Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

If Theresa May now questions whether the rights of EU citizens in Britain would be protected even after a Brexit, it makes me at least rather suspicious.

What did she say? I was hoping we immigrants would not be thrown to the dogs straight at the start of the Tory infighting.

Not sure, I just read this comment by Sheilbh.

Didn't notice at the time but May also raised status of EU citizens already here. The Leave campaign gave assurances, nit I hadn't thought of a Remain campaigner being more hardline. I wouldn't be surprised if she outflanked Gove from the right.

[Valmy]

If the EU is going to act all shitty you might as well hold it as a bargaining chip.

But this would not be antagonizing the EU, this would be antagonizing the individual member states and making this a nationalist contest where everybody is more likely to act irrationally. Especially very proud countries like Poland.

Besides I am not sure the UK has the juice to bully 20+ other nations around.

[derspiess]

this would be antagonizing the individual member states and making this a nationalist contest where everybody is more likely to act irrationally.

That's what Europe does best   

[Valmy]

this would be antagonizing the individual member states and making this a nationalist contest where everybody is more likely to act irrationally.

That's what Europe does best   

Yes but doing something likely to trigger that strikes me as a bad bargaining tool

[alfred russel]

It is nasty but it is also leverage/hard-ball.

So get the EU to do what you want by threatening their nationals? Bold move.

If the EU is going to act all shitty you might as well hold it as a bargaining chip.

It would seem to me that a) the EU hasn't committed to "act all shitty" and b) the best strategy for the UK would be to act as conciliatory as possible, both for PR reasons and because if this turns into a king of the mountain type of fight, the UK is not going to come out ahead.

[Savonarola]

I don't recall any republics ever being that Christian....

Not even one?  Are you sure?

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is ridiculous, many British firms are reliant on the EU workers.

[mongers]

If Theresa May now questions whether the rights of EU citizens in Britain would be protected even after a Brexit, it makes me at least rather suspicious.

What did she say? I was hoping we immigrants would not be thrown to the dogs straight at the start of the Tory infighting.

It's sort of the 'logical' conclusion to playing to that crowd, those Brexit voters and the ones in the Tory party who'll vote for her; they want a significant number of EU citizens/migrants to leave England.

Sorry Tamas, but that's what it amounts to, just hope it doesn't get too ugly for those on the sharp end.

Twenty-five minutes after posting that, as if on queue I saw a van marked 'Immigration Control' in our quiet former-market town.

Never seen anything like that before, it was decked out like a police van and the uniformed people inside scowled at me, so I didn't stop to take a photo. It was parked near an area of restaurants in town.

Sign of the times?

[Tamas]

Before the vote, I was thinking, at least if Leave wins, property prices will stagnate or decrease while negotiations go on so we get a nice window to enter the property ladder.

Now I am starting to think we will need to wait and see if we will be welcome here

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the reason I so strongly believe Norway-status is the likely outcome is it's the least risk option available. When you subject things to a referendum like Britain has stupidly done anything can happen, but when you're negotiating things among national leaders I think cooler heads tend to prevail.

But a Norway deal requires free movement of people and a very significant financial contribution. Impossible to see how that could be acceptable - it wold clearly breach the spirit of the referendum result.

I dispute there is a unified "spirit" to the result. I think there's a genuine divergent opinion in what "Leave" means. There was no list of options as to what form Leave should take.

I do think the biggest threat to Britain and the EU in all this is Britain's next leader is a hard Brexiteer that wants a complete separation, if that happens then obviously the dreams of Norway status are over.

[OttoVonBismarck]

How so?

I don't really get all the American sadness and, given your national attitude to sovereignty, lack of understanding about people wanting to leave a supra-national body that can overrule constitutions.

Eh, I made it quite plain that politically I was strongly pro-Brexit if I was a Brit, which is a weird position, because as an American I was politically against it. But I totally understand the desire for political separation, and would hate to see my own country be folded into a vast transcontinental confederacy. I do think that Britain has the chance to really fuck itself up economically if it goes for a true, complete divorce, becoming a true outsider from Europe.

I actually feel Norway status, I could actually vote for that if I was a British citizen, because it gives most of the benefits of being in the EU but because you're technically outside of it, I think it gives you more political freedom to go another way if necessary. It also preserves you from ever being force folded into a hypothetical European Federation at some future date.

From an American perspective the biggest blow isn't economic, I think it'll have minimal economic impact. It's that we lose the best proxy for our interests within the EU. Germany and France are frankly shitbag dancing partners. France is far too obstinate and difficult, and also pulls stunts like refusing to properly fund their military and then their President calls us up after the Paris attacks demanding Obama step up attacks on ISIS--fuck you very much, you have a military of your own. Germany is one of the biggest contributors to economic malaise in Europe with their ascribing to an economic school of thought that has no support by economists anywhere but Germany and that have pushed nearly a decade now of low-growth austerity policies on the continent. Germany is also usually terrible at being a firm partner in international sanctions against horrific/bad regimes we in the West need to take a stand against (Saddam's Iraq, Iran, Putin etc.)

[Sheilbh]

Reducing the EU to the economy is a mistake in my opinion. There is a lot of cooperation in lots of other policy areas that is coordinated and enacted with the institutional framework of the EU. Leaving the EU means you don't just leave the single market, you also leave all those other areas of cooperation. I find it pretty sad that the British reduced the EU to net payments, freedom of movement and free trade.

I know that most people in the UK disagree with this bit most and feel they never wanted or signed up for anything but an economic community. But this does get to me. I've felt fairly poignant a couple of times since this has all happened. Once was when I was on Beachy Head. A large part of the coast there was gifted to the nation by the local landowner in memory of his two brothers who'd died in WWI, one at the Somme the other at Ypres. There was just a little monument halfway through the walk.

The other was today when I had to go through Liverpool Street and just noticed the Kindertransport memorial.

So the consensus is that our exit will cause Ireland to lose their Schengen exemption, then? Because that's the only thing I can see that would kill the CTA.

But Schengen and the CTA are about borders. If we end free movement we can't negotiate separate free movement with Ireland which would render the CTA redundant.

Stephen Bush piece on the free movement consensus:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/07/what-type-brexit-did-we-vote-150000-conservative-members-will-decide

Of course our government was initially a supra-national government that overruled constitutions. Until, at some point historians bicker over, it went from being a supra-national government and became a national one.

You've just made the Eurosceptics' argument for them

But actually would you rather an elected one did? I thought people tended to frown on our elected judges.

They're monstrous But then I mainly object to any judges overruling elected politicians.

I am sorry for my prejudices but I very much doubt the pro-Leave demographics of the old, the uneducated, and the poor, constitutional particularities trumped "bloody immigrants" and "up yours!" as main reasons to vote Leave.

The constitutional issue was what kicked off Euroscepticism in this country in the early nineties. It was generally always a fringe interest. Farage's genius was to realise that immigration was the lever to get lots of people, including working class voters, to care about this otherwise obscure constitutional argument.

But among a certain class of voter - older, wealthier, the golf club bar types - I think the constitution and the 'European superstate' have always been the big issues.

But this would not be antagonizing the EU, this would be antagonizing the individual member states and making this a nationalist contest where everybody is more likely to act irrationally. Especially very proud countries like Poland.

I think there's been a line of statements from some EU leaders that are being very clear that leave means leave and no free movement means no single market. May is, I think, hinting that that's true, but no free movement could also affect the 3 million EU citizens here depending on how negotiations go. As I say it's nasty but I think there is sense to it.

Fascinating piece which I think also has consequences for Scotland and the coming referendum:

The Psychology of Voting to Leave the EU
People in Great Britain felt their leaders weren't treating them fairly. Politicians in the U.S. should take note.

ERIC BEINHOCKER  JUN 29, 2016   POLITICS

Britain's Brexit vote has shocked the political elites of both the U.S. and Europe. The vote wasn't just about the EU; in fact, polls before the referendum consistently showed that Europe wasn't top on voters' lists of concerns. But on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, large numbers of people feel that the fundamental contracts of capitalism and democracy have been broken. In a capitalist economy, citizens tolerate rich people if they share in the wealth, and in a democracy, they give their consent to be governed if those governing do so in their interest. The Brexit vote was an opportunity for people to tell elites that both promises have been broken. The most effective line of the Leave campaign was "take back control." It is also Donald Trump's line.

In the weeks leading up to the vote, the consensus among bankers, business leaders, and media figures was, "It will be close, but they won't do it. In the end people will realize their self-interest, vote with their wallets, and stay in." The experts all agreed: The International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Bank of England, along with Nobel laureates and CEOs, all said that Brexit would be bad for the economy, and would hit those who were the least well off the hardest. Hedge-fund managers could always move to Geneva, but people out in the shires and post-industrial heartlands would see jobs disappear, prices rise, and government benefits cut. Why would they vote to leave the EU? This belief is why the pound surged in the days before the vote, despite the close polls, and why the shock to the markets was so severe when the results came back.*

The day after the referendum, "voter stupidity" seemed to be the default explanation traded among elites. There certainly was a lot of misinformation spread during the campaign. But in my own conversations, and listening to voters explain their support for Leave in the media, I heard something different: They are human. And humans don't always act in ways that are straightforwardly self-interested. In fact, numerous voters said they knew there would be a cost to Brexit—job losses, higher prices, anger from Britain's allies—but they were willing to pay that price to have their voices heard, to regain a sense of control, and to punish the elites who, they felt, had betrayed them.

People are what behavioral economists call strong reciprocators and altruistic punishers. Humans are wired for reciprocal cooperation: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine, etc. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in small groups, for whom cooperation was essential for survival. A key step in human development was when people expanded this circle of cooperation from close kin to strangers through trade, customs, religions, alliances in warfare, and eventually through laws and institutions. Modern society is a vast intricate web of cooperation.

But cooperation also creates the potential for cheaters, for those who don't reciprocate and keep their end of the bargain. Humans are thus also wired to be altruistic punishers—not altruistic in a nice sense, but altruistic in the sense that they will punish people, even to their own harm, to enforce fairness. Behavioral economists show this through a well-known experiment called the Ultimatum Game, in which one person is given some money (say $100) and asked to offer a share of it to another person (say $20). If the second person accepts the offer, both keep the money, but if he or she rejects it, both get nothing. The rational solution is to accept any offer except $0, as even $1 is better than nothing. But experiments on thousands of subjects around the world show that offers below around 30 percent are typically rejected, thus harming both individuals.

This willingness to self-harm might make sense in the context of a repeated game—it can enforce cooperation and fairness over time. But the behavior persists even when it is made clear that the money exchange is a one-off interaction. People will sacrifice their own self-interest and harm themselves, even severely, to enforce norms of reciprocity. We see this not just in the lab but in the real world: hopeless lawsuits pursued to the point of self-destruction, workers suffering through lengthy labor strikes, nations descending into trade wars—or real wars.

These feelings help explain why immigration was such a controversial issue during the Brexit campaign, just as it is currently in the U.S. No doubt, xenophobia and racism were motivators for a minority of voters. Jo Cox, a member of Parliament and Remain advocate, was horrifically killed by an avowed racist during the campaign, and attacks on immigrants and minorities spiked 57 percent in the days after the vote. But for the majority of Leave voters, the immigration issue was perceived as one of reciprocity and a loss of control. Rightly or wrongly, many voters felt immigrants have been getting a better deal in terms of jobs, benefits, and public services than they were. They felt immigrants were unfairly "jumping the queue." And they felt the country had lost control of its borders.

The reason the Remain camp lost was that they didn't understand the game they were playing. They thought they were playing a rational game, appealing to people's pocketbooks and sense of security. They fought their campaign with facts and figures and by highlighting the risks of Brexit. But the voters were playing the Ultimatum Game. Leave understood this and fought with promises to "take back control." Like the Remain campaign, Hillary Clinton is also playing the rational game, appealing to voters' economic and security self-interest. Donald Trump is the weapon of the altruistic punishers. Clinton needs to recognize that voters are not playing the same game she is. She needs to convince voters that she hears them and will restore the fundamental promises of capitalism and democracy. If she doesn't, November 8 might be as shocking a day as June 23.**

[Valmy]

They're monstrous But then I mainly object to any judges overruling elected politicians.

So you object to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education ?



I mean without this protection of the rights of individuals it is 2 wolves and sheep voting on what is for lunch.

Fascinating piece which I think also has consequences for Scotland and the coming referendum:

People are enraged for vague reasons they cannot explain or agree upon. Politicians punished for not delivering vague thing nobody agrees on. Yes I don't think I needed this referendum to let me know that.

[Sheilbh]

I mean without this protection of the rights of individuals it is 2 wolves and sheep voting on what is for lunch.

I know. But we've done alright so far

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, I sometimes think Sheilbh should be boiled alive for his monstrous support of  referendums, but I agree with him on judicial review. Many countries have no tradition of it, yet have robust civil rights. Judicial review is not even in our constitution, and to be honest there's strong arguments it wasn't really intended to function the way it has.

Right now in America, and in fact for some 15 or more years, we've largely lived in the era of Anthony Kennedy. Because he is the only real reliable swing vote. We have so much power vested in one man, appointed, unaccountable, who has a lifetime job. There are only two effective ways for the people to overrule Kennedy, one is to pass a constitutional amendment, which is immensely difficult.

The other is a much lesser known method (it was used in the 19th century), and that is by statute redefining the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Under the constitution, only the 'original jurisdiction' of SCOTUS is immutable. It's entirely possible that Congress could pass some law, that is ultimately struck down on appeal by the SCOTUS. Congress then passes another law, saying that area of jurisprudence is no longer part of the SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction. They then essentially pass again the same law, when it works its way through the appellate process this time around, the SCOTUS only real option is to note they cannot rule on it, and do nothing. But for whatever reason, even though I think we did in fact have political control over the appellate jurisdiction of the court for just reasons like this (to avoid too much power accumulating in the SCOTUS), the political reality is stripping the court of appellate jurisdiction is essentially not even on the table, ever.

Brown v. Board was frankly unnecessary. The Federal government has a pretty powerful tool--that of distributing money, but it has frankly never been willing to go nuclear with it. Sure, sometimes they'll pass laws saying if you don't raise the drinking age to 21, we'll withhold 10% of your highway dollars (this was the actual club used in this scenario.) Or we'll dock you some Medicaid dollars if you don't do this or that. But there's no reason the Federal government couldn't block most Federal dollars that go to a state, close all the military bases, close all the Federal office buildings. If you think Mississippi and Alabama were shit holes now, or in 1960 ( and they were) wait until we send them back to the Reconstruction era by waging outright economic warfare on them.

The Supreme Court wasn't necessary to end Jim Crow in the South, just a strong Federal government willing to set the South ablaze--akin to Lincoln and gang 100 years prior.