Languish.org

So, in all probability the UK is set for a political crisis this summer, whether it votes to remain in the EU or leave.



Just a place holder thread until we know the result on Friday. 

Thought your last predictions are welcome.



* NB I reserve the right to change the thread title to "The Summer 2016 UK Constitutional Crisis Megathread." depending on the out come.

There won't be a crisis if Remain wins, unless it's very tight. (by 1% or less). I think Jo Cox's murder has probably put paid to any plotting in the Tory Party. Also don't think Labour vote will collapse either, at least for now.

Leave aren't going to win either. So I expect it will be back to business as usual after this week.

Quote from: PJL on June 20, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
There won't be a crisis if Remain wins, unless it's very tight. (by 1% or less). I think Jo Cox's murder has probably put paid to any plotting in the Tory Party. Also don't think Labour vote will collapse either, at least for now.

Leave aren't going to win either. So I expect it will be back to business as usual after this week.

Quoted for posterity.  :P


I should add if Remain wins only narrowly, my prediction is for riots in underprivileged 'white' parts of some UK cities and large towns, perhaps of similar scale to the early 80s inner city riots.

If there's a clear remain majority, I still see some hooliganism in a few towns. I think far-right groups are planning for such a reaction.

Agree with PJL that Remain will win, which will avert any real crisis.

Quote from: dps on June 20, 2016, 07:03:58 PM
Agree with PJL that Remain will win, which will avert any real crisis.

I really don't think that's the case. I think this guy puts it very well.

Also liked that bit about Parliament I italicized.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/06/david_runciman_on_the_brexit_vote_and_how_it_will_affect_the_uk_and_europe.html

Quote
If Brexit succeeds, how do you see British democracy or British institutions changing?

I don't think there's a good outcome here. If Brexit succeeds, I don't think the immediate impact will be felt by people in the sense that there will be a massive run on the pound or people will suddenly notice that they're poorer. I think the immediate impact would be on politics and party politics: The two main parties will find it very difficult to hold together.

The really kind of interesting question is: If the British people, in a referendum, vote to leave, one of the things they're doing is reasserting the sovereignty of the British parliament, which you know that's part of the argument here, that British sovereignty has been sacrificed to European institutions, so they're saying, "We want to take sovereignty back to parliament." Parliament is massively in favor of remaining in the EU; there would be an overwhelming majority if you had a vote in parliament to stay. The institution whose sovereignty is being asserted doesn't want to leave, so that's going to be chaotic I think, and the immediate consequences will play out in party leaders falling. Cameron won't last long, Corbyn won't last long, and British politics will be reconfigured. If the idea is that by leaving we will restore confidence in British institutions, by leaving we'll put much more pressure on British institutions, and probably they'll start to creak.


And if you stay?

The difficulty is that the safest bet is that it's going to be close, so a large number of people are going to have voted to leave, and I think they will feel with some justification that every single weapon of the British state had been deployed to try and persuade them otherwise: the Bank of England, the Civil Service, all the party leaders, current prime ministers, former prime ministers Tony Blair, John Major, all these people, the Scottish party leaders, everyone has been wheeled out, the entire apparatus of the British state has been deployed to kind of stifle them. If still 48 percent of people voted to leave the key question for British politics would be, "Who's going to speak for those 48 percent?" Because all of the main parties will have been on the other side. You have half of the voters who will need representation, and again I think that's going to be very messy.


It could equally lead to the main parties splitting. There has been a lot of bad blood in this campaign. It's definitely, in my lifetime, been the most personally vicious campaign. You see it with the Republican Party, right? When the big divisions are inside political parties it's more personal, and there's a much stronger feeling of betrayal. Yeah, Democrats hate Republicans, and Republicans hate Democrats, but people can live with that. When Republicans hate Republicans or when conservatives hate conservatives, that bad blood can last for decades.

I suggest the queen move her base to Oxford to raise her army against Parliament While the Duke of York sets the north aflame from the border to Glasgow.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 20, 2016, 08:22:25 PM
I suggest the queen move her base to Oxford to raise her army against Parliament While the Duke of York sets the north aflame from the border to Glasgow.

Yahtzee!

Crisis?  What crisis?

David Camerons human hologram suit will cease to function whatever the outcome. He will be sent back to the abyss prepared for him.

Quote from: fromtia on June 20, 2016, 09:02:28 PM
David Camerons human hologram suit will cease to function whatever the outcome. He will be sent back to the abyss prepared for him.

Fomtia ! :cheers:

Oh my goodness, how are you ?

Quote from: fromtia on June 20, 2016, 09:02:28 PM
David Camerons human hologram suit will cease to function whatever the outcome. He will be sent back to the abyss prepared for him.

Woah, long time no see. How have you been!?

Thread activated.  :(

So, who's the likely caretaker undertaker PM that'll be forming the new Conservative government?

Quote from: Drakken on June 23, 2016, 09:35:53 PM
So, who's the likely caretaker undertaker PM that'll be forming the new Conservative government?

I think we'll have to wait for their night of long knives on Friday or the weekend.

Quote from: Drakken on June 23, 2016, 09:35:53 PM
So, who's the likely caretaker undertaker PM that'll be forming the new Conservative government?

I still think Theresa May.

Also whoever it is will still probably win a majority when they face off against Jeremy Corbyn in 2020 :P :weep:

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2016, 09:47:23 PM
Also whoever it is will still probably win a majority when they face off against Jeremy Corbyn in 2020 :P :weep:

Labour elected their Bernie Sanders :(

Quote from: Valmy on June 23, 2016, 09:49:44 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2016, 09:47:23 PM
Also whoever it is will still probably win a majority when they face off against Jeremy Corbyn in 2020 :P :weep:

Labour elected their Bernie Sanders :(

So much worse than Bernie Sanders. So much worse :weep:

Sterling now:

Quote
£1                     buys                 change        %       
US Dollar           1.33160              -0.15560   -10.46

With almost 1mil lead in support of Leave, David should be out speaking right now. That he isn't still is, well, staggering.  :huh:

Quote from: Drakken on June 23, 2016, 11:07:32 PM
With almost 1mil lead in support of Leave, David should be out speaking right now. That he isn't still is, well, staggering.  :huh:

Apparently he is planning a 'dawn raid' and could speak in Downing Street within the next two hours, probably before the London market open at 8pm(?)

Quote from: mongers on June 23, 2016, 11:09:57 PM
Apparently he is planning a 'dawn raid' and could speak in Downing Street within the next two hours, probably before the London market open at 8pm(?)

The hell with a dawn raid, the Pound is crashing in Shanghai and Nikkei right now.

John McDonnell's prediction of BofE intervention may come true. Danny Blanchflower tweeted the only question is whether it'll be a 25 or 50 bp cut :lol:

QuoteThe hell with a dawn raid, the Pound is crashing in Shanghai and Nikkei right now.

Well some of this is because they've been absurdly complacent until now.

There you go Beeb.  Sterling will continue to sink.

What are the odds of significant violence returning to Northern Ireland? I see the possibility bandied around, but am uncertain on how solid the analysis is.

Interesting too that Scotland voted heavily for remain... how likely is it that Scottish independence will be revisited?

In any case, Cameron seems to have fucked up more spectacularly than any British PM since... well, I don't even know.

Dow Jones now down 700 points after hours! :o

http://money.cnn.com/data/afterhours/

I don't think there's much chance of a general return to violence; Sinn Fein may refuse to sit at Westminster but its' too deeply embedded in the Northern Irish government and gaining too much support in the Republic for the mainstream PIRA to risk it. It's not as if the Ascendancy or Protestant-only cabinets are on the cards.

After all, come what may, the demographics should eventually favour reunion. They don't need the bomb.

Splinter groups? Well, they've never entirely stopped forming.

Quote from: Phillip V on June 24, 2016, 12:00:53 AM
Dow Jones now down 700 points after hours! :o

http://money.cnn.com/data/afterhours/

Bah, it will recover.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 24, 2016, 12:01:55 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on June 24, 2016, 12:00:53 AM
Dow Jones now down 700 points after hours! :o

http://money.cnn.com/data/afterhours/

Bah, it will recover.

I was wondering why S&P futures were stuck at -5%.  That is the maximum limit that it is allowed to fall after hours!  :o

In the future, British subjects visiting continental Europe will pretend to be Americans.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2016, 12:11:49 AM
In the future, British subjects visiting continental Europe will pretend to be Americans.

:D

Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2016, 05:34:00 PM

Quote from: PJL on June 20, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
There won't be a crisis if Remain wins, unless it's very tight. (by 1% or less). I think Jo Cox's murder has probably put paid to any plotting in the Tory Party. Also don't think Labour vote will collapse either, at least for now.

Leave aren't going to win either. So I expect it will be back to business as usual after this week.

Quoted for posterity.  :P


I should add if Remain wins only narrowly, my prediction is for riots in underprivileged 'white' parts of some UK cities and large towns, perhaps of similar scale to the early 80s inner city riots.

If there's a clear remain majority, I still see some hooliganism in a few towns. I think far-right groups are planning for such a reaction.

So do they wait for the WE and the WE binge drinking to start rioting?

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 24, 2016, 12:47:55 AM

Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2016, 05:34:00 PM

Quote from: PJL on June 20, 2016, 05:31:00 PM
There won't be a crisis if Remain wins, unless it's very tight. (by 1% or less). I think Jo Cox's murder has probably put paid to any plotting in the Tory Party. Also don't think Labour vote will collapse either, at least for now.

Leave aren't going to win either. So I expect it will be back to business as usual after this week.

Quoted for posterity.  :P


I should add if Remain wins only narrowly, my prediction is for riots in underprivileged 'white' parts of some UK cities and large towns, perhaps of similar scale to the early 80s inner city riots.

If there's a clear remain majority, I still see some hooliganism in a few towns. I think far-right groups are planning for such a reaction.

So do they wait for the WE and the WE binge drinking to start rioting?

I think there'll be some triumphal thuggery over the weekend, possibly a few unpleasant attacks on foreign looking people.

Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2016, 05:08:36 PM

* NB I reserve the right to change the thread title to "The Summer 2016 UK Constitutional Crisis Megathread." depending on the out come.

I think I'm justified in renaming this thread to include the unfurling constitutional crisis.


Just holding out on the economic angle until we see how the markets steady over the next few weeks.  <_<

You guys really need some kind of law about these referendums. Because unless you do something there are going to be more and more of them with increasingly dysfunctional and disastrous results. If you are going to have them they need to be rare enough to take seriously and not be some kind of political football where the losing side starts plotting for the next one as soon as they lose. I just fear another Scottish referendum coming up soon.

Quote from: mongers on June 23, 2016, 11:05:53 PM
Sterling now:

Quote
£1                     buys                 change        %       
US Dollar           1.33160              -0.15560   -10.46

If this continues at this rate for a few months British real estate might start to become affordable. I have always wanted my own castle.

So I see Cameron bailed. Who is going to be the one who takes a torch to Britain's treaty obligations?

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2016, 07:00:13 AM

Quote from: mongers on June 23, 2016, 11:05:53 PM
Sterling now:

Quote
£1                     buys                 change        %       
US Dollar           1.33160              -0.15560   -10.46

If this continues at this rate for a few months British real estate might start to become affordable. I have always wanted my own castle.

I call Stokesay, Raglan, Caerphilly, Warwick, Corfe and Portchester.

Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2016, 07:10:17 AM
Portchester.

:wub:

Morning markets:  meh

Exxon Mobile and Apple are still above ~$90.  Stocks still look expensive to me. :(

Quote from: Maladict on June 24, 2016, 07:27:05 AM

Quote from: The Brain on June 24, 2016, 07:10:17 AM
Portchester.

:wub:

Yeah, I make the occasional special visit to see it.

Though I don't get the love for Corfe, which is not far from here and the local geography makes it one of the silliest positioning of a castle I've seen.

Quote from: mongers on June 24, 2016, 08:43:23 AM

Though I don't get the love for Corfe, which is not far from here and the local geography makes it one of the silliest positioning of a castle I've seen.

:mad:

Quite a few vociferous Brexiters said to me that with a Leave vote, the UK would then have the ability to go back to the EU and negotiate far better deals.

If they thought about it a little, it would have been clear that was never a realistic outcome, today's European response underlines that. 

Stocks ended up up after their best week in a couple of months :lol:

As with the earlier numbers it doesn't really necessarily mean much at this stage.

So Cameron is out, eh?  Things just get more and more interesting in the UK.

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2016, 11:42:42 AM
So Cameron is out, eh?  Things just get more and more interesting in the UK.

Stephen Harper was so much better of a Tory.

Quote from: mongers on June 24, 2016, 11:24:04 AM
Quite a few vociferous Brexiters said to me that with a Leave vote, the UK would then have the ability to go back to the EU and negotiate far better deals.

If they thought about it a little, it would have been clear that was never a realistic outcome, today's European response underlines that. 

Once Europe unbunches its panties, it will play ball.

Quote from: derspiess on June 24, 2016, 11:47:27 AM
Once Europe unbunches its panties, it will play ball.

Yeah that was what South Carolina said. Of course Euro Lincoln probably would have.

But seriously if it plays ball and gives a great deal to the UK wouldn't that pretty much be signing its own death warrant?

As far as I can tell the UK already has a pretty sweet deal with the EU.  I'm not sure what else it could really hope for that the EU could offer without destroying itself.

Poor Gibraltar, nobody's mentioned then yet. My prediction, they'll have a referendum to whether to join Spain or not, and they'll vote massively in favour.

As for my earlier prediction, well I'll get Paddy Ashdown's hat and eat it.

Quote from: PJL on June 24, 2016, 12:38:05 PM
Poor Gibraltar, nobody's mentioned then yet. My prediction, they'll have a referendum to whether to join Spain or not, and they'll vote massively in favour.

You get a referendum! You get a referendum! EVERYBODY GETS A REFERENDUM!

Though I guess for Spain it will be nice to see somebody who wants to join instead of leave for once.

Quote from: PJL on June 24, 2016, 12:38:05 PM
Poor Gibraltar, nobody's mentioned then yet. My prediction, they'll have a referendum to whether to join Spain or not, and they'll vote massively in favour.

I doubt it, unless Spain massively turns down the rhetoric and offers them a sweatheart deal.

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2016, 12:57:24 PM

Quote from: PJL on June 24, 2016, 12:38:05 PM
Poor Gibraltar, nobody's mentioned then yet. My prediction, they'll have a referendum to whether to join Spain or not, and they'll vote massively in favour.

I doubt it, unless Spain massively turns down the rhetoric and offers them a sweatheart deal.

But see, it's all about the rethoric, not actually getting Gibraltar back.

I feel like wanting to join a resistance movement.  :ph34r:

Quote from: mongers on June 24, 2016, 01:30:16 PM
I feel like wanting to join a resistance movement.  :ph34r:

I've just gone out and bought some Spanish beer  :ph34r:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 24, 2016, 01:44:26 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 24, 2016, 01:30:16 PM
I feel like wanting to join a resistance movement.  :ph34r:

I've just gone out and bought some Spanish beer  :ph34r:

Solidarity Brother, every act of resistance brings our liberation nearer.  :showoff:

I'll pick up some Brit products this weekend to offset your treasonous acts! :angry:

I'll off-offset your purchases by boycotting British products this weekend. No Aston Martins or financial services for me!

(https://s31.postimg.org/spg1iip8b/image.jpg)

I'm not sure if this is more apt for the Brexit thread or here, but as I watch things unfolding I find it absolutely shocking, and frankly dereliction of duty, that in this time of national and international crisis Britain has no functional leadership. With none on the horizon.

I may be confused, but I did not think the role of Prime Minister was contingent on "when things were easy", and while I understand and view it as necessary that Cameron stepped down he needs to be governing until his replacement is in place. This isn't 1750, the ship of state cannot be without a man at the helm for a single day, let alone the something like 72 hours it's been now since Cameron essentially appears to have quit doing his job. No serious leadership from leading Leave politicians has emerged, other than we obviously see Johnson, Gove and others getting ready for a leadership fight. Labour appears at least somewhat likely to kick Corbyn back to the back bench.

Brexit is not actually in effect yet. The greatest issue roiling markets right now is uncertainty, and the British Prime Minister and the British government have it in their power to at least mitigate some of that uncertainty by doing their fucking jobs, but they appear to have simply quit--but while continuing to collect their paycheck. I think this borders on the worst behavior of any British PM in the last hundred years--potentially worse than Chamberlain, a decent man who simply made catastrophic decisions, but who never outright shirked his duty the way Cameron is doing.

Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP has done a credible job in the aftermath, as has the Bank of England, it seems.

Yes, the Canadian BoE President has been behaving admirably.

Nicola Sturgeon has been doing a good job for Scotland, which is 10% of Britain, the rest of the country has been left adrift on a stormy sea, And plus, Sturgeon doesn't have a lot of real power on this business, she has power over calling for a new referendum, trying her ploy to "veto" Brexit and etc, but global businesses and markets need some sign that Britain isn't literally in a state of high-level political anarchy.

They have spent the weekend holed up and plotting their leadership bids  <_<

Yeah, the silence from the British government is a bit surprising.  Pre-referendum polls showed that the vote would be close, so they must have contingency plans in place to deal with the fallout.  Is there a possibility that Cameron and others are busy engaging in emergency and behind the scenes discussions with the EU? 

I'm not sure what Cameron is supposed to be doing.  Should he give a big speech on how dumb the Brexit voters were, and how much leaving the EU will suck?

I don't know why is he stepping down in October instead of now. Why the needless impasse? Even more uncertainty is the least thing we need right now.

All evidence suggests they literally had no contingency plans.

Labour is out of power and likely to remain so for some time, so had no real reason to engage in contingency planning.

Cameron planned to resign if Brexit happened, so he (quite clearly) gives no fucks about dealing with the contingency.

Many of the Leave campaigners have said they didn't have a contingency plan if they won "because that's the job of whomever is in No. 10", which considering it's been known 100% Cameron would resign if he lost the Brexit vote it's frankly shocking and an embarrassment none of the leaders of the Leave movement have any plan at all for how to proceed. Johnson clearly was only concerned with his ability to win control of the Tories and become Prime Minister in this eventuality.

Quote from: celedhring on June 27, 2016, 01:56:09 AM
I don't know why is he stepping down in October instead of now. Why the needless impasse? Even more uncertainty is the least thing we need right now.

Tory party rules for choosing a new leader................feel free to get cross.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 01:54:49 AM
I'm not sure what Cameron is supposed to be doing.  Should he give a big speech on how dumb the Brexit voters were, and how much leaving the EU will suck?

To be honest he should be executing on a contingency plan that had already been drawn up. This is like asking "What's Obama supposed to do if a giant Katrina-level hurricane slams into New Orleans tomorrow?" Well, aside from declaring a national emergency, releasing funding and managing things with top level Coast Guard and National Guard Officials, his main job will have been to not be a complete kind and sensitive person like Bush was on this issue and have reasonable disaster planning in place.

Cameron knew the polls were tight, he obviously was only ever going to be a caretaker if he lost but there should've been some sort of plan in place. I haven't been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recently so I frankly don't know what the plan would be, but political leaders are usually expected to plan for generally reasonably possible crises or other events. Look at Presidential candidates, they typically start working on "pre-transition" stuff 1-1.5 months before election day, because otherwise there isn't time to do it right between election day and inauguration day. This means some effort gets wasted (Romney was noted for having a really good transition team and plan in place, and of course it was for naught.) That's essentially what we'd be talking about here, a plan for transitional government but particularly for one during a known before hand potential period of intentional crisis.

Cameron should be speaking to the public and to the world, saying here is what we're going to do and when. He may not be able to be specific but he should be giving some indication of what's going on.

Osborne: "UK in a position of strength, We are equipped for whatever happens."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36637732 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36637732)

Quote from: citizen k on June 27, 2016, 02:08:56 AM
Osborne: "UK in a position of strength, We are equipped for whatever happens."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36637732 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36637732)

That's better than nothing but it isn't saying much. 

Osborne's statement actually has some meat. Notably he pointed out that only Britain can invoke Article 50, a not-so-subtle response to the Euros demand that Britain get on with it. I read the text of Article 50 a couple days ago and that does appear to be the case, there is no mechanism I don't think for the EU to force a state to invoke article 50.

If Britain violates the treaty obligations by e.g. no longer applying ECJ rulings or limiting freedom of movement like some of the Brexiteers suggested, the EU could use the nuclear option in Article 7 and basically suspend British membership.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 27, 2016, 01:51:43 AM
Is there a possibility that Cameron and others are busy engaging in emergency and behind the scenes discussions with the EU?

Certainly no behind the scenes discussions with the EU. The Tories have been atrocious in their EU diplomacy in the last five years, I expect this to only get worse now. And who would speak to the EU now? Cameron is the lamest of all ducks now.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2016, 02:01:23 AM
To be honest he should be executing on a contingency plan that had already been drawn up. This is like asking "What's Obama supposed to do if a giant Katrina-level hurricane slams into New Orleans tomorrow?" Well, aside from declaring a national emergency, releasing funding and managing things with top level Coast Guard and National Guard Officials, his main job will have been to not be a complete kind and sensitive person like Bush was on this issue and have reasonable disaster planning in place.

Cameron knew the polls were tight, he obviously was only ever going to be a caretaker if he lost but there should've been some sort of plan in place. I haven't been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recently so I frankly don't know what the plan would be, but political leaders are usually expected to plan for generally reasonably possible crises or other events. Look at Presidential candidates, they typically start working on "pre-transition" stuff 1-1.5 months before election day, because otherwise there isn't time to do it right between election day and inauguration day. This means some effort gets wasted (Romney was noted for having a really good transition team and plan in place, and of course it was for naught.) That's essentially what we'd be talking about here, a plan for transitional government but particularly for one during a known before hand potential period of intentional crisis.

Cameron should be speaking to the public and to the world, saying here is what we're going to do and when. He may not be able to be specific but he should be giving some indication of what's going on.

I know what the US federal government is supposed to do when a hurricane hits the US.  I don't know what you expect the UK government to do after a referendum.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 02:39:27 AM
I know what the US federal government is supposed to do when a hurricane hits the US.  I don't know what you expect the UK government to do after a referendum.

The European Union has expressed its expectations regarding the start of negotiations, named a chief negotiator, convened a summit of the heads of governments to discuss the strategy and there have also been informal meetings of the "Carolingian" core-EU foreign ministers and head of governments to discuss the strategy ahead of the summit. So it's not like there is nothing you can do as a reaction...

Quote from: Zanza on June 27, 2016, 02:47:23 AM
The European Union has expressed its expectations regarding the start of negotiations, named a chief negotiator, convened a summit of the heads of governments to discuss the strategy and there have also been informal meetings of the "Carolingian" core-EU foreign ministers and head of governments to discuss the strategy ahead of the summit. So it's not like there is nothing you can do as a reaction...

I thought Biscuit was talking more about damage control.

If not, then I think Cameron resigning and leaving the office up for grabs is the contingency plan.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 02:39:27 AM

I know what the US federal government is supposed to do when a hurricane hits the US.  I don't know what you expect the UK government to do after a referendum.

They should either enforce the people's will or double down and say they won't do it. What they shouldn't do is run around like chicken's with their head's cut off until October.

Some uncertainty in the markets, the pound has edged down, some banks particularly Barclays seem to have issues.

Will DJ bounce and stay up today?

There's bound to be uncertainty. Vibe I get is the City isn't really that worried. Think Mervyn is right with what he just said: long-term the difference between in and out isn't that big. Unrelated I think his message of moderate pro-remainism would have worked a lot better than the actual campaign's decision to predict total economic collapse.

Everyone could do with calming down a bit.

Quote from: Zanza on June 27, 2016, 02:30:59 AM
If Britain violates the treaty obligations by e.g. no longer applying ECJ rulings or limiting freedom of movement like some of the Brexiteers suggested, the EU could use the nuclear option in Article 7 and basically suspend British membership.

I'm sure that would work out really well for the EU.

Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2016, 06:59:57 AM

Quote from: Zanza on June 27, 2016, 02:30:59 AM
If Britain violates the treaty obligations by e.g. no longer applying ECJ rulings or limiting freedom of movement like some of the Brexiteers suggested, the EU could use the nuclear option in Article 7 and basically suspend British membership.

I'm sure that would work out really well for the EU.

Politicians considering what will work out well in the long term seem to be in short supply at the moment. I don't expect the EU to ever use that article, but with the idiocy we've seen so far, I wouldn't completely rule it out either. People like Juncker or Schulz seem to be personally offended by the result. I wouldn't put it past them to act like petulant children.

I also wouldn't expect the UK to stop implementing EU law as long as we're in. I mean we're not France. Plus it'd be unlawful and there's no way the courts would allow it if challenged (which it would be).

Quote[DPRK News Service ‏@DPRK_News
World progressives urge English Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to hold "purge of blood," ruthlessly slaughtering those oppose English Socialism

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2016, 09:02:56 AM

Quote[DPRK News Service ‏@DPRK_News
World progressives urge English Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to hold "purge of blood," ruthlessly slaughtering those opposed English Socialism

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClzqtkHWMAEfR0E.jpg)

:lol:

Eh,seriously, it'll get sorted out over a cup of tea.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 27, 2016, 01:58:33 AM

Quote from: celedhring on June 27, 2016, 01:56:09 AM
I don't know why is he stepping down in October instead of now. Why the needless impasse? Even more uncertainty is the least thing we need right now.

Tory party rules for choosing a new leader................feel free to get cross.

At the people who demanded increased "Democracy" in the choosing of Party Leaders; at least the Tory system is more sensible than Labour's in that it at least guarantees a leader who should be able to command the support of the Parliamentary party.

If this was the Sixties we could have had a new Prime-Minister by today, next week at the latest given the current crisis.

It might have been an unexpected and strange choice, of course... :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 07:08:00 AM
I also wouldn't expect the UK to stop implementing EU law as long as we're in. I mean we're not France. Plus it'd be unlawful and there's no way the courts would allow it if challenged (which it would be).

According to the BBC, Johnson and Gove think about it:

QuoteMr Cameron previously said he would trigger Article 50 as soon as possible after a Leave vote but Mr Johnson and Mr Gove, who led the campaign to get Britain out of the EU, have said he should not rush into it.
They also said they wanted to make immediate changes before the UK actually leaves the EU, such as curbing the power of EU judges and limiting the free movement of workers, potentially in breach of the UK's treaty obligations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36615028

They're not in charge. They'd be overruled by the courts.

Who knows..................there is a risk that the lunatics will end up running the asylum.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 07:08:00 AM
I also wouldn't expect the UK to stop implementing EU law as long as we're in. I mean we're not France. Plus it'd be unlawful and there's no way the courts would allow it if challenged (which it would be).

:lol:

Opt-outs for the win! Enjoy the Brexit, Tories and Corbyn et adieu !  :frog:

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 11:49:09 AM
They're not in charge.

Not yet.

QuoteThey'd be overruled by the courts.

Maybe.

I don't think they'll be in charge or that they'd do it. And there's no way in he'll the courts would go against thirty years of precedent to endorse a government behaving in an unlawful way.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 02:39:27 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2016, 02:01:23 AM
To be honest he should be executing on a contingency plan that had already been drawn up. This is like asking "What's Obama supposed to do if a giant Katrina-level hurricane slams into New Orleans tomorrow?" Well, aside from declaring a national emergency, releasing funding and managing things with top level Coast Guard and National Guard Officials, his main job will have been to not be a complete kind and sensitive person like Bush was on this issue and have reasonable disaster planning in place.

Cameron knew the polls were tight, he obviously was only ever going to be a caretaker if he lost but there should've been some sort of plan in place. I haven't been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recently so I frankly don't know what the plan would be, but political leaders are usually expected to plan for generally reasonably possible crises or other events. Look at Presidential candidates, they typically start working on "pre-transition" stuff 1-1.5 months before election day, because otherwise there isn't time to do it right between election day and inauguration day. This means some effort gets wasted (Romney was noted for having a really good transition team and plan in place, and of course it was for naught.) That's essentially what we'd be talking about here, a plan for transitional government but particularly for one during a known before hand potential period of intentional crisis.

Cameron should be speaking to the public and to the world, saying here is what we're going to do and when. He may not be able to be specific but he should be giving some indication of what's going on.

I know what the US federal government is supposed to do when a hurricane hits the US.  I don't know what you expect the UK government to do after a referendum.

Stuff to be done on June 24th:
- immediate plans to restore confidence by reassuring speeches.
- buy pounds from the market to stabilize currency
- immediate injection of liquidities in the banking system, either via increased loans or buying major bank stocks
- efforts to stabilize markets, buying stocks from large corporations most susceptible to take a beating on the stock exchanges
- annoucement of a time table for negotiations with Europe
- having a team ready to negotiate with Europe
- announce plans for an orderly transition, with a designated Prime Minister until the party can convene and vote for permanent leadership in October.  It can't be Cameron, he lost, he was disavowed.
- announce clearly to the public what the vote meant, precisely.  No bullshit.  How much time do we live under Europe's laws, what are the exact areas where there will be eventual change, etc, etc.

All of that had to be done on June 24th, by Cameron and by the winners of the leave option.

But there was no plan, there still aren't, and now it's chaos everywhere and my retirement funds are again taking a beating.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 02:39:27 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2016, 02:01:23 AM
To be honest he should be executing on a contingency plan that had already been drawn up. This is like asking "What's Obama supposed to do if a giant Katrina-level hurricane slams into New Orleans tomorrow?" Well, aside from declaring a national emergency, releasing funding and managing things with top level Coast Guard and National Guard Officials, his main job will have been to not be a complete kind and sensitive person like Bush was on this issue and have reasonable disaster planning in place.

Cameron knew the polls were tight, he obviously was only ever going to be a caretaker if he lost but there should've been some sort of plan in place. I haven't been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recently so I frankly don't know what the plan would be, but political leaders are usually expected to plan for generally reasonably possible crises or other events. Look at Presidential candidates, they typically start working on "pre-transition" stuff 1-1.5 months before election day, because otherwise there isn't time to do it right between election day and inauguration day. This means some effort gets wasted (Romney was noted for having a really good transition team and plan in place, and of course it was for naught.) That's essentially what we'd be talking about here, a plan for transitional government but particularly for one during a known before hand potential period of intentional crisis.

Cameron should be speaking to the public and to the world, saying here is what we're going to do and when. He may not be able to be specific but he should be giving some indication of what's going on.

I know what the US federal government is supposed to do when a hurricane hits the US.  I don't know what you expect the UK government to do after a referendum.

They should have a referendum to determine what should be done.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2016, 02:39:27 AM
I know what the US federal government is supposed to do when a hurricane hits the US.  I don't know what you expect the UK government to do after a referendum.

Roughly what he did today. Lay out the timetable for his resignation, make some reassuring noises, condemn any of the racism that's happened since - and invite Leave figures to do the same - and reassure Europeans already here that there they will keep all of their rights.

Personally I'd also have liked to see a commitment to the Baltic nations in terms of security with some actual goodies if they wanted them and actually change our refugee policy so we don't shove them in already poor Northern towns but disperse them more evenly through the UK too.

The Chancellor should have been doing what his job is at times like this which is reassuring the markets. That they didn't over the weekend is surprising and, in my view, a dereliction of duty. Aside from that (and the absolute shitstorm that is the Labour Party) everything else has gone roughly as I'd expect and is how our system works.

QuoteI don't know why is he stepping down in October instead of now. Why the needless impasse? Even more uncertainty is the least thing we need right now.

The Tories need to choose a new leader. I don't think I'd expect Article 50 to be activated this year. No-one has a mandate to negotiate terms yet we just know that people want out. I'd expect an election probably after the party conferences. I suspect the Tories will be campaigning for Norway, the Lib Dems to re-enter the EU, UKIP for Leave means Leave and Labour for the collectivisation of agriculture and membership of the Bolivarian Association for the Peoples of Our America.

In the meantime we'll appoint a new EU Commissioner and, to the palpable shock of Germans everywhere, politicians at political events will informally talk over the biggest political issue in the UK and arguably the EU. At some point after that we'll activate Article 50, probably.

QuoteThe European Union has expressed its expectations regarding the start of negotiations, named a chief negotiator, convened a summit of the heads of governments to discuss the strategy and there have also been informal meetings of the "Carolingian" core-EU foreign ministers and head of governments to discuss the strategy ahead of the summit. So it's not like there is nothing you can do as a reaction...

That Carolingian summit was an interesting idea. It seemed like Steinmeier was pushing a different line than Merkel. And led to leaders in Finland and the Balts saying they don't think there's any need to rush into things and the Poles to try and organise an informal summit of the other 20 member states.

QuoteThey should either enforce the people's will or double down and say they won't do it. What they shouldn't do is run around like chicken's with their head's cut off until October.

This is the system working. It's been a while because we've had coronations or elections but the way of changing the leadership outside of elections and coronations is just raw politics without any real formal procedures. For comparison Thatcher was first attacked while she was attending an EU summit, then in the House of Commons and all the while the Gulf War crisis was picking up and Germany was about to reunify.

If Cameron hadn't resigned he'd have been forced out. The only other real surprise is the implosion of the Labour Party which I didn't expect and is worse than I'd have ever imagined. The Tories are just doing what Tories always do, in the way they always do.

FWIW my opinion on Cameron's handling is in the last 12-16 hours they've started to do what they need to; my issue is they did nothing Friday/Sat/Sun and that's not super acceptable to me. This is leadership of a major world power, I don't think it's cool to take a 3 day breather because you're upset.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 27, 2016, 01:42:06 PM
FWIW my opinion on Cameron's handling is in the last 12-16 hours they've started to do what they need to; my issue is they did nothing Friday/Sat/Sun and that's not super acceptable to me. This is leadership of a major world power, I don't think it's cool to take a 3 day breather because you're upset.

Agreed. That three day vacuum let Sturgeon step in. I'd also say the same from Boris and Gove, they should not have let Farage be the face of Leave over the weekend.

Party before country  :mad:

Did Farage get much press over the weekend? I didn't see much about him.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 01:39:04 PM
to the palpable shock of Germans everywhere, politicians at political events will informally talk over the biggest political issue in the UK and arguably the EU.

Talking about it doesn't mean shit and it wasn't just Germans who said that they would not negotiate (Hollande and Renzi said so today as well). Britain has a poor negotiation position once Article 50 is activated. That's why Britain will try to clarify as much as possible beforehand, while the other countries will try to get Britain under time pressure. Negotiations aren't nice.

QuoteThat Carolingian summit was an interesting idea. It seemed like Steinmeier was pushing a different line than Merkel.

The summit had long been planned, they just changed the topic. It was planned to be about longer term strategy, not short term reactions to current affairs. Steinmeier and the SPD in general are pushing a few different ideas than Merkel. Elections coming up in Germany in a bit more than a year and the SPD needs to win profile.

QuotePoles to try and organise an informal summit of the other 20 member states.

Don't they have their Visegrad group? That's a bit similar to the Carolingians.

Quote from: Zanza on June 27, 2016, 02:46:31 PM
Talking about it doesn't mean shit and it wasn't just Germans who said that they would not negotiate (Hollande and Renzi said so today as well). Britain has a poor negotiation position once Article 50 is activated. That's why Britain will try to clarify as much as possible beforehand, while the other countries will try to get Britain under time pressure. Negotiations aren't nice.

Quite. But aside from Europeans, we're under no time pressure until we choose to put ourselves under it, until then we're full members of the EU. I would only expect us to activate Article 50 if we were reasonably comfortable with our position going in. If it happens this year it's because the informal chats have gone well. If we don't, we can wait and consult interested groups in the UK - this has been the political lodestar for many Eurosceptics for forty years, they can hold on.

In the meantime, while civil servants talk to their European counterparts, we have two leadership elections, party conference season, an election and potentially an indy ref to get through which are all worth postponing the negotiations for.

Quote
Don't they have their Visegrad group? That's a bit similar to the Carolingians.

Visegrad is more of a Central European pressure group though. I think the Carolingian group looks a bit like a 'real/core' Europe taking a pre-position I think that's why the Poles haven't tried to get a summit of the Visegrad but of all other EU members together.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 01:39:04 PM

The Tories need to choose a new leader. I don't think I'd expect Article 50 to be activated this year. No-one has a mandate to negotiate terms yet we just know that people want out. I'd expect an election probably after the party conferences. I suspect the Tories will be campaigning for Norway, the Lib Dems to re-enter the EU, UKIP for Leave means Leave and Labour for the collectivisation of agriculture and membership of the Bolivarian Association for the Peoples of Our America.

Norway options means the UK keeps everything the Leavers hate with no of the power. Who is going to vote for that?

Sheilbh, I think you are being way too optimistic about that article 50 timetable.

Not only does delaying absolutely hurt the UK on the economic side, but every day it is not triggered you're pissing off Brussels and Paris and Berlin and Rome and Madrid and and and.

The longer you guys wait the worst deal you're going to get.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2016, 11:07:42 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2016, 01:39:04 PM

The Tories need to choose a new leader. I don't think I'd expect Article 50 to be activated this year. No-one has a mandate to negotiate terms yet we just know that people want out. I'd expect an election probably after the party conferences. I suspect the Tories will be campaigning for Norway, the Lib Dems to re-enter the EU, UKIP for Leave means Leave and Labour for the collectivisation of agriculture and membership of the Bolivarian Association for the Peoples of Our America.

Norway options means the UK keeps everything the Leavers hate with no of the power. Who is going to vote for that?

The British?

Quote from: Zoupa on June 27, 2016, 11:14:15 PM
Sheilbh, I think you are being way too optimistic about that article 50 timetable.

Not only does delaying absolutely hurt the UK on the economic side, but every day it is not triggered you're pissing off Brussels and Paris and Berlin and Rome and Madrid and and and.

The longer you guys wait the worst deal you're going to get.

After a gruelling half year of political warfare, the Lib Dems pull of the greatest electorl upset of all time and win the election on a platform of staying in the EU. :P

Quote from: Agelastus on June 27, 2016, 11:09:40 AM

If this was the Sixties we could have had a new Prime-Minister by today, next week at the latest given the current crisis.

an alternative might be not having the party-leader and the pm be the same person. Though I'm not sure how common that is in the world

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 27, 2016, 11:07:42 PM
Norway options means the UK keeps everything the Leavers hate with no of the power. Who is going to vote for that?

Liberal Leavers who were mainly annoyed about the customs union and want to negotiate trade deals. At least part of the sovereignty lot who wouldn't mind as Norway can (though rarely does) derogate from European regulations. And the 50% of Remainers.

As I say I think the Tories will go into the election proposing the Norway option. It'll do for most of the posher wing of the Leavers - the part who got exorcised about Europe in response to Maastricht not immigration. UKIP will scream bloody murder especially over immigration but that vote will, like the Leave vote, disproportionately hit Labour. The Tories win an election, we join the EEA and Labour is (still) in disarray.

I can't remember where but I saw polling on different options of 'what if the EU was like this'. If Cameron had come back and said his negotiated success was Norway he'd have won 60-40. You get similar levels of support for all European law related to the single market (including free movement) being made by the European Parliament with national Parliaments acting as a Senate (and needing a super-majority). For a chunk of the right it's about trade and 'sovereignty' and for a chunk of the left it's about democracy.

QuoteNot only does delaying absolutely hurt the UK on the economic side, but every day it is not triggered you're pissing off Brussels and Paris and Berlin and Rome and Madrid and and and.

I don't see how it hurts us economically. Activating article 50 increases uncertainty because we don't know what we want, we don't know what we'll get and there's a hard deadline at the end of it. It may piss everyone else off but I think the British government (of any stripe) would be mad to activate it without a very clear idea of how the negotiations will go. Until then we're full members.

Also in terms of practical things right now we don't know who'll be the next PM, there's probably going to be an election, the Labour party is imploding, there will possibly be a second indy ref. And in terms of informal talks I wouldn't expect the SNP to call for a second referendum until they've clarified Europe's view on them 'inheriting' the UK's EU membership (there is such a provision in Lisbon) in the case of winning indy ref and Article 50.

Quotean alternative might be not having the party-leader and the pm be the same person. Though I'm not sure how common that is in the world

It was mentioned as an option by the Blairite ultras towards the end of his reign. I believe they called it the Aznar option.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 01:55:35 PM
At least part of the sovereignty lot who wouldn't mind as Norway can (though rarely does) derogate from European regulations.

That's silly. Norway sometimes derogates on very technical minor details. That's what you consider #takecontrol and a restoration of sovereignity when contrasted with the massive corpus of law that Norway has to implement and has no say about it at all?

QuoteYou get similar levels of support for all European law related to the single market (including free movement) being made by the European Parliament with national Parliaments acting as a Senate (and needing a super-majority).

:lmfao: That's basically abolishing any legislative power of the European Union. The EU and all its predecessors were always between the governments of the member states, not between the parliaments of the member states. And with good reason. It is hard enough to find a qualified majority among the governments when they all meet on the same day in Brussels. If you wait for each national parliament to ratify - and that's what it is - a new piece of legislation (let's just call it treaty), you'll never get anything done. Really silly proposal.

QuoteI don't see how it hurts us economically.

Have you not read the newspapers the last few days? Uncertainity adds risk to every investment decision that someone makes to invest in Britain. Which can make business cases unattractive and thus investment does not happen. That hurts not just the export sector, but also all domestic consumption aimed investment as Britain has a higher risk to face a recession now than it had before because of this reduction of investments.

QuoteActivating article 50 increases uncertainty because we don't know what we want, we don't know what we'll get and there's a hard deadline at the end of it. It may piss everyone else off but I think the British government (of any stripe) would be mad to activate it without a very clear idea of how the negotiations will go. Until then we're full members.

Pissing everybody else off is a surefire way NOT to know how negotiations will go as it decreases the willingness of the other parties to play nice with you. As Juncker said, this is not an amicable divorce. The other countries have interests and some might be interested in hurting your government.
And you are no longer considered full members, treaties and everything notwithstanding. David Cameron was specifically not invited to the summit of the 27 heads of government tomorrow.

Quote from: Zanza on June 28, 2016, 03:05:20 PM
That's silly. Norway sometimes derogates on very technical minor details. That's what you consider #takecontrol and a restoration of sovereignity when contrasted with the massive corpus of law that Norway has to implement and has no say about it at all?

It hasn't ever used it properly - I think they tried on postal regulations. But they are out of all of the non-single market ex-pillars which again appeals to a specific type of Tory Leave voter.

Quote:lmfao: That's basically abolishing any legislative power of the European Union. The EU and all its predecessors were always between the governments of the member states, not between the parliaments of the member states. And with good reason. It is hard enough to find a qualified majority among the governments when they all meet on the same day in Brussels. If you wait for each national parliament to ratify - and that's what it is - a new piece of legislation (let's just call it treaty), you'll never get anything done. Really silly proposal.

Not a proposal just a polling idea. Also the governments all have majorities. It was something like fully democratic, law-making EU Parliament covering single market and migration + approval votes of 75% off national governments/Parliaments = law.

Quote
Have you not read the newspapers the last few days? Uncertainity adds risk to every investment decision that someone makes to invest in Britain. Which can make business cases unattractive and thus investment does not happen. That hurts not just the export sector, but also all domestic consumption aimed investment as Britain has a higher risk to face a recession now than it had before because of this reduction of investments.

The last few days is because the market got it wrong for the last four weeks. I think and hope that we're now out of the knee-jerk phase and things will settle down. But short-term volatility is to be expected.

As I say, at this point the bigger uncertainty and the bigger risk is activating Article 50 without a clear plan. Hell there are a few writers who don't think it'll ever be activated - though I think that's wishful thinking on their part.

QuotePissing everybody else off is a surefire way NOT to know how negotiations will go as it decreases the willingness of the other parties to play nice with you. As Juncker said, this is not an amicable divorce. The other countries have interests and some might be interested in hurting your government.

As I say there are a lot of very good reasons we're not going to and can't start the leaving process. But there are other EU member states who have different interests than a hostile divorce pour encourage les autres or pushing the inevitable European solution of 'more Europe' for everyone.

QuoteAnd you are no longer considered full members, treaties and everything notwithstanding. David Cameron was specifically not invited to the summit of the 27 heads of government tomorrow.

Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Not a proposal just a polling idea. Also the governments all have majorities. It was something like fully democratic, law-making EU Parliament covering single market and migration + approval votes of 75% off national governments/Parliaments = law.

75% of national governments would be more than the Council now needs for qualified majority. Adding in the national parliaments just creates a massive time lag and less certainity that a regulation will ever be ratified by enough parliaments. That would be an exercise in making the EU unworkable. 

QuoteAs I say, at this point the bigger uncertainty and the bigger risk is activating Article 50 without a clear plan. Hell there are a few writers who don't think it'll ever be activated - though I think that's wishful thinking on their part.

What was the whole fucking point then?  :huh:

QuoteAs I say there are a lot of very good reasons we're not going to and can't start the leaving process. But there are other EU member states who have different interests than a hostile divorce pour encourage les autres or pushing the inevitable European solution of 'more Europe' for everyone.

Yes, but Britain needs unanimous consent of every single of the 27 governments. Having just some that have different interests is not enough. You need to convince every single country.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Not a proposal just a polling idea. Also the governments all have majorities. It was something like fully democratic, law-making EU Parliament covering single market and migration + approval votes of 75% off national governments/Parliaments = law.

Those majorities are not all lockstep. Weird alliances seem to be all the rage these days.

But I like how you are thinking but...hey wait now why is a super majority something you are in favor of now? :hmm:

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 03:15:55 PMLaws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

I wouldn't count on that presidency...

Quote from: Zanza on June 28, 2016, 03:31:23 PM
75% of national governments would be more than the Council now needs for qualified majority. Adding in the national parliaments just creates a massive time lag and less certainity that a regulation will ever be ratified by enough parliaments. That would be an exercise in making the EU unworkable. 

Maybe. But it does go to at least a small portion of the UK electorate mainly caring about democratic legitimacy.

QuoteWhat was the whole fucking point then?  :huh:

Well I don't buy those arguments. But we've got an answer to the yes or no question. Now we need to work out what that means.

Quote
Yes, but Britain needs unanimous consent of every single of the 27 governments. Having just some that have different interests is not enough. You need to convince every single country.

Yep. And we should have patience in achieving that. There should be desire to rush into anything. Everyone would do well to remember their MacMillan (a great would-be European), quiet, calm deliberation untangles ever knot.

QuoteBut I like how you are thinking but...hey wait now why is a super majority something you are in favor of now? :hmm:

I've always supported super majorities in Europe. But I don't support that idea it was just something that got a 60-40 showing in a poll.

QuoteI wouldn't count on that presidency...

You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

QuoteI've always supported super majorities in Europe. But I don't support that idea it was just something that got a 60-40 showing in a poll.

Ah I see.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 04:13:30 PM
You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

You could also have an unelected prime minister by then. #takecontrol

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

At the moment the language from Europe is that we still have all the responsibilities but none of the rights, despite legally being a full member until the end of article 50's two year period (and with article 50 not even invoked yet.)

I wouldn't even count on the new Commissioner being accepted; even if he is he won't be given a real job. The Presidency's almost certainly going to be stripped from us as well, although I don't know what technicality they'll come up with.

Incidentally, do you agree with me that our Commissioner was an idiot to resign given the timescale of "Brexit" and the importance of his portfolio?

Quote from: Agelastus on June 28, 2016, 04:32:32 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 03:15:55 PM
Laws matter. The new government should appoint a new Commissioner, MEPs should continue their work and we should start planning for the forthcoming presidency.

At the moment the language from Europe is that we still have all the responsibilities but none of the rights, despite legally being a full member until the end of article 50's two year period (and with article 50 not even invoked yet.)

I wouldn't even count on the new Commissioner being accepted; even if he is he won't be given a real job. The Presidency's almost certainly going to be stripped from us as well, although I don't know what technicality they'll come up with.

Incidentally, do you agree with me that our Commissioner was an idiot to resign given the timescale of "Brexit" and the importance of his portfolio?

Yes he was an idiot.

Quote from: Zanza on June 28, 2016, 04:28:21 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 04:13:30 PM
You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

You could also have an unelected prime minister by then. #takecontrol

Are you referring to a revolution? Because this current fad in Britain to demand an election whenever the PM changes is utterly ahistorical for our political system; I'm not even convinced a new election to gain a mandate is required given the explicit language of the Tory Manifesto used in the 2015 election -

It will be a fundamental principle of a future Conservative
Government that membership of the European Union
depends on the consent of the British people – and in
recent years that consent has worn wafer-thin. That's why,
after the election, we will negotiate a new settlement for
Britain in Europe, and then ask the British people whether
they want to stay in the EU on this reformed basis or leave.
David Cameron has committed that he will only lead a
government that offers an in-out referendum. We will hold
that in-out referendum before the end of 2017 and respect
the outcome.

and -

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament
for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain's
membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will
negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then
we will ask the British people whether they want to stay
in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the
referendum, whatever the outcome.

Sure but all the outcome was was leave. Now we need to have the debate on how we leave.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 04:45:37 PM
Sure but all the outcome was was leave. Now we need to have the debate on how we leave.

I favour a flounce and slamming of doors.

Quote from: Zanza on June 28, 2016, 04:28:21 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 04:13:30 PM
You never know, we might have a Remain Labour-Lib Dem coalition by then.

You could also have an unelected prime minister by then. #takecontrol

I don't want to alarm anyone, but Lembit Opik has been spotted in Westminster today :ph34r:

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 28, 2016, 04:45:37 PM
Sure but all the outcome was was leave. Now we need to have the debate on how we leave.

How you leave is 1/28th in your control. Better hurry.

Not quite, if France and Germany have a common mind on post-Brexit Britain it's a fait accompli; it's highly unlikely the trade/migration/etc agreements will be held up by Malta or Latvia.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 28, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
Not quite, if France and Germany have a common mind on post-Brexit Britain it's a fait accompli; it's highly unlikely the trade/migration/etc agreements will be held up by Malta or Latvia.

Why not? The Republic of Ireland probably has specific demands on Brexit negotiations. Cyprus might want that military base out, etc etc.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 28, 2016, 06:51:01 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 28, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
Not quite, if France and Germany have a common mind on post-Brexit Britain it's a fait accompli; it's highly unlikely the trade/migration/etc agreements will be held up by Malta or Latvia.

Why not? The Republic of Ireland probably has specific demands on Brexit negotiations. Cyprus might want that military base out, etc etc.

One of them is 'sovereign British territory', not sure if the other base is also.

Quote from: mongers on June 28, 2016, 07:09:50 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 28, 2016, 06:51:01 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 28, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
Not quite, if France and Germany have a common mind on post-Brexit Britain it's a fait accompli; it's highly unlikely the trade/migration/etc agreements will be held up by Malta or Latvia.

Why not? The Republic of Ireland probably has specific demands on Brexit negotiations. Cyprus might want that military base out, etc etc.

One of them is 'sovereign British territory', not sure if the other base is also.

I believe everything is on the table now, borders included.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-scottish-mep-alyn-smith-standing-ovation-in-european-parliament-speech-scotland-a7107106.html

It will be France and Germany driving the negotiations, obviously, but the other 25 will NOT let this golden opportunity pass to keep the UK (and/or France and Germany who wants to get done ASAP) hostage and profit on it.

eg. the East Euro countries will have to be bought on a hefty price if they are to agree to the UK curbing immigration while also receiving some kind of trade deal. That would not go down well with their own voters.

Spain has no reason to just let Gibraltar continue BAU after Brexit, not when the UK will HAVE to get a deal in 2 years, and any debate over it would be ohhh so sweet distraction for the home public, not to mention the points the government could score if they could actually grab Gibraltar back in some form.

And I am sure the list could go on.

Just because Leaving is now an established fact, it still means the UK has shot itself in the foot and will spend the next years desperately trying to recover from it with minimal damages. It will be a decade at least before the idea of a net positive Brexit can even be entertained.

The history of every single EU negotiation ever suggests that Tamas is right and the negotiations will be very hard as you have to get unanimous agreement from 27 stakeholders.

Hard isn't really meaningful practically, lots of things are hard but necessary in the political world. Like the debt ceiling debates we had a few years back. There isn't a chance Britain and the EU don't work something more or less reasonable out. The EU has deals with Norway, Switzerland, Turkey etc.

Particularly with Turkey they have deals there and Turkey has illegally occupied half of an EU member country for a generation. The EU's dealings with Turkey are instructive, Cyprus has often taken hardline positions on any agreement with Turkey, then the large powerful EU countries start to quietly apply pressure on Cyprus. That's essentially how the EU typically works and why many citizens outside countries like France and Germany complain about the power of the large countries.

I think intransigent is a better word than hard. So the EU will insist on free movement if Britain is to continue to have full access to the single market. This is beneficial to the economies of both parties, so not hard as such, but it rather ruins the point of the whole Leave raison d'etre.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 29, 2016, 08:12:36 AM
Hard isn't really meaningful practically, lots of things are hard but necessary in the political world. Like the debt ceiling debates we had a few years back. There isn't a chance Britain and the EU don't work something more or less reasonable out. The EU has deals with Norway, Switzerland, Turkey etc.

Particularly with Turkey they have deals there and Turkey has illegally occupied half of an EU member country for a generation. The EU's dealings with Turkey are instructive, Cyprus has often taken hardline positions on any agreement with Turkey, then the large powerful EU countries start to quietly apply pressure on Cyprus. That's essentially how the EU typically works and why many citizens outside countries like France and Germany complain about the power of the large countries.

Maybe, but who knows. The deals with Norway and Switzerland require them signing up to a bunch of things that are unpalatable to the leavers - contributions to the EU budget and free movement of people.

The Turkey deal would be OK but excludes services.

There's a lot of downside for the EU if the UK is perceived to have got away with a decent deal - I'd be surprised if there isn't a desire to punish the UK to discourage other potential exiters.

The whole point is to actually leave, and now everyone knows that a majority of Brits REALLY dislike people from other EU countries since they are willing to take huge hits to get rid of them. It saddens me greatly that the UK decided to implode.

Quote from: Gups on June 29, 2016, 09:18:39 AM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 29, 2016, 08:12:36 AM
Hard isn't really meaningful practically, lots of things are hard but necessary in the political world. Like the debt ceiling debates we had a few years back. There isn't a chance Britain and the EU don't work something more or less reasonable out. The EU has deals with Norway, Switzerland, Turkey etc.

Particularly with Turkey they have deals there and Turkey has illegally occupied half of an EU member country for a generation. The EU's dealings with Turkey are instructive, Cyprus has often taken hardline positions on any agreement with Turkey, then the large powerful EU countries start to quietly apply pressure on Cyprus. That's essentially how the EU typically works and why many citizens outside countries like France and Germany complain about the power of the large countries.

Maybe, but who knows. The deals with Norway and Switzerland require them signing up to a bunch of things that are unpalatable to the leavers - contributions to the EU budget and free movement of people.

The Turkey deal would be OK but excludes services.

There's a lot of downside for the EU if the UK is perceived to have got away with a decent deal - I'd be surprised if there isn't a desire to punish the UK to discourage other potential exiters.

I hear what you're saying and I think any deal will leave UK unhappy about parts and the EU unhappy about parts--that's how most compromises work.

The UK's dream deal is: free access to the EU market, customs union, essentially no change to the flow of goods and services, but they unilaterally get to set immigration policy and etc.

That will simply never happen.

I'm not sure what the EU's dream deal is, but I think EEA-Norway status is pretty good for the EU. It establishes the EU as a rational actor, but also basically says "if you leave all you're getting is a loss of your vote in the EU." That actually is a pretty decent disincentive for other countries to leave. It's actually a tacit acceptance by Britain in the validity of free movement and etc.

If Britain legitimately elects a government that refuses free movement and etc, then I do think a much worse deal will emerge--for Britain (primarily) but also for the EU's economy. But I guess I'm just assuming Britain is going to have a strong dose of rationality and realize genuine disengagement is disastrous.

I don't think Turkey-status would be permitted--the customs union sans services, and with no free movement of peoples. That was a weird deal because Turkey actually wanted (didn't they actually get it this year as part of the refugee bargain?) free movement of people and trade, but the EU didn't want free movement of people. Turkey's goal is to eventually have genuine free movement, I don't think the EU will give Britain a permanent version of Turkey's deal.

A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Other countries not liking a country setting an immigration policy that hurts them?

I don't understand comments like this. If Argentina decided to capture and execute you next time you visited that would be within their rights to do so. The US might have a problem with it though. The nerve of the US? :hmm:

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

This is kind of a silly comment.  We're talking about trade offs.

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

It's hypocritical if they want many of the EU benefits. The EU isn't like NAFTA, it's an economic and political union that by necessity has a unified regulatory and etc framework. You can't even practically get most of the real benefits of association with the union if you aren't working in lock step with them--which is probably why Norway hasn't used any of its ability to go its own way (and it does have some) historically.

If Britain genuinely wants to be totally apart from Europe, and have a relationship with Europe akin to that of the United States (but with maybe a genuine free trade agreement), then that's probably possible--but I cannot see how it isn't disastrous. Britain has benefited tremendously from the union, and there's no obvious answer for where all the lost GDP growth comes from.

Suggestions like an Anglo-American Free Trade Agreement are laughable--that would hardly impact Britain at all, because tariffs on British goods imported here are already extremely low.

Most leavers don't want customs union. It's one of their big moans.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 29, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
I'm not sure what the EU's dream deal is, but I think EEA-Norway status is pretty good for the EU. It establishes the EU as a rational actor, but also basically says "if you leave all you're getting is a loss of your vote in the EU." That actually is a pretty decent disincentive for other countries to leave. It's actually a tacit acceptance by Britain in the validity of free movement and etc.

But the 3 main campaign arguments for Leave were removal of free movement, removal of EU contributions and removal of EU regulations and red tape. They can't possibly sign up to a Norway-like deal which imposes all three. It's basically like being a non-voting member of the EU (I've no idea why Norway signed up to the deal themselves).

As I said before, the UK has a pretty sweet deal in the EU now.  The only reason leave would make sense is if the UK wants completely out.  Any partially in/partially out is going to be worse than what they have now.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2016, 10:44:17 AM
Most leavers don't want customs union. It's one of their big moans.

Americans have a lot of issues on which a majority is against things that the government does.  There isn't a requirement government has to follow ill-thought out positions of constituents.

I've just been checking how many foreign workers there are in the UK.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/june2016#employment-by-nationality-and-country-of-birth-not-seasonally-adjusted-first-published-on-18-may-2016

Part 6 is the most relevant bit. There are 3.34 million of them and they form 10.6% of the workforce. Meanwhile there are 1.69m unemployed (ILO definition). Many of these unemployed are more or less unemployable, they either have irrelevant skills or live in a part of the country with few jobs but have no intention of moving.

Interesting stuff. It looks to me that the economy is inextricably meshed into the wider European economy, it would take quite a downturn for us not to need these foreign workers  :hmm:

QuoteUK lacks expertise for trade talks with Europe, says top civil servant
Whitehall negotiators massively outnumbered by European counterparts, according to Foreign Office official

An initial government review has revealed Whitehall has only 20 "active hands-on" trade negotiators, and will be up against 600 experienced trade specialists for the European commission, Sir Simon Fraser, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office disclosed.

[...]

He said the coming trade negotiations are painstaking line-by-line, sector-by-sector work, and the current lack of capacity would require the UK government to search for skilled negotiators outside Whitehall.

[...]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/28/uk-lacks-expertise-for-trade-talks-with-europe-says-top-civil-servant

Just hire Donald Trump. I hear he is going to negotiate so many great deals for us might as well give him a trial run.

Or hire all the U.S. negotiators who will be fired when Trump is elected.

But of course that's going to be across the board--anything the EU does now for its member states Britain will have to assume again, and hire people to do it. It won't be all that easy.

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2016, 10:31:40 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Other countries not liking a country setting an immigration policy that hurts them?

I don't understand comments like this. If Argentina decided to capture and execute you next time you visited that would be within their rights to do so. The US might have a problem with it though. The nerve of the US? :hmm:

That's a bit of an extreme example, and therefore pretty irrelevant.  I don't see how it's unreasonable for the people of the UK to want to set their own immigration policy*.


*assuming said policy does not involve them killing me if I go there

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:12:37 PM
That's a bit of an extreme example, and therefore pretty irrelevant.  I don't see how it's unreasonable for the people of the UK to want to set their own immigration policy*.

It's totally not unreasonable for the people of the UK to want to set their own immigration policy.

However, if they want the benefits of an integrated market that is predicated on a certain set of immigration policy standards, then they'll have to set their own immigration policy in accordance with those standards. The crux of the issue seems to be that "the people of the UK" want the benefits of the integrated market while simultaneously rejecting the required immigration standards. That seems to be an impossible objective to achieve, practically speaking.

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:12:37 PM
That's a bit of an extreme example, and therefore pretty irrelevant.

The example was saying that sure a country has the right to do whatever it wants. It is sovereign. But it doesn't live on a different planet. There are other countries around.

QuoteI don't see how it's unreasonable for the people of the UK to want to set their own immigration policy*.

Which has fuck all to do with what we are talking about.

The people of the UK can set their own immigration policy. They do set their own immigration policy and further have set their own immigration policy since whenever you judge the UK to have become a reasonably democratic country. Even the EU immigration policies were agreed to by the representatives of the people of the UK. If they want to change those policies then they absolutely can and will. There are just consequences for doing things that other countries might not like.

The dichotomy between "single market" and "freedom of movement" that is seen in this thread and elsewhere does not really exist in EU law. This is how it is defined in the TFEU, Article 26:
The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Quote from: Zanza on June 29, 2016, 12:32:33 PM
The dichotomy between "single market" and "freedom of movement" that is seen in this thread and elsewhere does not really exist in EU law. This is how it is defined in the TFEU, Article 26:
The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured

Eh, it's distinguished in English language news (including British--which I read a lot of), surely you're familiar with the reality that legal specifics and common usage aren't really  one and the same, anywhere. If you read things that Boris Johnson etc are saying they frequently discuss the free movement of peoples and the free movement of goods and services as distinct concepts.

Legally they may be intrinsically linked, and I believe they are absolutely linked politically as well, but Languish isn't the only place discussing it in these terms.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2016, 12:47:22 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Why do I have to choose?

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:51:09 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2016, 12:47:22 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Why do I have to choose?

Because free flow of labor is important in a functional capitalist economy. Which is also why state limitations on immigration when the economy demands labor tend to fail so spectacularly. I don't really see the difference between state limitations on labor or capital.

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:51:09 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2016, 12:47:22 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 10:27:02 AM
A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Why do I have to choose?

Because that's the issue both in Britain and the US.  In both places the Anti-immigrant forces are partnered with protectionist and anti-free trade forces.  You can have one or the other, but not both.

I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:58:47 PM
I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

Well I guess that is true. The states cannot start imposing immigration restrictions on other states. I don't think it can exist feasibly with free trade though. Once you let capital start roaming around but keep the people in or out it undermines the system. Before, when everything was actually pretty much limited to one country, the interests of the people and capital were the same. When those start to become decoupled it creates a difficult political environment. Or, at least, It seems to be creating a difficult political environment.

I can live with it.

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:58:47 PM
I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

I'm not sure what that means.

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 01:37:45 PM
I can live with it.

Well I hope so because that is what is developing :P

Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2016, 01:39:18 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:58:47 PM
I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

I'm not sure what that means.

It sounds like it means that capital should get the benefits of libertarianism and competition, but labour should not. If it is in the interest of, say, a business to move their business overseas they should not face any problems in trading their product in their recently abandoned home market. However, if someone wants to move to where there's a better job available to them, they should not necessarily be able to do so.

Quote from: Jacob on June 29, 2016, 02:28:18 PM
It sounds like it means that capital should get the benefits of libertarianism and competition, but labour should not. If it is in the interest of, say, a business to move their business overseas they should not face any problems in trading their product in their recently abandoned home market. However, if someone wants to move to where there's a better job available to them, they should not necessarily be able to do so.

You of course omit the ways labor benefits from closed borders and the ways capital loses from open borders.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2016, 02:37:17 PM
You of course omit the ways labor benefits from closed borders and the ways capital loses from open borders.

I would agree there are trade offs. But the point is their interests become decoupled.

Quote from: Valmy on June 29, 2016, 02:42:18 PMBut the point is their interests become decoupled.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51JJ62VuvXL.jpg)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 29, 2016, 02:37:17 PM

Quote from: Jacob on June 29, 2016, 02:28:18 PM
It sounds like it means that capital should get the benefits of libertarianism and competition, but labour should not. If it is in the interest of, say, a business to move their business overseas they should not face any problems in trading their product in their recently abandoned home market. However, if someone wants to move to where there's a better job available to them, they should not necessarily be able to do so.

You of course omit the ways labor benefits from closed borders and the ways capital loses from open borders.

Sure, but my assumption is that open borders and free movement is a benefit to both labour and capital, in aggregate.

Is there a convincing argument that lack of mobility is to the advantage of labour overall, especially in situations with free movements of goods and capital?

Interesting piece by Tyler Cowen here on what Brexit really means, not sure how much I agree but it's very interesting - especially from London:

QuoteWhy Brexit happened and what it means
by Tyler Cowen on June 27, 2016   at 12:47 am   in Current Affairs, Education, History, Political Science, Uncategorized | Permalink

Yes, I am still pro Remain, and also generally pro immigration, and I am still hoping the Brits take a cue from DeAndre Jordan.  (I also see geopolitics and national security as a significant reason to favor Remain, just ask Putin; furthermore the transition problems are looking worse than many had expected.)  But I am growing distressed by the material I am seeing from the Remain side.  At some point we have to limit our moralizing about the vote and start treating it more like data, if only to figure out how to best overturn or reverse it.

As I interpret what happened, ultimately the vote was about preserving the English nation, and yes I use those last two italicized words deliberately; reread Fintan O'Toole.  Go back and read English history.  For centuries, England has been filled with English people, plus some others from nearby regions.  Go visit Norfolk and also stop in Great Yarmouth, once described by Charles Dickens as "...the finest place in the universe," and which, for whatever decline it may have experienced, still looks and feels like England.  London does not.

As Zack Beauchamp notes (in a piece which is mostly an example of what I am criticizing): "...the number of foreign-born people living in the UK has gone from 2.3 million in 1993 (when Britain joined the EU) to 8.2 million in 2014."

In terms of distribution and influence, the impact of those numbers is much larger yet.  London, the cultural center, business center, and political capital of England for many centuries, is now essential a global and indeed foreign city.  I spent almost two weeks in London in 1979, and while I clearly prefer the new version the difference is glaringly obvious to me, as I am sure it is all the more to most English people.  (And that contrast is clearest to the older English of course, and that helps explain one of the most pronounced demographic features of how people voted; it is inappropriate how many Remain supporters are cursing the arguably better informed preferences of the elderly.)

Cities such as Bradford, while still predominantly white, no longer feel as English (and German!) as they once did.  And if you are thinking that voting "Leave" does not at all limit Pakistani immigration, you are truly missing the point; this vote was the one lever the English were given for sending a message to their politicians.

It would be a falsehood and exaggeration to say "Islam is now the major religion of England," but given low rates of Anglican church attendance, it is not an entirely absurd claim to at least wonder about.  And for better or worse, a lot of people just won't put up with change that is so rapid and far-reaching.  Believe it or not, they are not persuaded by my "British Muslims must lead the global Islamic Reformation" conviction.

All of this migration has brought a "cultural trauma" arguably more significant than anything for England since the Norman Conquest.  In fact, under a lot of estimates the Norman Conquest was no more than about 10,000 men, relative to an estimated English population of 1.7 million at that time.

Quite simply, the English want England to stay relatively English, and voting Leave was the instrument they were given.  That specific cultural attachment is not for Irish-American me, no, I feel no sentiment, other than perhaps good humor, when someone offers me "a lovely biscuit," or when a small book shop devotes an entire section to gardening, but yes I do get it at some level.  And some parts of the older England I do truly love and I am talking the Beatles and Monty Python and James Bond here, not just the ancients like Trollope or Edmund Spenser.

Much has been made of the supposed paradox that opposition to immigration is highest where the number of immigrants is lowest.  Yes, some of that is the racism and xenophobia of less cosmopolitan areas, but it would be a big mistake to dismiss it as such or even to mainly frame it as such.  Most of all it is an endowment effect.  Those are the regions which best remember — and indeed still live — some earlier notion of what England was like.  And they wish to hold on to that, albeit with the possibility of continuing evolution along mostly English lines.

One way to understand the English vote is to compare it to other areas, especially with regard to immigration.  If you read Frank Fukuyama, he correctly portrays Japan and Denmark, as, along with England, being the two other truly developed, mature nation states in earlier times, well before the Industrial Revolution.  And what do we see about these countries?  Relative to their other demographics, they are especially opposed to very high levels of immigration.  England, in a sense, was the region "out on a limb," when it comes to taking in foreigners, and now it has decided to pull back and be more like Denmark and Japan.

The regularity here is that the coherent, longstanding nation states are most protective of their core identities.  Should that come as a huge surprise?  The contrast with Belgium, where I am writing this, is noteworthy.  The actual practical problems with immigration are much greater here in Brussels, but the country is much further from "doing anything about it," whether prudently or not, and indeed to this day Belgium is not actually a mature nation-state and it may splinter yet.  That England did something is one reflection of the fact that England is a better-run region than Belgium, even if you feel as I do that the vote was a big mistake.

Of course, USA and Canada and a few others are mature nation states based on the very idea of immigration, so they do not face the same dilemma that England does.  By the way, the most English of the colonies — New Zealand — has never been quite as welcoming of foreign immigrants, compared to say Australia.

Scotland and Northern Ireland have much less interest in "the English project" and of course they voted for Remain at high levels; the Welsh are somewhat closer to the English perspective and they had a majority for Leave.  I also would argue that Scotland and Northern Ireland have in fact never been truly coherent nation states, with many of the Irish in chaos for centuries and Scotland piggybacking on a larger Great Britain.  They (correctly) see the EU as a vehicle to attaining greater coherence, and thus it is no surprise that EU membership led to a nearly successful Scottish independence referendum, with perhaps another independence vote to follow.

Adam Ozimek has some good remarks on debating immigration.  Here are some interesting accounts of those who voted Leave.  Note that voting "Leave" may not even end up giving the English/British control over their immigration policies, once a new deal is struck with the EU.

Restoring and maintaining what is English?  "Too little, too late!' says I, "you should instead find a way of strengthening and redefining English identity under the status quo ex ante," I might have added, but of course I was not given the deciding vote or indeed any vote at all.

Most of all, I conclude that the desire to preserve the English nation [sic] as English is stronger than I or indeed most others had thought.  There is a positive side to that.  And if all along you thought there was no case for Leave, probably it is you who is the provincial one.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2016, 04:52:50 PM
Interesting piece by Tyler Cowen here on what Brexit really means, not sure how much I agree but it's very interesting - especially from London:

Quote from: pieceOne way to understand the English vote is to compare it to other areas, especially with regard to immigration.  If you read Frank Fukuyama, he correctly portrays Japan and Denmark, as, along with England, being the two other truly developed, mature nation states in earlier times, well before the Industrial Revolution.

I don't understand this part.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 29, 2016, 04:52:50 PM
Interesting piece by Tyler Cowen here on what Brexit really means, not sure how much I agree but it's very interesting - especially from London:

QuoteAll of this migration has brought a "cultural trauma" arguably more significant than anything for England since the Norman Conquest.  In fact, under a lot of estimates the Norman Conquest was no more than about 10,000 men, relative to an estimated English population of 1.7 million at that time.

If that was really true, I would have expected to see a lot more violence.

That piece was written incredibly poorly.

Yeah, who the hell is Frank Fukuyama anyway? :bleeding:

Quote from: Drakken on June 29, 2016, 10:59:36 PM
Yeah, who the hell is Frank Fukuyama anyway? :bleeding:

Francis Fukuyama is a well known political scientist.  I think he used to be dean of the School for Advanced International Studies.  His most famous book is "The End of History."

I know that.  :mad:

At least, he should get such a basic name right.

Looked like name-dropping to me, "his friends call him Frank" sort of thing.

So Boris Johnson is not running for Tory leader.  Interesting.

Michael Heseltine, a very senior Tory of the previous generation, is not impressed with Johnson at all :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36677623

Quote from: derspiess on June 29, 2016, 12:58:47 PM
I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

Libertarian Stalinism - you should tm it.

Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2016, 05:17:06 PM

Quote from: pieceOne way to understand the English vote is to compare it to other areas, especially with regard to immigration.  If you read Frank Fukuyama, he correctly portrays Japan and Denmark, as, along with England, being the two other truly developed, mature nation states in earlier times, well before the Industrial Revolution.

I don't understand this part.

He means they developed as nations in the modern sense relatively early, as opposed to the early-mid 19th century dates typically applied to other nations as per Gellner or Benedict Anderson.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 29, 2016, 07:01:35 PM
That piece was written incredibly poorly.

It's a blog post not a piece - wouldn't expect much.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 30, 2016, 05:06:44 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 29, 2016, 05:17:06 PM

Quote from: pieceOne way to understand the English vote is to compare it to other areas, especially with regard to immigration.  If you read Frank Fukuyama, he correctly portrays Japan and Denmark, as, along with England, being the two other truly developed, mature nation states in earlier times, well before the Industrial Revolution.

I don't understand this part.

He means they developed as nations in the modern sense relatively early, as opposed to the early-mid 19th century dates typically applied to other nations as per Gellner or Benedict Anderson.

And I don't understand it.

Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2016, 05:08:36 PM
So, in all probability the UK is set for a political crisis this summer, whether it votes to remain in the EU or leave.

Just a place holder thread until we know the result on Friday. 

Thought your last predictions are welcome.

* NB I reserve the right to change the thread title to "The Summer 2016 UK Constitutional Crisis Megathread." depending on the out come.

Mongers I'm wondering if you had an inkling just how big a crisis and how bizarre it was going to get. I don't think anyone predicted a clusterfuck this bad.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2016, 06:38:14 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 20, 2016, 05:08:36 PM
So, in all probability the UK is set for a political crisis this summer, whether it votes to remain in the EU or leave.

Just a place holder thread until we know the result on Friday. 

Thought your last predictions are welcome.

* NB I reserve the right to change the thread title to "The Summer 2016 UK Constitutional Crisis Megathread." depending on the out come.

Mongers I'm wondering if you had an inkling just how big a crisis and how bizarre it was going to get. I don't think anyone predicted a clusterfuck this bad.

Currently it's more farce than a proper threatrical drama.

I canvassed enough ordinary voters to know the result beforehand with some certainty, so by implication I had a strong feeling this could be very bad for my country.

To be honest I didn't think any wider than that, so didn't consider it's international consequences, nor indeed bothered to think about the possibility of wider European contagion.

Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

I'm not looking forward to the Right's response.

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

I'm not looking forward to the Right's response.

You mean to try to reverse the referendum? Yes they should not reverse the referendum unless they can somehow show overwhelming support to do so.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2016, 05:06:13 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

I'm not looking forward to the Right's response.

You mean to try to reverse the referendum? Yes they should not reverse the referendum unless they can somehow show overwhelming support to do so.

Obviously, otherwise it's mob rule.

edit:
link to demo new item:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36692990 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36692990)

Wow that would have been a very moving march had it been made a few weeks ago.

Is it normal in the UK to start campaigning for elections after they have already occurred? I mean it was no surprise this was a close election yes?

So people shouldn't protest if a democratic vote ends up in an outcome they dislike? I was wrong to protest when California voters decided gay marriage was wrong?

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2016, 05:32:44 PM
Wow that would have been a very moving march had it been made a few weeks ago.

Is it normal in the UK to start campaigning for elections after they have already occurred? I mean it was no surprise this was a close election yes?

Exactly.

To people who consider other citizens votes invalid, then I guess it would make 'sense'.

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 05:34:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2016, 05:32:44 PM
Wow that would have been a very moving march had it been made a few weeks ago.

Is it normal in the UK to start campaigning for elections after they have already occurred? I mean it was no surprise this was a close election yes?

Exactly.

To people who consider other citizens votes invalid, then I guess it would make 'sense'.

They probably weren't outraged at the time as 1) their economy wasn't taking a beating and 2) before the vote happened there wasn't an upsurge in racism about the country.

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2016, 05:33:47 PM
So people shouldn't protest if a democratic vote ends up in an outcome they dislike? I was wrong to protest when California voters decided gay marriage was wrong?

No, not wrong. You were stupid. Probably should have held the march before the vote.

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2016, 05:47:49 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2016, 05:33:47 PM
So people shouldn't protest if a democratic vote ends up in an outcome they dislike? I was wrong to protest when California voters decided gay marriage was wrong?

No, not wrong. You were stupid. Probably should have held the march before the vote.

I doubt a march in San Francisco before the vote would have changed anyone's minds. :P

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2016, 05:36:32 PM

They probably weren't outraged at the time as 1) their economy wasn't taking a beating and 2) before the vote happened there wasn't an upsurge in racism about the country.

Yeah nobody associated Brexit with racism or economic disaster before this referendum took place.  :wacko:

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2016, 05:51:44 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2016, 05:36:32 PM

They probably weren't outraged at the time as 1) their economy wasn't taking a beating and 2) before the vote happened there wasn't an upsurge in racism about the country.

Yeah nobody associated Brexit with racism or economic disaster before this referendum took place.  :wacko:

Seeing is believing. Besides, I think one is liable to not be as outraged until the event they thought wouldn't happen, happens and it all goes to shit.

Yeah protest marches aren't really a part of any political campaigns I can think of - as opposed to protesting something.

Which is probably for the best because in general they're a shit way of either changing people's minds or getting the vote out.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2016, 06:04:45 PM
Yeah protest marches aren't really a part of any political campaigns I can think of - as opposed to protesting something.

Which is probably for the best because in general they're a shit way of either changing people's minds or getting the vote out.

What surprised me was the lack of engagement in the political process during the referendum campaign. In the weeks before the vote I travelled around 1500 miles on public transport and spent some time in several major UK cities and yet I saw very little campaigning, billboards/leaflets or political activists.

In my home region the only canvassers I encountered were two UKIP-type Brexiter, I saw a handful of exit signs and had to wait till I went to London to encouter a solitary Remain campaigner and the only Remain leaflet saw in the wild, discarded on a path in Hyde Park.  :(

There were at least two weekends when my area had remain people at the major junctions and on the day of the vote I think I saw 5-6 (remainers) on my way to and from work telling people to vote.

Around here at least it was more than during an election and I've seen plenty of Remain signs in people's windows too - same in Lewes.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2016, 06:24:03 PM
There were at least two weekends when my area had remain people at the major junctions and on the day of the vote I think I saw 5-6 (remainers) on my way to and from work telling people to vote.

Around here at least it was more than during an election and I've seen plenty of Remain signs in people's windows too - same in Lewes.

Oh I don't doubt it, that's the impression I got from the media, just that outside London things seemed very different in the areas that voted leave.

I don't know why Remain campaigners weren't more active across the whole country, especially as it being a referendum, every vote counted, so no marginals or need to carefully deploy resources, if you could persuade one voter it didn't matter where you did it.

Quote from: garbon on July 02, 2016, 05:36:32 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 05:34:14 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 02, 2016, 05:32:44 PM
Wow that would have been a very moving march had it been made a few weeks ago.

Is it normal in the UK to start campaigning for elections after they have already occurred? I mean it was no surprise this was a close election yes?

Exactly.

To people who consider other citizens votes invalid, then I guess it would make 'sense'.

They probably weren't outraged at the time as 1) their economy wasn't taking a beating and 2) before the vote happened there wasn't an upsurge in racism about the country.

Is the economy really taking a beating? Last I saw the FTSE was actually above pre brexit levels.

Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2016, 09:04:55 PM
Is the economy really taking a beating? Last I saw the FTSE was actually above pre brexit levels.

It's down about 11% in dollar terms. :contract:

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 06:18:09 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2016, 06:04:45 PM
Yeah protest marches aren't really a part of any political campaigns I can think of - as opposed to protesting something.

Which is probably for the best because in general they're a shit way of either changing people's minds or getting the vote out.

What surprised me was the lack of engagement in the political process during the referendum campaign. In the weeks before the vote I travelled around 1500 miles on public transport and spent some time in several major UK cities and yet I saw very little campaigning, billboards/leaflets or political activists.

Turnout was 72%. That's some pretty damn high engagement  in my opinion.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2016, 12:14:35 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 06:18:09 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2016, 06:04:45 PM
Yeah protest marches aren't really a part of any political campaigns I can think of - as opposed to protesting something.

Which is probably for the best because in general they're a shit way of either changing people's minds or getting the vote out.

What surprised me was the lack of engagement in the political process during the referendum campaign. In the weeks before the vote I travelled around 1500 miles on public transport and spent some time in several major UK cities and yet I saw very little campaigning, billboards/leaflets or political activists.

Turnout was 72%. That's some pretty damn high engagement  in my opinion.

Low (American) expectations.   :P

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2016, 12:14:35 AM
Turnout was 72%. That's some pretty damn high engagement  in my opinion.

I'm pretty sure if the US had a popular referendum on staying in NAFTA or the UN our turnout would be in that range and that we'd vote to leave.  There's a lot of impassioned people that think everything that's wrong with the country can be traced to foreigners telling Americans what to do.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 02, 2016, 09:13:36 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on July 02, 2016, 09:04:55 PM
Is the economy really taking a beating? Last I saw the FTSE was actually above pre brexit levels.

It's down about 11% in dollar terms. :contract:

Before Brexit the IMF thought Sterling was over-valued by about 15-20%, so we've got a way to go yet. For a country with a big current account deficit, in a deflationary world devaluation isn't all that bad an idea.

I'd imagine that the USA will be looking at ways of weakening the dollar.

I think at the minute everyone's looking for ways to weaken their currency. We've just found a way of doing it by accident and in such a way that no-one can accuse us of 'competitive devaluation' or currency wars :lol:

Quote from: mongers on July 03, 2016, 07:11:30 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 03, 2016, 12:14:35 AM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 06:18:09 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 02, 2016, 06:04:45 PM
Yeah protest marches aren't really a part of any political campaigns I can think of - as opposed to protesting something.

Which is probably for the best because in general they're a shit way of either changing people's minds or getting the vote out.

What surprised me was the lack of engagement in the political process during the referendum campaign. In the weeks before the vote I travelled around 1500 miles on public transport and spent some time in several major UK cities and yet I saw very little campaigning, billboards/leaflets or political activists.

Turnout was 72%. That's some pretty damn high engagement  in my opinion.

Low (American) expectations.   :P

It was still the best turnout since 1992; may the trend be continued at our next General Election.

Still a very poor turnout from the young..........understandable in the general elections with the fptp system, but quite baffling in the context of the referendum.

Why do you consider the poor turnout of the young to be understandable at any vote or under any voting system?

I don't think I've missed a vote since I turned 18.

There are many seats with huge majorities for one party or the other, most votes are wasted under that system.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 03, 2016, 07:52:40 AM
There are many seats with huge majorities for one party or the other, most votes are wasted under that system.

How many of those seats with whopping majorities actually amount to more than 50% of the local electorate? I suspect it's a lot less than people think, particularly with voter turnout below 70% for the last few elections. :hmm:

Voting may prove to be pointless but not voting is definitely pointless. Why the young can't seem to grasp this is beyond me.

Or maybe I've just been over-influenced by a Colleen McCullough book; I think the quote goes roughly "truthfully, there was no one I wanted to vote for, but not voting at all just avoids the issue." (like a coward would do being the subtext.)

PR! PR! PR!

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2016, 07:58:10 AM
PR! PR! PR!

NO! NO! NO! :P

Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2016, 07:56:52 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 03, 2016, 07:52:40 AM
There are many seats with huge majorities for one party or the other, most votes are wasted under that system.

How many of those seats with whopping majorities actually amount to more than 50% of the local electorate? I suspect it's a lot less than people think, particularly with voter turnout below 70% for the last few elections. :hmm:

Voting may prove to be pointless but not voting is definitely pointless. Why the young can't seem to grasp this is beyond me.

Or maybe I've just been over-influenced by a Colleen McCullough book; I think the quote goes roughly "truthfully, there was no one I wanted to vote for, but not voting at all just avoids the issue." (like a coward would do being the subtext.)

not voting is no different that voting for the winner, regardless of who that is.

Multi-member constituencies is my preference. That way we keep the local link and get a more representative house of commons.

I would look forward to England's version of the Healy-Raes:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/one-way-of-making-an-entrance-healyrae-brothers-host-minisession-on-top-of-a-car-outside-the-dil-34528417.html
:lol:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 03, 2016, 08:03:38 AM
Multi-member constituencies is my preference. That way we keep the local link and get a more representative house of commons.

:hmm:

It's been used before in the UK (for counties and universities IIRC) but in the modern era of parties and not personalities I presume you'd want to mess around with Transferable Votes etc. rather than simply having the top two (or however many) candidates elected?

Quote from: Agelastus on July 03, 2016, 08:11:27 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 03, 2016, 08:03:38 AM
Multi-member constituencies is my preference. That way we keep the local link and get a more representative house of commons.

:hmm:

It's been used before in the UK (for counties and universities IIRC) but in the modern era of parties and not personalities I presume you'd want to mess around with Transferable Votes etc. rather than simply having the top two (or however many) candidates elected?

I thinking of 5 or so members returned for each constituency, one would vote for a party which would have an ordered list of candidates, a formula would then determine who the winners are.

So a tory area might return 3 tories, 1 labour and 1 lib-dem............instead of the 5 tories they return under fptp (and vice versa for othe parties in different areas of course).

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 03, 2016, 08:40:27 AM
I thinking of 5 or so members returned for each constituency, one would vote for a party which would have an ordered list of candidates, a formula would then determine who the winners are.

So a tory area might return 3 tories, 1 labour and 1 lib-dem............instead of the 5 tories they return under fptp (and vice versa for othe parties in different areas of course).

You lose me as soon as you start talking about "lists"; I consider them anathema to local accountability. I feel much the same way about the current fad for party lists of "approved" candidates and god save the local constituency party that tries to go its' own way.

Edit: It's also noticeable with the town council elections, that do use multi-member wards, that full slates of, say, six Tories do not get through automatically, at least in my town. It's always a mix.

A list of 3-5, selected by the local parties, is what I'm suggesting........not as bad as a national list.

Is there a statistic about how many MPs actually live in the constituency they represent?

Quote from: Zanza on July 03, 2016, 09:06:56 AM
Is there a statistic about how many MPs actually live in the constituency they represent?

It would tell you that all of them own a home in or very close to their constituency, not whether or not they've been teleported across the country to fight that seat because they're on particular Central Office list.

About 10-20% are rotten boroughs anyway.

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Quote from: frunk on July 03, 2016, 07:21:53 AM
I'm pretty sure if the US had a popular referendum on staying in NAFTA or the UN our turnout would be in that range and that we'd vote to leave.  There's a lot of impassioned people that think everything that's wrong with the country can be traced to foreigners telling Americans what to do.

Meanwhile just about everyone else in the world traces their problems back to Americans telling them what to do.

So we're even? :unsure:

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2016, 07:39:56 AM
I think at the minute everyone's looking for ways to weaken their currency. We've just found a way of doing it by accident and in such a way that no-one can accuse us of 'competitive devaluation' or currency wars :lol:

Yes it's a man-made natural disaster.

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 12:22:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Yes, because the Right is so often the bastion of democracy.

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 04:19:26 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 12:22:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Yes, because the Right is so often the bastion of democracy.

The modern Left and the modern Right both have authoritarian and anti-authoritarian elements.  The difference is that the authoritarian Right tends to be pretty up-front about it, while the authoritarian Left tends to pretend to care about freedom and individual rights.

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 04:19:26 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 12:22:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Yes, because the Right is so often the bastion of democracy.

The modern Left and the modern Right both have authoritarian and anti-authoritarian elements.  The difference is that the authoritarian Right tends to be pretty up-front about it, while the authoritarian Left tends to pretend to care about freedom and individual rights.

So meaningless drivel then unless you've evidence that the protesters were so called authoritarian Leftists.

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 05:26:15 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 04:19:26 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 12:22:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Yes, because the Right is so often the bastion of democracy.

The modern Left and the modern Right both have authoritarian and anti-authoritarian elements.  The difference is that the authoritarian Right tends to be pretty up-front about it, while the authoritarian Left tends to pretend to care about freedom and individual rights.

So meaningless drivel then unless you've evidence that the protesters were so called authoritarian Leftists.

I wasn't claiming any great insight, just stating that anti-democratic attitudes on the Left don't surprise me.

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 06:07:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 05:26:15 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 04:19:26 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 12:22:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Yes, because the Right is so often the bastion of democracy.

The modern Left and the modern Right both have authoritarian and anti-authoritarian elements.  The difference is that the authoritarian Right tends to be pretty up-front about it, while the authoritarian Left tends to pretend to care about freedom and individual rights.

So meaningless drivel then unless you've evidence that the protesters were so called authoritarian Leftists.

I wasn't claiming any great insight, just stating that anti-democratic attitudes on the Left don't surprise me.

<_<

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 05:16:10 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2016, 04:19:26 PM

Quote from: dps on July 03, 2016, 12:22:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on July 02, 2016, 04:55:43 PM
Interesting that the first anti-democratic forces on the march, so to speak, are from the Centre and Left.

Not a bit surprising to me.

Yes, because the Right is so often the bastion of democracy.

The modern Left and the modern Right both have authoritarian and anti-authoritarian elements.  The difference is that the authoritarian Right tends to be pretty up-front about it, while the authoritarian Left tends to pretend to care about freedom and individual rights.

Sounds a lot like you see what you want to see

Well maybe everybody could see authoritarians on the left or authoritarians on the right but authoritarians in the center? Moderate authoritarianism might be what we all need.

I thought enlightened despots were all the rage.

There's a legal challenge to the High Court to establish how we can activate Article 50.

Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2016, 11:29:06 PM
Well maybe everybody could see authoritarians on the left or authoritarians on the right but authoritarians in the center? Moderate authoritarianism might be what we all need.

Yeah, authoritarianism of both the Left and Right has been tried at various times and in various places, and found wanting;  but I'm not sure there's even been a Centrist authoritarian regime.

Well, the kind of freedoms espoused by social-liberal thought makes it a bit hard to combine with authoritarianism. Any kind of "for the people, without the people" type of regime would have a hard time keeping itself in power without veering into despotism.  :hmm:

There's a reason why liberal democracy is the least bad alternative. If uneducated idiots vote stupid stuff, we just need to work so there's less uneducated idiots.

Quote from: Valmy on July 03, 2016, 11:29:06 PM
Well maybe everybody could see authoritarians on the left or authoritarians on the right but authoritarians in the center? Moderate authoritarianism might be what we all need.

Moderate authoritarian?  What does that mean?  Authoritarianism is antithetical to liberal democratic values. 

So Nigel Farage resigns as well?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2016, 07:48:26 AM
Moderate authoritarian?  What does that mean?  Authoritarianism is antithetical to liberal democratic values. 

It means ignoring the referendum I guess.

Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
So Nigel Farage resigns as well?

Yes. Mission accomplished! Yet he keeps his European parliament member position.  :hmm:

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 04, 2016, 11:41:16 AM

Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2016, 10:36:29 AM
So Nigel Farage resigns as well?

Yes. Mission accomplished! Yet he keeps his European parliament member position.  :hmm:

you know how those eurocrats are...

Even putting aside all of the turmoil within the political parties, this Autumn's probable general election looks like it might well see a major rearrangement of UK political landscape once the electorate have had their say.

May is victorious. Looks like the crisis may be ending faster than anticipated.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/cameron-announces-he-will-step-down-after-pmqs-on-wednesday

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2016, 06:05:49 PM
May is victorious. Looks like the crisis may be ending faster than anticipated.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/cameron-announces-he-will-step-down-after-pmqs-on-wednesday

Tim, we covered that whilst you were asleep.

I hear May won.

Actually, we are in July.

Quote from: mongers on July 11, 2016, 06:09:27 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 11, 2016, 06:05:49 PM
May is victorious. Looks like the crisis may be ending faster than anticipated.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/11/cameron-announces-he-will-step-down-after-pmqs-on-wednesday

Tim, we covered that whilst you were asleep.

But not in this thread. :contract:

UK in EU ................ Cameron Out..May In ....?....?..?.....?..UK Out ( UK no more?)

I still think the Duke of York should have raised an army and set Scotland aflame.

Did May win?

Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2016, 05:27:48 PM
Did May win?

I haven't seen it reported in the baseball thread so I'm not sure yet.

Quote from: derspiess on July 13, 2016, 05:27:48 PM
Did May win?

Miss May? Miss Terri Teray?

Sell in May and go away?

The new May governments first notable action is a rather Trumpesque one, namely with only a few hours to go, cancelling the signing ceremony on the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station.   :hmm:


edit:
News article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36921785 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36921785)

Quote from: mongers on July 29, 2016, 07:50:20 AM
The new May governments first notable action is a rather Trumpesque one, namely with only a few hours to go, cancelling the signing ceremony on the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station.   :hmm:


edit:
News article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36921785 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36921785)

I am assuming this current cabinet/influence circle did not get a cut from the French bribe money the previous cabinet received, so cancelling is only prudent.

There is a perfectly logical reason for not going ahead with the power station. By the time it is finished Bake Off will no longer be on television and thus the station will not be needed  :contract:

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 29, 2016, 08:44:16 AM
There is a perfectly logical reason for not going ahead with the power station. By the time it is finished Bake Off will no longer be on television and thus the station will not be needed  :contract:

I like that baking show.  :blush:

QuoteIn the UK, where ageing coal power stations are closing faster than the government expected, ministers showed their support in 2013 by agreeing to pay £92.50 for every megawatt-hour of electricity Hinkley Point produces. The current wholesale price is around £40.

https://next.ft.com/content/7b972efc-54d5-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60

Doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense. Are there other zero carbon power generation possibilities that don't cost twice the wholesale price and don't leave huge follow on costs once the nuclear power plant is decomissioned?

Huge costs after decommission?

It is baseload power rather than intermittent. There is also a lot of windpower being commissioned, so the nuclear power station will be instead of gas-powered stations.

Does look pricey though.

Quote from: The Brain on July 29, 2016, 01:31:46 PM
Huge costs after decommission?

Yes.

Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2016, 01:37:57 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 29, 2016, 01:31:46 PM
Huge costs after decommission?

Yes.

What exactly are we talking about? Honest question.

Demolition costs. Typically takes 10-15 years and costs hundreds of millions if not billions of Euro.

Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
Demolition costs. Typically takes 10-15 years and costs hundreds of millions if not billions of Euro.

Demolition costs after decommissioning of a nuclear power plant? I don't follow.

Quote from: The Brain on July 29, 2016, 02:03:02 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
Demolition costs. Typically takes 10-15 years and costs hundreds of millions if not billions of Euro.

Demolition costs after decommissioning of a nuclear power plant? I don't follow.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Demolition+costs+after+decommissioning+of+a+nuclear+power+plant


And particularly for Britain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10921309/Britains-nuclear-clean-up-bill-soars-to-110bn.html

Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 29, 2016, 02:03:02 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 29, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
Demolition costs. Typically takes 10-15 years and costs hundreds of millions if not billions of Euro.

Demolition costs after decommissioning of a nuclear power plant? I don't follow.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Demolition+costs+after+decommissioning+of+a+nuclear+power+plant


And particularly for Britain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10921309/Britains-nuclear-clean-up-bill-soars-to-110bn.html

After decommissioning there's nothing left to demolish.

Ok, whatever.

In the West you typically cannot build and operate an NPP (or other nuclear facility) without setting aside funds for future decommissioning (and at least in Sweden handling and final deposit of nuclear waste from the facility). Funds typically come from revenue generated by the facility. If decommissioning didn't include demolishing then there would be a step for which no funds had been set aside, but that is not the case.

Obviously the estimate of decommissioning costs is just that, an estimate, since decommissioning typically takes place decades after the facility begins operation. The estimate is updated regularly (for instance annually), so that additional funds can be set aside if necessary. There is an uncertainty in all this, estimates can prove wrong, but the principle is reasonably sound.

The Sellafield site of course dates back to a simpler time, and has seen both military and civilian use. It is pretty different from an NPP.

More to the point: EPR has experienced huge overruns and delays in every construction project.  The design is being reconceived.  EDF is functionally insolvent and it is not clear to what extent they can or will commit to the project.  Under these circumstances, it is hard to imagine a different decision on Hinckley Point.

Yep. There's lots of economic reasons it's a dodgy deal (hence the CFO of EDF resigning in protest over it last year). In addition the last government and this one were both of the opinion that the key decisions didn't actually need to be made until this autumn so I suspect part of this was an attempt by EDF to bounce a new administration into committing.

However apparently a key point was the Chinese role, which Theresa May's new chief of staff has written about:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/nick-timothy-the-government-is-selling-our-national-security-to-china.html

On Hinkley Point, the EDF boss knew the new government wanted to review the project but didn't inform the board :mellow:

QuoteExclusive: EDF boss knew Britain planned to delay $24 billion nuclear deal
PARIS | BY GEERT DE CLERCQ, MICHEL ROSE AND BENJAMIN MALLET

EDF (EDF.PA) Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy knew the British government wanted to take more time to review the Hinkley Point nuclear contract before the French utility's board voted to approve the investment, he said in a letter to top executives.

Board members at their meeting on July 28 were not informed that Britain planned to delay its decision on the $24 billion project to build the power plant in England, according to several sources with direct knowledge of the proceedings.

The board narrowly approved the project but hours later the government of new British Prime Minister Theresa May - which had been expected to sign contracts on July 29 - instead said it wanted to give the plans further consideration. It postponed its final decision until early autumn.

In comments to reporters at French state-controlled EDF's first-half earnings release on July 29, Levy - who is also chairman of the board - had said he had not been aware at the time of the board meeting that the British government wanted more time to review the contract.

In a letter emailed to EDF's executive committee late on Tuesday this week, and reviewed by Reuters, Levy said that when he called the board meeting on July 21, he had done so with the go-ahead of the French state, which "had warned us that in light of her very recent arrival, the new British prime minister had asked for 'a few days' before deciding on the project".

Levy said that late on July 27, the night before the board meeting, he had been informed that May wanted "a bit more time, without calling into question the project, and without specifying the date when the contract could be signed".

He added that EDF cancelled a contract signing ceremony planned for July 29 in Somerset, south-west England, and that the Chinese energy minister - who had been invited to attend the ceremony - had cancelled his plane ticket at the last minute.

"When the board voted, on the afternoon of July 28, we (management) therefore knew that the ceremony would not take place the next day," Levy wrote.

CRITICISM

EDF along with its Chinese partner China General Nuclear, which holds a one third stake in the project, are responsible for the $24 billion project's construction costs, while Britain would pay a minimum price for the power generated by the plant for 35 years.

On the day of the board's vote, one board member resigned, saying the project was too financially risky and would crimp EDF's ability to invest in renewables. EDF's unions say the project is too big and jeopardises the firm's survival. EDF's finance chief resigned over the project earlier this year.

The board approved EDF's investment by 10 votes to seven on July 28, but sources with direct knowledge of proceedings told Reuters that some of the board members who had opposed the plan now felt that Levy and the government had withheld essential information that could have changed the outcome of the vote.

The sources declined to be named as board proceedings and discussions are confidential.

The French state owns 85 percent of EDF and sets its industrial strategy.

A senior French government source told Reuters that Levy had been informed by both the French presidency and the industry ministry that the British government was not going to sign in the 24 hours after the EDF board meeting.

But he added that Levy was not aware of the fact that London would delay the Hinkley Point decision till the autumn.

It is unclear whether the state's main representatives on the board - Martin Vial, head of the state holding company APE, and Christian Masset, foreign ministry secretary-general - knew that Britain planned to delay its decision.

APE and Vial declined to comment. Masset did not respond to requests for comment.

The British decision to review the Hinkley Point project came little more than a month after Britons voted to leave the EU in a referendum that forced the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron - whose administration gave the initial go-ahead to the project in 2013 - and the accession of May.

The Brexit vote, the resulting economic uncertainty and the change of leadership threw doubt on the future of major British infrastructure projects, including Hinkley Point.

($1 = 0.7491 pounds)

(Additional reporting by Jean-Baptiste Vey; Writing by Geert De Clercq; Editing by Pravin Char)

The early signs are that Theresa May was not that impressed with the way that Cameron's government went about things.

Possibly with good reason:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/11/nuclear-espionage-charge-for-china-firm-with-one-third-stake-in-hinkley-point

Don't know what the current Westminster gossip is about an election, I've hear early next year mentioned, but wouldn't May be silly to not go for a late September or October vote on the back of an Olympics/Brexit/LabCrash bounce? 

So May looking a bit ineffectual and now approving Hinkley?

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
So May looking a bit ineffectual and now approving Hinkley?

I'd guess most Brits, perhaps even the majority of here couldn't be arsed to post about the topic? :gasp:

Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2016, 04:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
So May looking a bit ineffectual and now approving Hinkley?

I'd guess most Brits, perhaps even the majority of here couldn't be arsed to post about the topic? :gasp:

Well it was just recently announced, no?

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2016, 04:57:16 PM

Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2016, 04:55:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 15, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
So May looking a bit ineffectual and now approving Hinkley?

I'd guess most Brits, perhaps even the majority of here couldn't be arsed to post about the topic? :gasp:

Well it was just recently announced, no?

Politics fatigue?

I don't know how you Americans cope with your general election and the by now obligatory foreign trolling. 

So Diane What's-her-face now leads UKIP. Nigel Farage offered his congratulations:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2016%2F09%2F16%2F18%2F386F9E4F00000578-0-image-a-4_1474046688567.jpg&hash=cf71d1c2cf102ee40441f23b6c0b7d7c8eae0f9a)

It seems to have reminded the internet public of sci-fi movies:

(https://joserrateruel.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/img_0317.jpg)

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/75/37/64/753764de044fa64b3d39fe14ca477588.jpg)

Quote from: mongers on September 15, 2016, 05:36:03 PM
Politics fatigue?

I don't know how you Americans cope with your general election and the by now obligatory foreign trolling. 

Personally it is a form of torture that I have to endure for 18 or so months every couple years. I hate every minute of it. Yeah it made sense to have these long elections when you had to ride your horse from hamlet to hamlet but surely we could easily do it all in two months or so today.

I'm glad that we have both of you to repeat those same lines every election cycle.

The Economist had a picture of a very cute Theresa May as a little girl.  Was she ever a hottie?

Quote from: garbon on September 17, 2016, 04:52:42 PM
I'm glad that we have both of you to repeat those same lines every election cycle.

You will never hear the end of it. Because fuck these Presidential elections.

Don't be so emotional.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37561035

QuoteUnder her proposals, firms could be forced to disclose what percentage of their workforce is non-British as a way to encourage them to hire more locals.

Ms Rudd said she wanted to "flush out" companies abusing existing rules and "nudge them into better behaviour".

(https://m.popkey.co/c3a80e/a0b90.gif)

Looks like me getting my British citizenship will be akin to this:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.baseballprospectus.com%2Fu%2Fimages%2FJackie.gif&hash=c41a1e67739c4f80ba2125b35187f97f1bd43d5c)

P.S. Farage is back leading UKIP again. What a joke.

Quote from: Tamas on October 05, 2016, 08:58:14 AM
P.S. Farage is back leading UKIP again. What a joke.

Why is it a joke, it perfectly fits in with the seriousness and intellectualism of our current political climate in the UK; The PM has just given a speech greeted with rapturous applause, it's contents a series of Daily Mail headlines or sound-bite responses to such headlines.