|
Brexit
Jun 30, 2016 17:06:45 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 30, 2016 17:06:45 GMT
So, it happened (almost a week ago now). My sympathy to all currently residing in the United Kingdom, too.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2016 14:18:15 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Jul 12, 2016 14:18:15 GMT
For the benefit of confused non-Brits, I've written something on the Quodlibeta Blog about Brexit and why it happened: bedejournal.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-what-on-earth-happened.htmlI campaigned hard to leave the EU and have been against our membership since 1992. So obviously I'm excited and very pleased by the result. Much of the noise coming out of the UK of late has been from the small clique that runs the media and doesn't reflect the feeling in the country. There is no appetite for a second referendum or for a change of mind. That said, the result was a surprise and some of those on the losing side haven't yet reconciled themselves to this. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 12, 2016 18:04:41 GMT
Post by humphreyfmclarke on Jul 12, 2016 18:04:41 GMT
It was certainly a surprise. The consensus (based on the polling failure of the 2015 general election) was that the phone polls were more reliable than online. As a result the betting markets and polling aggregates seemed to be suggesting a Remain win; albeit a narrow one. In the event, the online polls were far more reliable and we can see with hindsight that Remain was probably never in the lead throughout the final stages of the campaign. In fact the end result may understate the scale of the leave victory as sentiment trailed off in the wake of the Jo Cox murder and the temporary suspension of campaigning.
Although I opposed the Leave campaign (on the grounds that the likely 'soft Brexit' outcome is arguably a worse deal than the one we had) I no longer believe the UK can remain part of the EU. The majority of the public is clearly against it. I have no idea how we retain single market access while curbing immigration but I have a certain amount of faith in the 'bloody difficult woman' we've ended up with.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 13, 2016 5:57:42 GMT
Post by merkavah12 on Jul 13, 2016 5:57:42 GMT
Wasn't King Arthur supposed to come back after something like this?
I'm waiting...
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 13, 2016 22:56:24 GMT
Post by unkleE on Jul 13, 2016 22:56:24 GMT
Hi everyone, thanks for your perspectives. As an Aussie, I am interested in the result but am too far away to have much of an opinion.
But despite having read your blog post, James, I still think I'm confused - as the British people seem to be. I haven't read enough to really know, but I can't see strong issues either way, though obviously you do.
I'm interested in your "small clique that runs the media" comment. Over here the media seems to have been reasonably neutral, although the Murdoch press (which you have too) seemed quite gleeful at the result (enough reason for me to think the opposite!). The only "Remain" opinion I can recall being expressed here is the cynical view that winning back control will be illusory, because the majority of Britons won't control anything, it will still be the media and the rich plus the politicians (who most of us know only through the media) who will control things, only now it's a smaller bunch of them, but like I say, that's a cynical view of our glorious 21st century democracies, where polarisation seems to be increasing in UK, US and Australia - maybe we should all move to New Zealand or Canada?
Do you think Scotland will stay in the EU, is that possible without independence, and do you think that would be good or bad?
Humphrey, why do you think the new PM will do the job well when she opposed leaving? Have you thought previous to now that she would make a good PM?
Ignorantianescia, you obviously see things differently to James. Do you think the EU is good for all countries, or could it be good for Netherlands but poor for Britain?
Merkavah, CS Lewis once wrote about that, and I recall said "The sooner the better say I".
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 14, 2016 7:11:44 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 14, 2016 7:11:44 GMT
If you're British and into this debate, what option do you prefer and what result do you think is likely? I'll give a run-down of the main options: 1. EEA membership ("Norwegian option"): access to the single market for services and most goods (with some tariffs), customs apply, part of Schengen, free movement of people, requires the UK to adopt the majority of EU regulations, net contribution per head may well exceed what the UK used to contribute 2. EFTA membership without EEA membership through separate bilateral agreements ("Swiss option"): access to the single market for most services (excluding financial services) and most goods (with some tariffs), customs apply, part of Schengen, must allow EU immigrants, requires the UK to adopt the majority of EU regulations, a small contribution to the EU Budget (not a viable option, because the EU doesn't want to do this again as it involves protracted negotiations and an incredible amount of red tape) 3. Bilateral trade agreement ("Canadian option"): free trade in most goods (with some more tariffs) and in some services (excluding financial services), customs, no free movement of people or Schengen, some compliance with EU regulations for the single market, no contribution to the EU Budget 4. European Customs Union ("Turkish option"): free trade in most goods (with some more tariffs), no customs, no free trade in services, no free movement of people or Schengen, some compliance with EU regulations for the single market, no contribution to the EU Budget 5. Association agreement (I think this is what UKIP prefers, though they called it fascism in relation to the EU-Ukraine association agreement - but perhaps that was an unguarded moment of candid admission?): free trade in certain goods (with some tariffs and considerable options for tariffs under conditions), customs still apply, no free trade in services, no free movement of people or Schengen, some compliance with EU regulations for the single market, no contribution to the EU Budget 6. WTO only: WTO level of tariffs apply, customs, no free trade in services, no free movement of people or Schengen, no EU regulations required, no contribution to the EU Budget There is some room for negotiation, but free movement of people is in fact a guiding principle of the EU to the point it got into a row with Switzerland over immigration (even though Switzerland isn't fully signed up to free movement of people, it must still make significant concessions). Of these, EEA membership is a very obvious non-starter to most Leavers for whom immigration and 'sovereignty' were key concerns and I don't think that EFTA membership through bilateral agreements is an obvious improvement if it were possible. The other options would significantly affect trade, but I think the UK could negotiate better access for financial services if it wanted from options 3 and 4. I have no idea how we retain single market access while curbing immigration but I have a certain amount of faith in the 'bloody difficult woman' we've ended up with. That doesn't happen to have been said by anyone related to you, does it? I'm interested in your "small clique that runs the media" comment. Over here the media seems to have been reasonably neutral, although the Murdoch press (which you have too) seemed quite gleeful at the result (enough reason for me to think the opposite!). The only "Remain" opinion I can recall being expressed here is the cynical view that winning back control will be illusory, because the majority of Britons won't control anything, it will still be the media and the rich plus the politicians (who most of us know only through the media) who will control things, only now it's a smaller bunch of them, but like I say, that's a cynical view of our glorious 21st century democracies, where polarisation seems to be increasing in UK, US and Australia - maybe we should all move to New Zealand or Canada? Most British tabloids (which have the largest circulation) supported Leave with the exception of the Daily Mirror. Of the broadsheets only the Daily Telegraph favoured Leave. The BBC was as neutral as it is on climate change and I guess the largest digital only media were for Remain. Murdoch's flagship title, The Sun, strongly favoured Leave, while its editorially independent broadsheet The Times was weakly for Remain. Ignorantianescia, you obviously see things differently to James. Do you think the EU is good for all countries, or could it be good for Netherlands but poor for Britain? That is a very broad question while there are all kinds of opt-outs and opt-in in the EU, some of which (like the Eurozone (EZ)) have had clear negative and in a few cases disastrous effects. So the answer will depend a lot on the specific program in which a country participates. Overall I think it can be safely said it's been the worst for southern EZ members with an outsize financial sector and/or a much lower GNI than GDP. EU integration has probably been best for northern EZ members with a large trade sector, especially if most trade is conducted with EU members. On the other hand, in terms of opt-outs and other special privileges, the UK probably got the most out of it while contributing the least. The Eurozone problems only indirectly affected the UK (while some stopgap measures for the Euro were initially paid out of the EU Budget, this was to be refunded by the EZ members), though the UK replicated some of its mistakes.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 14, 2016 9:41:19 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Jul 14, 2016 9:41:19 GMT
In terms of the media, I'm pleased if the Australian media is being neutral at least. Australia (rightly) saw our joining the EC and erecting tariff barriers for Australian goods a betrayal back in 1973, while Australians in the UK resent that they have to jump through all sorts of visa hoops and get kicked out after 2 years, while EU citizens have no such restrictions.
The split in the UK papers was interesting - the Sun went for Leave but it reflects its readers rather than leads them: it is a barometer that regularly swaps sides politically. The left wing mirror is far more ideologically pure and always supports Labour and Labour policy no matter what. The paleoconservative Mail went Leave, but its even more paleoconservative stable mate, the Mail on Sunday, went for Remain. The Times went Remain, the Sunday Times went leave. The paper of metropolitan ponces, the Guardian, was strongly remain, as was the corporatist Financial Times and Economist.
I think the point that ignorantianescia doesn't dwell on enough is: what is the point of the EU? Why is it not just a glorified free trade zone, which is all the British ever wanted. The answer: the EU is and always has been a political project to build towards a federal state. This not only explains not only why the British left, but also why The EU does so many weird things like fetishise freedom of movement, have a single currency without a single fiscal policy, and talk about punishing the UK.
If the EU was rational, of course it would want close economic ties to its largest neighbour and wouldn't demand freedom of movement as the price. But rationality has always been trumped by ideology. The result is confusion and, more usually, paralysis.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 14, 2016 18:36:29 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 14, 2016 18:36:29 GMT
I think the point that ignorantianescia doesn't dwell on enough is: what is the point of the EU? Why is it not just a glorified free trade zone, which is all the British ever wanted. The answer: the EU is and always has been a political project to build towards a federal state. This not only explains not only why the British left, but also why The EU does so many weird things like fetishise freedom of movement, have a single currency without a single fiscal policy, and talk about punishing the UK. The point of the EU is to provide a democratic alternative to intergovernmentalism for radically reducing barriers to trade, of which non-tariff barriers are the most notable, for preventing fiscal or regulatory races to the bottom and for addressing global or regional problems that go beyond the remit of the nation state. I'll be the first to admit there's a democratic deficit and I think there's too much intergovernmental confabbing going on that prevents effective solutions for the Eurozone or proper pollution standards getting through. But the EU has been hugely successful in addressing climate change, especially compared to much of the rest of the developed world. It also succeeded in laying down shared employee protections to provide a floor to wage undercutting and worsening working conditions while on the other hand securing free markets in area where some countries might have preferred to see more of the state. And it has notably reduced non-tariff barriers to an incredibly low level. But freedom of movement is an important counterweight to freedom of services, freedom of goods and freedom of capital. In its absence, labour market power is skewed too much in favour of employers, keeping down wages. It's true some polls indicate willingness among some electorates to punish the UK, and one even showed that many electorates only wanted a free trade agreement if freedom of movement was part of the deal, which is completely irrational - but in fairness that was a YouGov poll and probably failed to make clear that a free trade deal isn't at all the same as full access to the single market. But I'm sure that the member states aren't for an acrimonious split. I'd like to add that it was already clear during the 1975 referendum that the EEC was aiming for federalisation. The thing is many Brits changed their minds since, not that they never wanted the union. If the EU was rational, of course it would want close economic ties to its largest neighbour and wouldn't demand freedom of movement as the price. But rationality has always been trumped by ideology. The result is confusion and, more usually, paralysis. I ask you to look again at the EU and you'll find that there is very little ideology calling the shots there; most of it is muddling because the ideologies of those in power just do not match enough, several governments are very scared of their electorates and the dominant power is governed by a politician who's signature style is dallying until a consensus is formed. But the fact of the matter is, freedom of movement is vital to the architecture of the single market and close economic ties are not the same as access to the single market. The UK can get an excellent trade agreement or membership of the customs union or a nice association agreement, it can roll over promises made to Leavers over control and immigration and opt for the European Economic Area to stay in the single market, it can even decide to fall back on WTO norms for trade, but it cannot unpick the single market.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 15, 2016 12:14:20 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Jul 15, 2016 12:14:20 GMT
Thanks for your response which is very helpful. It is useful to get the point of view of an unabashed pro-EU person. The entire pro-Remain case in the UK was about the costs of leaving, essentially the costs of altering the status quo, with no attempt to make a positive case for the EU at all. Admittedly, Project Fear was probably Remain’s best bet and I doubt a more positive approach would have done them any good.
You are quite right to say that the EEC was always aiming for federalisation. You are completely wrong to say that the British voted for this in 1975. They were voting for an economic community only and were pretty systematically lied to by the authorities about the sovereignty and federal aspects. Only the anti-EEC faction, which the media and mainstream ignored, were banging on about it. Understanding this historical deception is key to understanding what happened on 23 June.
On the more general point of what the EU is for, I largely agree with you, which is why I voted and campaigned to Leave. As I have learnt in my short and humble career as a local politician, people go into politics to “get things done”. The trouble is, voters have lots of different opinions and getting things done is much harder in a democracy than in an oligarchy or dictatorship. The EU is intended to allow politicians to get things done with less interference from the voters who they are (or bloody well should be) terrified of. It is the job of voters to put the fear of God into democratic politicians.
You mentioned climate change and it is a good example. The democratic argument that really radical action is needed to make the slightest bit of difference to the climate has never been won. People pay lip service but don’t want to pay the costs. The EU allows politicians to bypass those objections. Likewise, free trade. The EU can ignore all sorts of local vested interests. And on immigration too although that varies from member state to member state. The upshot is that when people complain about windmills/being undercut by imports/too many immigrants, politicians can say it isn’t up to them, it is the fault of the EU.
The trouble is that if people never gave consent to all this, eventually they will rebel, which is what happened in the UK. Politicians will just have to go back to persuading their voters when they want to act, instead of getting the EU to do it. I expect the same rebellion will happen in Italy over the Euro, in Scandinavia over immigration and France over just about everything. The EU’s best chance is that the Euro will have wreaked the economies of France, Spain and Italy to such an extent that they can be bullied into behaving, just like the Greeks were. Nothing can keep Sweden and Denmark in the EU in the medium term, although they are both very sensibly waiting to see what happens to Britain for the moment.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 15, 2016 18:11:16 GMT
Post by humphreyfmclarke on Jul 15, 2016 18:11:16 GMT
Nothing can keep Sweden and Denmark in the EU in the medium term, although they are both very sensibly waiting to see what happens to Britain for the moment. Support for the EU in Sweden and Denmark seems to be rising at the moment though. Seems we've done the impossible and increased the EU's popularity!
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 16, 2016 6:18:53 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 16, 2016 6:18:53 GMT
Although it's my understanding that the Wilson government did mostly campaign to a Common Market tune, the then more pro-European Conservatives made no secret of their federalist tendencies and this article argued that this was publicly known.
I am more optimistic about the availability of solutions to unpopular problems, though I think in the case of the Euro full implementation is very unlikely due to politics. In several countries renewable energy is quite popular, which suggests that the local response is dependent on societal attitude and governmentality (and the EU's record on climate change isn't limited to setting renewables targets, but also pricing greenhouse gases and phasing CFCs out). As for the Euro Zone, I think the main ingredients of the solution are mutualising debts and relinquishing the 3% deficit targets in the current economic climate. This either requires a relative weakening of Germany's hand (Brexit may have meant this) or the German public jettisoning Schaüble and acolytes in the next election, which looks improbable. A serious effect of fixing the EZ would be making the EZ/EU less popular in Germany, but I think it's worth trying and the backlash is limited by the modest proposal.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 16, 2016 7:37:38 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Jul 16, 2016 7:37:38 GMT
Here's the text of the original Government leaflet sent to all homes urging a vote to stay in the Common Market. Not a lot in here about federalism, while the EEC is referred to as the Common Market, or simply the Market. www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htmNote also that it emphasises the veto. True at the time: but no attempt was made to gain democratic consent when the veto was removed from 1985 onwards. The sovereignty issue was emphasised by the No campaign, but the Government tried to minimise it. Because the outers were labelled extremists (and their leaders were: Tony Benn and Enoch Powell), the Government was able to successfully write off their warnings as scaremongering. As I said, it is no use pretending that 1975 was about what the EU became. It wasn't. And the 1975 campaign was about remaining in a 'Common Market'. The mistake by the authorities was to refuse (or promise and then deny) referendums as the EU developed towards federalism. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 16, 2016 17:14:57 GMT
Post by fortigurn on Jul 16, 2016 17:14:57 GMT
In my experience, "Leave" people long for the glories of the old empire and the gentility of the pre-WW II era. They are horrified at the idea that instead of the British going out and conquering other nations and spreading British culture to enlighten foreigners, those foreigners are allowed to enter Britain, live there, and add their culture to the British cultural milieu. These people are conservative, typically C of E, and have a strong belief in the necessity of maintaining the important old traditions (such as the class system). They are tolerant of gays, but wish they would conduct their lives discreetly in private and not reveal their orientation, nor lobby for gay rights. They speak with longing of "Old England" (think Morris dancing, coal mines, royalty, imperialism, servants), and believe that morals and standards have plummeted significantly since the 1960s. Science is something that "boffins" do in "laboratories", and is occasionally useful. My relatives in Norwich are excellent examples of this type.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 16, 2016 17:52:12 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 16, 2016 17:52:12 GMT
James, I had read that pamphlet by the Wilson government, which is why I deliberately mentioned "that the Wilson government did mostly campaign to a Common Market tune". So I don't think I have much to respond to on this point; we are not in disagreement here. However, Adrian Williamson, who wrote a monograph on the roots of Thatcherism and therefore obviously knows a thing or two about British Conservatism of the period, wrote that most Conservative MPs embraced the prospect of closer political cooperation and quotes instances of federalist language in this article. Roger Liddle is also of the view that the claim that the EEC's federal ambitions implied by "ever-closer union" were hidden from the population is wrong, noting it was used by Heath in his treaty of accession. I would also be interested to hear what kind of future relation you prefer. Please feel free to use the six options I outlined above or to diverge from them if you think there's something wrong. In my experience, "Remain" people long for the glories of the old empire and the gentility of the pre-WW II era. They are horrified at the idea that instead of the British going out and conquering other nations and spreading British culture to enlighten foreigners, those foreigners are allowed to enter Britain, live there, and add their culture to the British cultural milieu. These people are conservative, typically C of E, and have a strong belief in the necessity of maintaining the important old traditions (such as the class system). They are tolerant of gays, but wish they would conduct their lives discreetly in private and not reveal their orientation, nor lobby for gay rights. They speak with longing of "Old England" (think Morris dancing, coal mines, royalty, imperialism, servants), and believe that morals and standards have plummeted significantly since the 1960s. Science is something that "boffins" do in "laboratories", and is occasionally useful. My relatives in Norwich are excellent examples of this type. That's not at all my impression, and it contrasts with the observation that Remainers (pro-Europeans) were mostly centred in larger cities, were on average much younger, more often had a degree and tended to view immigration and diversity more positively.
|
|
|
Brexit
Jul 16, 2016 20:34:59 GMT
Post by fortigurn on Jul 16, 2016 20:34:59 GMT
That's not at all my impression, and it contrasts with the observation that Remainers (pro-Europeans) were mostly centred in larger cities, were on average much younger, more often had a degree and tended to view immigration and diversity more positively. Yeah I meant to write "Leave", not "Remain". I've edited it.
|
|