Brexit & British Politics

[sagegrouse]

Here's an article by Alexander Smith on the NBC News website, dealing with the various possibilities, including that it never happens.

Submitting a notification under Article 50 is the only way out of the E.U., according to 2007 treaty agreements David Cameron says it's an executive function, implying that the next PM (a Tory) could and would send it in. Others think that it requires Parliamentary action, which could prove problematic in a body dominated by "Remainers." One commentator drew great significance from the fact that it Article 50 wasn't triggered immediately, speculating that it may never happen.

[Deslok]

Well there was the War of 1812.

Edit: can we also say that no democracy has attacked another country? Or that no democracy has attacked another country without being clearly in the right to do so?

For simplicity sake, I'll just link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...en_democracies

[mph]

Well there was the War of 1812.

Edit: can we also say that no democracy has attacked another country? Or that no democracy has attacked another country without being clearly in the right to do so?

Not without making a contested value judgement about what makes it "right" to attack another country. The US invasion of Iraq is the most recent example. Democratic Peace Theory has been debated for decades, but I'm skeptical. I have theoretical objections to the underlying progressive assumptions of folks like Francis Fukuyama and empirical objections to the claim that democratic governments are less internally or externally violent than nondemocratic governments.

[alteran]

Interesting, since I believe (think) he set this snowball in motion down the hill by calling for the referendum to appease some back-benchers...

No way he escapes culpability on this one.

History will give him plenty of culpability.

But so far, he's making his successor completely own Brexit by forcing them to invoke Article 50 on their own. A shrewd bit of "up yours" on his way out the door.

And so far, his potential successors sure seem conflicted about owning the cause they fought so loudly for.

[OldPhiKap]

Someone upthread asked about why the EU links access to the market and free borders. Saw this in the WSJ, quoting French President Hollande:

"To access the internal market, [a country] must respect the four liberties: liberty of circulation of goods, of capital, of services and people." (He added that it must also contribute to the EU budget.)

Never heard of it before, but the "Four Freedoms" is apparently a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_market

[alteran]

Certainly not the 17 of 28 who are receiving millions and billions in annual subsidies. I have no clue as to the timing, but, yes, I believe, ultimately, that the Germans will grow weary of propping up half of the E.U.

Possibly, but not if they're smart. Germany is doing very, very, well with the status quo. Germany's very large manufacturing sector is export-dependent, and if they didn't have a currency tied to weaker economies, they wouldn't be minting money at the rate they are right now. Hell, the whole sector might be depressed.

The more I learn about economics, the more I wonder why anyone thought the Euro was a good idea. It's all fun and games until something goes wrong, then you have absolutely no tools to fix your economy. You're back in a 1920's-era level of just having to shrug and pray that things get better.

[77devil]

Possibly, but not if they're smart. Germany is doing very, very, well with the status quo. Germany's very large manufacturing sector is export-dependent, and if they didn't have a currency tied to weaker economies, they wouldn't be minting money at the rate they are right now. Hell, the whole sector might be depressed.

That is highly debatable. The German economy with a strong Deutchmark was doing just fine before the creation of the Euro. Sure they like the export subsidy from the weaker Euro, but Germany sends a half percent of GDP every year to the E.U. in return. The Euro was almost 50% stronger in 2007/2008 and Germany still produced a huge current account surplus between 10 and 20 billion Euro per quarter.

The more I learn about economics, the more I wonder why anyone thought the Euro was a good idea. It's all fun and games until something goes wrong, then you have absolutely no tools to fix your economy. You're back in a 1920's-era level of just having to shrug and pray that things get better.

On this we agree.

[swood1000]

Possibly, but not if they're smart. Germany is doing very, very, well with the status quo. Germany's very large manufacturing sector is export-dependent, and if they didn't have a currency tied to weaker economies, they wouldn't be minting money at the rate they are right now. Hell, the whole sector might be depressed.

The more I learn about economics, the more I wonder why anyone thought the Euro was a good idea. It's all fun and games until something goes wrong, then you have absolutely no tools to fix your economy. You're back in a 1920's-era level of just having to shrug and pray that things get better.

Instead of the more enlightened eras where governments can just print more money instead of taxing people, or where fiscal policy is set by politicians responding to the most clamorous interest group.

[duke74]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef0745e0-3...#axzz4D0Ax2Y00

[budwom]

Here's an article by Alexander Smith on the NBC News website, dealing with the various possibilities, including that it never happens.

Submitting a notification under Article 50 is the only way out of the E.U., according to 2007 treaty agreements David Cameron says it's an executive function, implying that the next PM (a Tory) could and would send it in. Others think that it requires Parliamentary action, which could prove problematic in a body dominated by "Remainers." One commentator drew great significance from the fact that it Article 50 wasn't triggered immediately, speculating that it may never happen.

I heard a Financial Times writer from London opining he thought Brexit wouldn't happen. Sounds plausible to me...big money doesn't seem to think
this is a good idea, and big money often (but not always) gets what it wants (cynical me). Right now I'd bet a few liters of London Dry Gin
that it doesn't happen.

[alteran]

I heard a Financial Times writer from London opining he thought Brexit wouldn't happen. Sounds plausible to me...big money doesn't seem to think
this is a good idea, and big money often (but not always) gets what it wants (cynical me). Right now I'd bet a few liters of London Dry Gin
that it doesn't happen.

I don't know if I'd take that bet, but I agree that it isn't as over as many think.

One the one hand, you've got a close vote that went Brexit's way.

One the other hand:

• the vote was non-binding
• influential people are strongly opposed
• Parliament is overwhelmingly (personally) opposed
• the Prime Minister has delayed invoking Article 50 until the new PM takes over
• the primary public figures are reneging/backing off on their Brexit promises vis-a-vis immigration and health spending
• the ramifications with Scotland and N Ireland post-Brexit vote look complicated and possibly dire

I agree, I don't think this thing is over. Brexit is still probably the most likely outcome, but there's a lot of people in a position to delay and/or stop this that are opposed.

[duke74]

I agree, I don't think this thing is over. Brexit is still probably the most likely outcome, but there's a lot of people in a position to delay and/or stop this that are opposed.

But...there's a lot of pressure coming out of the EU to get the process started.

This was a show that just did not have to happen. Astounding series of events to me.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't know if I'd take that bet, but I agree that it isn't as over as many think.

One the one hand, you've got a close vote that went Brexit's way.

One the other hand:

• the vote was non-binding
• influential people are strongly opposed
• Parliament is overwhelmingly (personally) opposed
• the Prime Minister has delayed invoking Article 50 until the new PM takes over
• the primary public figures are reneging/backing off on their Brexit promises vis-a-vis immigration and health spending
• the ramifications with Scotland and N Ireland post-Brexit vote look complicated and possibly dire

I agree, I don't think this thing is over. Brexit is still probably the most likely outcome, but there's a lot of people in a position to delay and/or stop this that are opposed.

But...there's a lot of pressure coming out of the EU to get the process started.

This was a sh-tshow that just did not have to happen. Astounding series of events to me.

Yeah, the ironic thing is that Angela Merkel essentially said yesterday: "don't let the door hit your butt on the way out." The tough line the EU is taking -- we refuse to even negotiate until you invoke Article 50; don't expect access to the common market without freedom of movement/borders; make a quick decision to end the uncertainty that is bad for all -- is calling the question rather dramatically.

According to the WSJ, nominations for the next PM within the Torries opened today and closes at noon tomorrow. It gets narrowed down to two, and then they expect to announce the new PM in September. Labour is concerned about the Torries calling for a snap national election and is trying to boot party leader Courbyn (ultra-left, but with some strong grass root support; a significant portion of his shadow cabinet resigned due to Courbyn's alleged luke-warm efforts to turn out the Remain vote). Liberal Democrats are vowing that if there is a snap election, their platform will be to undo Brexit. Scottish Nationalists and Northern Irish parties -- who knows.

Suddenly, Hurleyfor3's early post on the presidential thread seems oddly right -- our politics is boring in contrast.

[swood1000]

Someone upthread asked about why the EU links access to the market and free borders. Saw this in the WSJ, quoting French President Hollande:

"To access the internal market, [a country] must respect the four liberties: liberty of circulation of goods, of capital, of services and people." (He added that it must also contribute to the EU budget.)

Never heard of it before, but the "Four Freedoms" is apparently a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_market

Thanks. It looks like one of the goals is to break down stereotypes and prejudices, and to bring the countries closer together. It would be ironic if this requirement caused the collapse of the entire EU effort.

Freedom of movement for workers is one of the founding principles of the EU. It is laid down in Article 45 of the TFEU and is a fundamental right of workers. It entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyour...FTU_3.1.3.html

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks. It looks like one of the goals is to break down stereotypes and prejudices, and to bring the countries closer together. It would be ironic if this requirement caused the collapse of the entire EU effort.

Indeed.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The more I learn about economics, the more I wonder why anyone thought the Euro was a good idea. It's all fun and games until something goes wrong, then you have absolutely no tools to fix your economy. You're back in a 1920's-era level of just having to shrug and pray that things get better.

Never quite figured this out. Makes European vacations easier I guess.

SoCal

[77devil]

Never quite figured this out. Makes European vacations easier I guess.

SoCal

But not less expensive. Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Italy would be on sale in local currency. Yes, Germany would be more expensive but so what. The food is mediocre at best.

[swood1000]

If the UK wants to retain access to the Single Market without membership in the EU, like Norway and Switzerland, then they would apparently have to pay virtually the same net contribution, would have to accept free movement of labor and would have to accept EU regulations but without having any say. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20...n-perspective/ I wonder how well that suggestion would go over with the British population.

Edit:

The EU will of course want to make an example of the UK. Not out of vindictiveness, but to set an example to their own electorate that leaving the EU is not a good idea. The EU will not make it easy. If the UK leaves, the UK will be most likely excluded from post EU negotiations. It will be an unfavourable settlement which imposes very high costs on leaving. The process could be quite humiliating. You can’t pick and choose the best aspects of the EU. The UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK. 50% of our exports goes to Europe. 10% of Europe’s exports go to UK.

[OldPhiKap]

If the UK wants to retain access to the Single Market without membership in the EU, like Norway and Switzerland, then they would apparently have to pay virtually the same net contribution, would have to accept free movement of labor and would have to accept EU regulations but without having any say. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/20...n-perspective/ I wonder how well that suggestion would go over with the British population.

See,w to be the exact same three things upon which the Leave group campaigned.

Just finished streaming today's PM questions. Not a Cameron fan but he was strong. He is laying the groundwork for the possibility that, upon reflection, Leave is not the best option.

Worth 40 minutes if you are really interested (I wish we did this, our president coming once a week to answer any question from a House member): http://www.parliament.uk/business/ne...ers-questions/

[swood1000]

See,w to be the exact same three things upon which the Leave group campaigned.

Just finished streaming today's PM questions. Not a Cameron fan but he was strong. He is laying the groundwork for the possibility that, upon reflection, Leave is not the best option.

Worth 40 minutes if you are really interested (I wish we did this, our president coming once a week to answer any question from a House member): http://www.parliament.uk/business/ne...ers-questions/

Thanks for the tip! That was fascinating. Apparently the Speaker of the House of Commons wore a wig until 1992, when the first female speaker declined to wear one. I agree with you that Cameron is thinking that in the next few weeks the country, as it considers the costs of leaving the EU and the costs of the various alternatives, may want to reconsider whether to leave at all. He even, at one point, said "in the event of a leave vote..." suggesting he has in mind a second vote. He refused to acknowledge the possibility that the paths of Scotland and the rest of the UK will diverge. It was also interesting that in response to a question about a rise in hate crimes Cameron seemed to be saying that this mainly was directed at people from Poland, Romania and the Czech Republic.