has had multiple highs and lows. In 2008 the Canadian firm began its attempt to break Airbus and Boeing’s duopoly on smaller jets, spooking the pair into upgrading their own models. Costs and delays pushed it near bankruptcy in 2015, followed by a bail-out from the Quebec government worth C$2.8bn ($2.2bn). The next year an order for 75 C-Series jets from Delta, the world’s third-biggest carrier, kept the programme aloft. But decisions in September and October by America’s Commerce Department to agree to demands by Boeing, an aerospace giant, to impose a total tariff of 300% on importing those planes into America risked the C-Series project crashing once and for all.

On October 16th came a surprise surge. Bombardier said it would hand over half the project to Airbus, a European aerospace firm, free of charge. Bombardier and Investissement Québec, the province’s...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:34 +0000



An Indian aviation visionary runs into bureaucratic turbulence

But India’s not rolling out the red carpet

ALL great aviation ventures start with mavericks willing to defy both the laws of physics and the scepticism of their peers. William Boeing, Oleg Antonov and Howard Hughes are some of the best-known examples. Next, perhaps, is Amol Yadav, who for much of the past decade has been building aeroplanes on the roof of the Mumbai flat he shares with 18 family members, and battling the Indian authorities to let him fly them.

Admittedly, only experts would be able to distinguish the six-seater propeller plane (pictured) Mr Yadav has designed from scratch from a run-of-the-mill Cessna. But his plane is the only one in decades with wholly Indian credentials, he says. Much larger outfits have tried but struggled to get an indigenous craft certified for production, including National Aerospace Laboratories, one of several state-owned aviation mastodons.

Self-identified visionaries are commonplace in...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:33 +0000



A Lloyd’s report urges insurers to ask “what if?”

ON JULY 7th disaster was narrowly averted when an Air Canada passenger plane, trying to land on a full taxiway at San Francisco airport, pulled up just in time. Five seconds longer, and it might have crashed into fully loaded planes and killed over 500 people, in potentially the deadliest aviation disaster ever. Instead, the incident became a non-event—not just in collective memory but also in insurance. With no losses, there was nothing to log. Yet ignoring such near-misses, argues a report published this week by Lloyd’s of London, an insurance market, and RMS, a risk-modeller, is a missed opportunity.

Counterfactual “what if” thinking may be an enjoyable pastime for historians—“What if Hitler had been assassinated?” being one favourite—but is not common among underwriters. They prefer to base estimates of future risk—and hence premiums—on hard data of what happened in the past, eg, the number of aeroplanes that crashed and the total losses incurred. Since actual...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:27 +0000



A rash of bankruptcies hits Chinese lenders backed by state firms

THE Communist Party dominates China’s economy and uses state-run companies, which it controls with an iron fist, to enforce its diktats. Or so the theory goes. Reality is messier: the party often struggles to monitor state-owned enterprises (SOEs), let alone to get them to toe its line. As it convenes its five-yearly congress, one of the financial system’s dodgiest corners has served up a reminder of the limits to its power.

In the past two months at least seven online lenders backed by SOEs have collapsed. It was a business none should have been in, far removed from the industries they were supposed to focus on. The money potentially lost is trivial—roughly 1bn yuan ($150m), compared with government assets worth more than 100trn yuan. Still, these cases highlight how hard it is for the party to stamp its authority on the vast state sector.

The troubled SOEs include distant subsidiaries of the national nuclear company, an aviation company and a big energy company in...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:27 +0000



IBM lags in cloud computing and AI. Can tech’s great survivor recover?

TECHNOLOGY giants are a bit like dinosaurs. Most do not adapt successfully to a new age—a “platform shift” in the lingo. A few make it through two and even three. But only a single company spans them all: IBM, which is more than a century old, having started as a maker of tabulating machines that were fed with punch cards.

Yet after 21 quarters with falling year-on-year revenues (see chart), doubts had been growing about whether IBM would manage the latest big shifts: the move into the cloud, meaning computing delivered as an online service; and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), which is a label for...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:27 +0000



Multilateral lenders vow openness about their carbon footprints

THE World Bank gets a lot of flak. Developing countries clamour for a bigger role in its management. President Donald Trump’s administration lambasts it for lending too much to China. Employees are in open rebellion against their boss, Jim Yong Kim. Now the embattled institution faces criticism from a traditionally friendlier quarter: environmentalists. They accuse it and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) of not being upfront about their true carbon footprint.

That must hurt. After all, MDBs pioneered climate-friendly finance. Ten years ago the European Investment Bank issued the world’s first green bond to bolster renewables and energy-efficiency schemes. The World Bank has not backed a coal-fired plant since 2010. In 2011-16 it and the five big regional lenders in the Americas, Asia, Africa and Europe offered developing countries a total of $158bn to help combat climate change and adapt to its effects. They disclose the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by their day-to-day...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:27 +0000



Workers are not switching jobs more often

EVERYBODY knows—or at least thinks he knows—that a millennial with one job must be after a new one. Today’s youngsters are thought to have little loyalty towards their employers and to be prone to “job-hop”. Millennials (ie, those born after about 1982) are indeed more likely to switch jobs than their older colleagues. But that is more a result of how old they are than of the era they were born in. In America at least, average job tenures have barely changed in recent decades.

Data from America’s Bureau of Labour Statistics show workers aged 25 and over now spend a median of 5.1 years with their employers, slightly more than in 1983 (see chart). Job tenure has declined for the lower end of that age group, but only slightly. Men between the ages of 25 and 34 now spend a median of 2.9 years with each employer, down from 3.2 years in 1983.

It is middle-aged men whose relationship with their employers has changed most dramatically. Partly because of a collapse in the...Continue reading

Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:57:27 +0000