The Reverend


Question: If it is true that Brexit was a decision that was good for the United Kingdom, why did the worth of the British pound fall to it's lowest levels in 30 years yesterday?



It would seem to me that if, indeed, leaving the EU was, as U.S. conservatives are claiming today, the UK "taking back it's country"....then why did the markets comprehend the UK vote to leave the EU as a rather significant NEGATIVE?



Observation: UK citizens under 50 years old voted to remain in the EU. Those over 50 years old voted to leave. What explains that divide?



I've been trying to figure out where the incentives are for citizens of the UK to leave the European Union. According to this article, leaving the EU will not change a thing when it comes to accepting refugees OR preventing citizens of non-EU nations from entering the UK.



What WOULD change then?



The big change after leaving the EU is that you wouldn’t have the right to live abroad as a Brit, and you wouldn’t necessarily have the right if you were another European citizen to come and live in Britain.



Hypothetically, that would be akin to the state of Texas taking away the right of non-Texan, U.S. citizens to freely move, travel to, or work in the Lone Star state while also taking away the right of Texas citizens to travel to, or work in the other 49 states.



While it is true that the UK was a member of the European Union, the Kingdom kept it's own currency. So leaving the EU didn't change the Kingdom's currency. Further, joining the EU did not take away the UK's ability to control it's own borders. So, leaving the EU will not change, in any way, Britain's sovereign control of it's immigration.



But what if Texas citizens, in my hypothetical, got to the point where they regarded citizens of the other 49 states, either traveling to, or working in, Texas....as just too risky? That's what I think 52% of, primarily, older UK citizens were thinking when they voted to leave the EU. In their minds, it had become too risky....either for economic protection concerns, or security concerns.....to allow the free movement of citizens from fellow EU countries into the UK any longer.



By leaving the EU, a little over half of British citizens believe they are eliminating the risk of losing jobs to other EU nation workers while, at the same time, reducing the risk that one of those free-traveling-between-EU-member-nations-citizens might be a secret ISIS member.



In spite of those beliefs, most experts on EU-related things believe that the UK leaving the EU will make Britain worse off economically as well as more isolated from Europe on security matters which concern all countries. In a way, the UK is "walling" itself off from the rest of Europe at a time when inter-nation cooperation is vital in the fight against violent extremism.



On these things, there is no equivalence, really, between the UK and the U.S....except for in the minds of America Firsters, the Trumpsters.



Permit me to suss out what a genuine equivalence in America would look like.



Illinois, New York and Michigan are three states which have the highest percentage of Muslim-Americans among their state populations. From this map, it appears that North Dakota is one of the few states who have little, or no, presence of Muslim-American citizens.



Again, hypothetically....the equivalence of the Leave movement in the UK would find North Dakota sealing off it's state border, refusing to admit any citizens from Illinois, Michigan and New York from entering and moving freely in the state of North Dakota.



it just so happens that North Dakota is also, along with Maine, Georgia and West Virginia, a state with the lowest percentage of Latino-American citizens. Equivalence with the EU Leave movement would find North Dakota, Maine, Georgia and West Virginia setting up state border checkpoints to keep those Latino-Americans from roaming around freely in those states.



Would doing so make those "walled" off states safer.....better off economically? Would doing so make North Dakota, or West Virginia "great again"? And if so, in what way?



Readers may think I'm stretching credulity here on states of the U.S. walling themselves off with border checkpoints to keep "certain" U.S. citizens out of their states. But, here's Fox Freak and Trumpster, Todd Starnes, proving I'm not that far afield....



"Hey Texas -- did you see what the British just did?"



When, (if), Hillary wins the presidency...will one of the reactions of disappointed red states be to take Todd Starnes' advice and wall off their states from the "others" they would prefer not to have inside their states? Will we see a kind of "Stexit" right here in the good ole USA? States exiting away from the norm of free and unrestricted interstate movement and/or relocation?



I do not know the answer to my own question...but I fully believe it is a distinct possibility.