Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

Given that no-one seems to care about Northern Ireland in the EU debate I suspect it's sadly pretty low down on the priority list.

Yeah the fact it is called 'Brexit' and not 'UKexit' is probably telling.

[Valmy]

The GDP per capita of the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia is now about eighty per cent or over that of the European Union. It used to be 50 per cent in Slovakia in the mid-1990s.

All these countries have seen their populations expand in the last decade.

But in poorer countries like Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania the size of the population is still declining.

All of those ex-Soviet Bloc areas were disasters demographically right after it broke up. Glad to see some of them have turned it around.

[mongers]

We're fucked. 

[Sheilbh]

Is there some major crisis of the NHS or why is the EU membership always contrasted with more investment into the NHS? Our healthcare system is currently not really in any kind of political focus, so I am surprised it seems such a huge issue in Britain right now.

Because Leave say that the £350m [sic] we pay to Europe a day could be spent on the NHS - they have posters etc to that effect. The link with the NHS is quite clever. The NHS is it serious financial difficulties and nobody really objects to spending more on it (apart from a few  iconoclasts like me)

I had no idea so many right-wing Tories wanted to spend more on the NHS

Btw, I think it must also be taken into account that the EU has been beneficial for the NHS in that it has allowed it to be staffed by other EU nationals. For years nurses have been recruited in droves in Spain (and I guess in other countries as well) to staff British hospitals, for instance. I don't know where I read that EU nationals were something like 10% of all the NHS' doctors, with non EU doctors holding an even higher %. It seems to be that the NHS is quite dependant on qualified inmigrants to be properly staffed.

EU nationals are about 4% of the NHS workforce, immigrants overall are about 11%. The biggest nations are India and the Philippines which between them have about 3% of NHS staff.

Either you open up your market to Spain etc. as a whole in which case you are in Leavers Nightmare Land of EUROPEANS COMING IN OMG, OR you introduce a Canadian/Australia-style point system, which I am pretty sure would drastically reduce the number of available nurses, and thus wouldn't really be a cheaper source of workers.

The Australian points system is very popular and the model Leave say they want. If you want more nurses or doctors give people with those qualifications more points.

Fine then, although I can't imagine the administration and the dealing with the visa stuff won't be a barrier of entry for a portion of the cheap workforce.

I don't think it's a major issue. As I say the two biggest groups of foreign workers in the NHS are Filipinos (mostly nurses) and Indians (mostly doctors).

That reminds me of the apparent stance of these people that it is much more welcome to take immigrants from Asia than from Europe. I genuinly wonder if indeed they have a lower opinion of Eastern Europeans than, say Pakistanis, or it is just that it's safer to be racist when the subject is white and Christian.

This may shock you but Eastern Europeans are probably one of the most popular migrant group in this country. I kind of agree with this point. I think there's a limit to how much immigration the public want and a consequence of the huge increase in European migration since 2004 has been to make it very difficult for non-Europeans to move into the country. I also suspect it's a line that Leave may use quite well in minority communities.

I'm just saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat and that brexit would not lead to some miserable third world existence for the UK.

Agreed. There's a lot of the 'too wee and too poor' about this. The UK is a rich country, it would continue to be a rich country. It would probably get richer at a slightly lower rate. Leave isn't going to lead to the sunny uplands but it's not going to be apocalyptic either.

It's probably a combination of the most recent noticeable immigration is from Eastern Europe. The British public has had longer to adjust to, say, Pakistani immigrants in large numbers.

Also EU migrants have spread massively. I would be amazed if there was a town in the country without some EU migrants. Previous migrant communities tended to move to areas where there was an established community/network. So in many areas of the country EU migration is actually the only one they see and though it's small numbers the scale of change is huge because you're going from a non-existent community to one at all. In a way it's an indicator of how easily Europeans are able to integrate, but I'm not sure the issue is actual numbers though that's part of it, I think the bigger issue is a sense of lack of control.

Pre-2004 we had fewer than 50 000 EU migrants a year. It now fluctuates between 150k-250k and that seems to be the new normal and there's nothing to be done about it. When Labour decided not to impose transitional controls on Eastern Europeans (and we were one of three countries that didn't) they were expecting another 50k tops. So there's a sense of loss of control and being lied to about this.

What does that prove, McSnoot?

There are plenty of jokes about Pakistanis.

But this gets at the fallacy inherent the leave position: the idea that ex post one can easily cobble together most of the benefits of being in the EU without any of the supposed disadvantages.  In reality there is no way to do that without accepting back many of the same kinds of compromises and restrictions prompting demands for exit, with the added downside of eliminating any inside voice on EU policy.

In fairness that's Gisela Stuart's point of view ( her). She's a German-born MP who was one of the people appointed to help write the European Constitution with d'Estaing. Once it was finished she came out and said we should leave and wrote a paper for the Fabians about it.

Her basic position is actually there is no status quo option, which is what would be best. The EU is always evolving - through treaties, the ECJ and the Commission. For example just look at the change of emphasis within free movement, which was once of labour, since Maastricht introduced the concept of European citizenship. Her view is the EU is basically always moving in one, fairly integrative direction and it will probably need to move a lot further a lot faster because of the Euro. So as there is no 'associate member' option which just keeps the deal where we are, we should leave and opt for (I think she says) the Norwegian option of free movement and in EFTA but basically out of all the integration, state-building side of the EU.

There's actually been a lot of chatter recently that that is probably what would happen if we left because that would probably be the only option that could get a Commons majority.

Another referendum in 10 years and their scary immigration stick is gone

I can't think of a time when I've been aware of politics that immigration hasn't been one of the big issues. It's always been there since 97 at least. I don't see it going away. I think we are far more likely to leave in 10 years time than we are now. I think, like with Scotland, this is going to be a neverendum

Yeah the fact it is called 'Brexit' and not 'UKexit' is probably telling.

Yeah. Major and Blair did a joint event making this point today. One of the options on the ballot paper is for the breakup of the UK.

I'm amazed how few people who profess to be unionists care about this.

Edit: Incidentally there was another debate tonight which I ignored as with the previous ones. But an example of why the Eurozone issues matter was Johnson's line that the EU is the zone in the world with the lowest rate of growth, except for Antarctica.

[mongers]

I'm amazed how few people who profess to be unionists care about this.

That's just silly, next you'll be suggesting on of major UK wide parties has the name unionist as part of its name. 

[The Minsky Moment]

So as there is no 'associate member' option which just keeps the deal where we are, we should leave and opt for (I think she says) the Norwegian option of free movement and in EFTA but basically out of all the integration, state-building side of the EU.

There's actually been a lot of chatter recently that that is probably what would happen if we left because that would probably be the only option that could get a Commons majority.

Norway is in Schengen, all the EFTA states are.  Now maybe the EU makes an exception for the UK on this - but maybe not because it would create complications with a "two track" EEA.  The other big downside is that the whole corpus of EU law as it pertains to the single market then applies to the UK but the UK has zero formal power to shape that law or its development.  That's a not a showstopper issue for a country like Liechtenstein that realistically would have no clout even if in but it should matter for the UK. 

Meanwhile what happens while all this is being negotiated?  A big sloppy mess.  And you are assuming (guessing) there is a Commons majority for this option, as opposed to some alternative association agreements.  Since Leave is a negative coalition of people and factions with different ideas, it is not inconceivable that there is a majority for leaving, but no majority that can be cobbled together for any other affirmative option.

[Sheilbh]

Norway is in Schengen, all the EFTA states are.  Now maybe the EU makes an exception for the UK on this - but maybe not because it would create complications with a "two track" EEA.  The other big downside is that the whole corpus of EU law as it pertains to the single market then applies to the UK but the UK has zero formal power to shape that law or its development.  That's a not a showstopper issue for a country like Liechtenstein that realistically would have no clout even if in but it should matter for the UK. 

Then the EU should make an exception for Ireland. The common travel area and its role in the peace process is essential. I can't believe that even if Europe wanted to punish the UK that they'd be willing to risk that.

I'm not sure the idea that Norway just has to download EU law is entirely accurate. My understanding is that's only a proportion of the directives:
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-switzerland-eu-laws/

Meanwhile what happens while all this is being negotiated?  A big sloppy mess.  And you are assuming (guessing) there is a Commons majority for this option, as opposed to some alternative association agreements.  Since Leave is a negative coalition of people and factions with different ideas, it is not inconceivable that there is a majority for leaving, but no majority that can be cobbled together for any other affirmative option.

There is a Commons majority for remaining. If the public voted to leave I think the Commons would be likely to choose something like the Norwegian option because that's the next best thing.

There'd be a mess - eg. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sterling - but in theory it should be clear we continue as full members for two years while the leaving is negotiated and that can be extended with unanimous EU support (unlikely, but hopefully unlikely to happen). But I think that is also why the Commons would probably go for the Norwegian model. It's a relationship model that exists and can easily be adopted by another country, trying to negotiate an a la carte relationship will just prolong the chaos.

It has also been noted that in the Treasury document outlining the cost of various leave scenarios they didn't include Norway.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not sure the idea that Norway just has to download EU law is entirely accurate. My understanding is that's only a proportion of the directives:
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-switzerland-eu-laws/

I said Norway has to accept EU law as it relates to the single market.  The fact sheet confirms that and it also confirms the problem of being to compelled to "download" law without any voice or shaping in its adoption.  Again, perhaps not a huge trade-off for Norway which even if in would not have a ton of clout.  But a bigger loss for the UK which can have more influence within the EU.

As for how movement of people would be handled it's all speculation so Leave amounts to taking that chance.  But if the UK seeks a market integration agreement that would preserve London's status as de facto capital of Europe, I can't see the EU agreeing to that without securing pretty broad rights for their nationals to move back and forth.

There is a Commons majority for remaining. If the public voted to leave I think the Commons would be likely to choose something like the Norwegian option because that's the next best thing.

"something like" - some will prefer more, some less .  Maybe you get lucky and there is coalescence around a particular option but alternatively you could have a complex public choice problem.  Again, risk and uncertainty.  The good news in that the atmosphere in the Commons is not as poisonous as our Congress but there are some difficult and unpredictable personalities involved.  And not just on the skeptic side (ahem the leader of the opposition . . .)

There'd be a mess - eg. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Sterling - but in theory it should be clear we continue as full members for two years while the leaving is negotiated and that can be extended with unanimous EU support (unlikely, but hopefully unlikely to happen). But I think that is also why the Commons would probably go for the Norwegian model. It's a relationship model that exists and can easily be adopted by another country, trying to negotiate an a la carte relationship will just prolong the chaos.

A lot to risk for a dubious return.

[Tamas]

A lot of risk for dubious return sums up the Leave side quite perfectly I think.


Unfortunately I think people have been watching too much Braveheart :p

[Zanza]

There is a Commons majority for remaining. If the public voted to leave I think the Commons would be likely to choose something like the Norwegian option because that's the next best thing.

"something like" - some will prefer more, some less .  Maybe you get lucky and there is coalescence around a particular option but alternatively you could have a complex public choice problem.  Again, risk and uncertainty.  The good news in that the atmosphere in the Commons is not as poisonous as our Congress but there are some difficult and unpredictable personalities involved.  And not just on the skeptic side (ahem the leader of the opposition . . .)

Based on historic precedent, wouldn't Britain have to hold a referendum to join the EEA anyway in order to give such a decision after a Brexit any kind of legitimacy?

I doubt that a Boris Johnson led government would be able to pull that off.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

A lot of risk for dubious return sums up the Leave side quite perfectly I think.


Unfortunately I think people have been watching too much Braveheart :p

so that was Mel Gibson's plan to destroy the UK...

[Capetan Mihali]

I respect that this particular issue is UK-specific, but from a layman's perspective it appears the EU's legitimacy among its citizen/subjects seems to be in dire straits right now, espcially as far as Schengen and the Euro common concerned.  And this putting aside feelings about intra-EU migration, which seems to be unique to Britain in its scope and strength of feeling.

[The Brain]

A lot of risk for dubious return sums up the Leave side quite perfectly I think.


Unfortunately I think people have been watching too much Braveheart :p

10 minutes was too much for me.

[Duque de Bragança]

A lot of risk for dubious return sums up the Leave side quite perfectly I think.


Unfortunately I think people have been watching too much Braveheart :p

10 minutes was too much for me.

So less than Valhalla Rising. Impressive! 

[Sheilbh]

Based on historic precedent, wouldn't Britain have to hold a referendum to join the EEA anyway in order to give such a decision after a Brexit any kind of legitimacy?

Wouldn't see why but as has been pointed out today this would be the first time the people effectively overruled Parliament. So who knows? Potentially big constitutional implications.

I doubt that a Boris Johnson led government would be able to pull that off.

There's no policy the Tories could decide and unite on. There is no majority (except remain), so regardless our stance would end up needing pro-EU Labour or SNP votes. I think it'd have to be set in the Commons not the cabinet.