Vivian on 27/6/2016 at 16:19
Gryz, just shut up for like a month at least.
SD on 27/6/2016 at 16:21
Gryz should shut up until the British economy has recovered to pre-Brexit levels.
Gryzemuis on 27/6/2016 at 16:30
I didn't type a single word.
Jezus, you guys are sourpusses.
I didn't even vote.
Fingernail on 27/6/2016 at 16:34
What a mess!
Tories - mess. Johnson wasn't even at the Commons for all the hoo-hah just now. There's got to be something amiss when I find myself wishing Cameron would stick around a bit longer... he had a great line about appearing with Tim Farron and Gordon Brown as "a unique but apparently ultimately unconvincing trinity" during the campaign. If you can't laugh you'd be crying.
Labour - super mess. I'm torn - unfortunately I think Corbyn wasn't particularly effective (although I do wonder how many of these stories about him "sabotaging" the Remain campaign are simply Labour MPs engaged in their favourite pursuit of destabilising their party). Even with a new leader they still won't "get" or be got by the majority of Brexiters/ex-Labour UKIP supporters.
Meanwhile we have the prospect of Boris or Theresa May becoming PM, manipulating the Brexit negotiations/delaying article 50 to more or less maintain the status quo, presumably to the rising anger and disillusionment of the more Farage-inclined Brexiters. Or indeed Nicola Sturgeon (god bless her) attempting to block the whole thing through the Scottish Parliament. Johnson's article today basically saying "well, the only thing that will really change is the ECJ and the laws". Uh, oh.
At least we got our country back eh chaps
Just in time for Wimbledon!
heywood on 27/6/2016 at 17:42
Relax, you guys aren't leaving anything. You're just sending a different negotiator back to the EU with a (presumably) stronger hand.
Vivian on 27/6/2016 at 17:51
Is there even a shred of evidence for that?
Starker on 27/6/2016 at 18:35
Quote Posted by demagogue
Yeah I was thinking about the strengthened Anglo-American alliance angle, and while interesting, it'd no doubt get completely ripped apart as the UK going from an equal partner among 28 states in the EU to a glorified 51st state with the US.
Actually, this article I found provides an interesting take on that, though it's from an American perspective:
Quote:
(
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/25/europes-loss-is-natos-gain/)
There are several reasons that the British departure from the EU portends a stronger transatlantic military alliance. First is the present state of heightened wariness among all NATO member states – and that includes EU members, as well as the United States, Canada, Norway, and Turkey — about adventurism by Putin’s Russia. The Kremlin’s goal has always been to be the strongest political entity on the continent, and it is likely to look for ways to further exploit the Brexit referendum’s centrifugal effects on the already fractious democracies of western Europe. Since its founding, NATO has provided the most resolute military balance against such efforts, and thus its stock can be expected to rise with publics in Europe.
Second, with the withdrawal from the European Union, the military of the UK will have more resources and manpower to support NATO. Much like Norway – a strong European economy that is not an EU member but a staunch member of NATO – the United Kingdom will have additional ships, troops, and aircraft to deploy on NATO missions because they will not have to support EU military efforts such as the counter-piracy operations off the coast of East Africa or EU missions in the Balkans. They will be able to assign more and higher caliber officers and troops to NATO billets in the Alliance’s command structure – at the moment, many are “dual hatted” into EU and NATO billets or are in EU military structures.
A third benefit for NATO will be a reduction in the quiet, but real, battlefield competition between NATO and the EU. Consider the respective anti-piracy military missions conducted off the coast of Africa for the past several years by the EU and NATO. Each has had different strategic priorities, with the EU working the “soft power” side of the equation more diligently than NATO. This competition has also manifested in Afghanistan and the Balkans, where both organizations over time have had different missions and priorities. Since the UK will no longer be obligated to support EU missions, its military will be able to focus solely on their work within the NATO alliance. And, given that European military efforts will be greatly diminished by the loss of British military muscle, the EU can be expected to defer to NATO more frequently. That will result in an increase in NATO’s workload, but also its effectiveness.
Finally, a new British government will presumably be a very motivated NATO partner. Now that it has chosen to become a relatively marginal economic player on the international stage, it will have to look for new ways to demonstrate value in its partnership with the United States if it hopes to maintain anything like the “special relationship” it has become accustomed to (and dependent on). Britain will no doubt calculate that continuing or improving its good work in NATO – where it has always been strong to begin with – will be an important show of good faith.
heywood on 27/6/2016 at 22:46
Quote Posted by Vivian
Is there even a shred of evidence for that?
I was half kidding. But only half.
Maybe it's just my cynicism, but I don't take recent events at face value.
It seemed obvious to me that offering a campaign promise to hold a referendum was just pandering to get euroskeptics who were leaning toward Labour or UKIP to vote Conservative instead. And besides satisfying a campaign promise, the main purpose of holding the referendum was for Cameron and the rest of his party's establishment wing to cut the legs out of the independence movement and consolidate their control over the Conservative party. They presumed the Remain side would win and I don't think they ever intended to really give the country a choice. If they knew there was a chance of Leave winning, they wouldn't have scheduled the referendum. Evidence for that is Cameron refusing to follow through on it.
Now it looks to me like Boris Johnson was pushing the Leave side mainly to elevate his own status and profile within the Conservative party, and wasn't thinking seriously about where the country should go if Leave won. And that looks to be true for others as well. I'm an outsider these days, so I might be wrong about this, but it seems like the independence movement is not well represented in Parliament. Although 52% of voters opted to vote for Leave, a much smaller percentage of MPs want to leave. So it could be hard to find enough votes to select a new PM who will follow through with an Article 50 notification since Cameron won't.
Another thing that will make it hard to follow through on Brexit is more pressure from string pullers such as banks, global corps, and the investor class in general who think they are going to lose out if there is any reversal of globalization. Judging by the market bump on the eve of the vote, it seems like most people just assumed Remain would win. Now that they see this is serious, I would think they would put a lot more pressure on the new party leadership to reconsider. They are now realizing this thing is too important to be left up to the people to decide, if you know what I mean.
So one hypothetical situation is that the new leadership goes back to the EU and offers to remain if the UK is given more of the concessions David Cameron was looking for. And then the new leadership can claim victory, and if necessary hold another referendum. I think this is the most likely outcome, assuming the rest of EU plays along. Another hypothetical situation is that the UK goes through with the Article 50 notification, but then the resulting negotiation results in the UK staying in the EU with some modifications one or more of the standing treaties. Or maybe the UK leaves, but the exit agreement leaves in place most of the status quo.
Lots of things could happen but the absolute least likely is that the UK leaves for real and tries to negotiate a whole new type of relationship from scratch. I know there are independents who want that and their number is increasing, but the vast majority of people with any power in or over government don't want that. It's kind of like Trump's wall.
Chade on 27/6/2016 at 23:23
I don't see what would cause the EU to grant more concessions at this point. If power brokers in the UK prevent a split, then the UK has just revealed one big bargaining chip (we're not really happy with being in Europe and walking away is vaguely on the cards so you had better keep us happy) is fake, and they've given the rest of Europe the middle finger for good measure. How exactly do recent events give them a stronger bargaining position?
