Elections are won on money. Voters don’t get out and vote without lots and lots of prompting. Europe was a non-issue for so many people.
So how did the Leave campaign get so many votes?
I’m googling. This is telling (from the Electoral Commission): Back in May the Leave campaign had twice as much funding as Remain.
How? It just feels wrong.
Weirdly, halfway down the page is a vote button (polling). The results (now) are 3/4 for “Leave”.
How did the Remain campaign not react properly to this?
Leave caused a widely-predicted stock market crash. Why would the banks support it?
For the sake of argument I believe that recessions tend to hit smaller businesses first, so if you’re a big bank you can wait for the round of bankruptcies that follow a recession and go shopping.
The main reason I can see for banks wanting to leave though, is freedom from EU regulation.
You could short the market.
Yep - freedom is one thing (although note that banks, now matter how shiny the brass plaque on the door, are filthy bastards with nothing in the way of making money - London is earning a reputation as a completely lovely place to launder) - but with less oversight, they will behave in worse ways.
Shock doctrine?
Did I miss something? That says banks funded remain, not leave.
Good question… Any speculation? I’m kind of at a loss, too, as it seems is everyone else here.
How about this, maybe? The revelation of who funded the remain vote actively worked against itself? After 2008, no on trusts the large banks, especially the American ones. But I’m sure that all these organizations that funded the remain campaign also had contingency plans for a leave. I’m sure they can wrangle a win either way over this.
I’m gonna go with Peter Thiel, just because.
Did the EU out him?
This topic was automatically closed after 238 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
