Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[celedhring]

Yi: there were Leave people arguing to leave so we could get Norway status.

  They really hated having a say in decisions?

Yeah, Norway does have some leeway in implementing European standards in some areas (agriculture and fishing I believe?) but it seems a stupid tradeoff for your voting rights and political influence, in particular when you're the second largest economy in the whole thing, and not a country with less population than London alone.

[Valmy]

Yi: there were Leave people arguing to leave so we could get Norway status.

  They really hated having a say in decisions?

'Give back control!'

[Berkut]

Too inconclusive, I'd go with best of three. Mike Breen can call the recount with Tony Blair doing color commentary.

This issue is far too important to let it rest on a limited number of votes.  Have a 50+1 referendum every year to determine the current relationship with the EU.

Shrug.

The process of initiating a referendum is a political process. It was a political process that saw this referendum.

Why would that process now lack some kind of relevance, when it is the exact same process?

If the will of 50+1 to leave is binding, how would the will of 50+1 to stay NOT be binding?

[The Minsky Moment]

Any immediate attempt to undo the referendum is going to infuriate the Leave core which is already animated by a sense of "elite" bretrayal (regardless of whether well placed or not).  Hard to see politically how it would fly.

More workable is a deal for EFTA status for equivalent.  Then, after some years pass, explore readmission.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally on the age profile of the vote and the young v old row:

[Duque de Bragança]

More workable is a deal for EFTA status for equivalent.  Then, after some years pass, explore readmission.

Tout ça pour ça !   

[grumbler]

Barry and the Economist were both Bremain.  Has anyone associated with the winning side said Norway is the way to go?  It's wishful thinking.

Who do you believe is the legitimate spokesperson for the "winning side?" What are that person's minimum demands necessary to comply with the referendum, as you understand it?

[grumbler]

Any immediate attempt to undo the referendum is going to infuriate the Leave core which is already animated by a sense of "elite" bretrayal (regardless of whether well placed or not).  Hard to see politically how it would fly.

More workable is a deal for EFTA status for equivalent.  Then, after some years pass, explore readmission.

The Leave core will be angry and feel betrayed no matter what happens.  I think it is best to just count them as "anti" in anything, and work on the middle.  The Leave core will howl at EFTA status, so why bother with it?  Hard to see how it would politically fly.

[Valmy]

My understanding is that the vote to leave is about leaving the EU. To only associate with it as an outside entity in the same manner that the UK associates with, say, Mexico or Australia or whatever. That seems to me what the leave group thought they were voting for.

It would be strange indeed if the vote to leave was about making the UK some kind of subservient associated minor country with the EU.

I thought the slogan was about 'taking back control' and stuff about national independence and sovereignty yes? And instead I am to believe the actual goal was to be more subservient to the EU? To have less sovereignty?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Your understanding is incorrect--the Leave side represented a coalition of views among people who wished to leave the European Union. To my knowledge there is no consensus among them as to what form the post-leave relationship should be. There are definitely some in that camp who view Norway status as desirable, while it is functionally the same as being in the EU, they ascribe to a view where the formal "political independence" is important.

You're arguing that a minority of the majority equals the democratic mandate. The democratic mandate is to leave the EU, there is no known democratic mandate on in what manner Britain should leave.

[Agelastus]

Dropping down to EFTA would be quite amusing given which country was the driving force behind the original incarnation of EFTA.

[Sheilbh]

I approve of Merkel's dithering by the way, let things settle down a bit first before making irrevocable decisions.

I wonder what Sheilbh thinks about it. He was always demanding immediate action from her during the Eurozone crisis.

Totally different situations. The Eurozone is still in a solvency crisis of states and banks which is resolved by prompt and decisive action like Bush/Paulson and Brown. As I've said this situation is one where activating Article 50 immediately raises the uncertainty and risk of a bad outcome (especially without both sides having a clear idea of what the other wants/is willing to give). The only people I've seen saying Article 50 should be activated soon are people who, for a variety of reasons, want the UK out ASAP: Corbyn, Farage, Juncker, Hollande. It's in no-one's interests.

Not sure what the point of people in Trafalgar square and Westminster demonstrating to stay in the EU, as that argument and vote has been lost. Looking at the youth of the crowd, I suspect a good few of them probably didn't exercise their democratic right to vote in the referendum in the first place.

I doubt it. I imagine they're the politically engaged, 'high information', university attending/educated young person most likely to vote (another reason to be suspicious of that 75% of the young supported Remain idea).

I'm hoping for a just left-of-centre pro-Europe party out of this.

Fascinating feature of this is that Labour might just split into a hard left party and a centrist, pro-European party. Neither of those seems to address the disenfranchisement and alienation of  traditional Labour voting areas. It's very striking.

A Brit friend of mine shared this 2 year old article yesterday in the aftermath of the whole shebang we're in. What do you think about it?

There are lots and lots of issues with public schools, not sure that's one. One issue is that, by my count, all the old Etonians Leavers (Rees-Mogg) and Remainers (Soames) have all endorsed fellow old Etonian Boris Johnson...

Why is that so important anyway? I read in this thread that most of the financial services industry is for American and Asian customers offering non-banking financial services like insurance anyway... 

That was based on assuming we wouldn't have passporting rights. It doesn't matter for large chunks of the City but it will affect the banks. As I say I imagine most Euro-denominated markets will go to Europe, so will Euro clearing and money markets. If we had passporting then I'm not so sure. I imagine some still would due to the ECB's desire to regulate some of it but the selling Euro-products could definitely continue.

Seems too smart for Hollande and his ilk/clique. 

Also can't imagine the Central/Eastern European members going for it. It's a shame because it's dastardly (assuming the Tories stay in power); make an offer that is only bad for bankers.

I don't know man. It looks really bad to just ignore a referendum. Also color me skeptical that suddenly the British public will turn around and decisively elect a pro-Remain government.

If the 48% vote tactically it's big enough to win in a FPTP system...

The tariffs are not huge, but are a big minus for any third party wanting to use the UK as a bridgehead for trading with Europe. Most of our car industry is Japanese-owned and sells massively to Europe, the Japanese might be thinking they chose the wrong country to invest in now,

And tariffs also need to be weighed against whether this is a permanent devaluation. When the Sunderland result came in I remembered Nissan or Toyota saying Brexit wouldn't change their plans for their factories and wondered if Sunderland might jut be anomalous because of that.

I am not really sure what the international image of Merkel is these days. But it helps to consider that she ultimately oversaw the last time the EU reacted to a referendum. That was when the Greeks got really harsh terms after voting "No" to another deal with the EU. She is rational, but she is also really cold in her political considerations.

I think this is the Tories will elect May. I think she's quite similar. She tends to be very measured in what she promises. She let's the men get on with over-heated speeches while she quietly, unobtrusively works. And she's the longest serving Home Secretary since the 19th century - it's an office that has a reputation as a political graveyard because it always throws up some sort of scandal or crisis that destroys whoever's in charge. That she's survived, even if you oppose her (and good Lord I do), suggests she's very competent.

I think Tories will choose her over the flamboyance of Boris - see the jokey question at PMQs comparing Merkel to 'Silvio Borisconi'.

Britain was a big leader of the Euroskeptics. Them being gone might make it more stable. Might. It doesn't sound like the common people are ready to have their 'We Love the EU' parades these days.

Alternately it might make the Eurosceptics feel more exposed. As I mentioned earlier the liberal wing of the EU was the Scandis, the Baltics, the Dutch and the British. Together with Germany there were enough votes to form a blocking minority. Without the UK, even with German support, that group can't block most QMV votes.

Are you seriously proposing this lawyer's weasel, or are you just having a little fun?

I think Otto's absolutely right. Both campaigns were coalitions around broad ideas. They also agreed to run fairly centralised campaigns in terms of their message. The Leave campaign was modelled on UKIP which spent 15 years struggling to get any traction by campaigning on constitutional issues until Farage realised that immigration was the lever he needed to get people to care about the EU and gave him a way into working class Conservative and Labour votes. But there were lots of liberal Leavers and left-wing Leavers (including, say, some Greens and some Labour) who hated that the campaign focused on immigration but bit their tongue.

Similarly the Remain campaign was based on the Tories general election campaign: ramp up the economic fear/uncertainty and people will back you. But again it was hugely frustrating to passionate pro-Europeans like some Lib Dems and Labour who wanted to make a really positive case for Europe.

Why would they be in favor of a move that seems so directly opposed to Britain's national interests? Just so they don't have to see the EU flag on their passports or some shit?

Sort of. I mentioned before but I remember seeing a poll that if Cameron came back and got the Norway deal as his 'renegotiated membership' he would have won 60/40.

There's a proportion - probably not a huge one - of Leave that wouldn't object to that. I think it would capture liberal Leavers who want to be able to negotiate trade deals with other partners but are indifferent about immigration. I also think for some people this would basically be about us going back to the sort of pre-Maastricht level. We have to follow EU law on the Single Market, and don't get to make it but we're out of the political element of the project, we don't have to negotiate opt-outs every time there's a new treaty, the next time there's a treaty we don't get put under pressure to surrender those opt-outs, we don't get the ECJ rather liberally deciding what is and isn't domestic politics/an opt-out and we never have to consider joining any further moves in areas like justice, home affairs, foreign policy or defence. And yes, it's partly about identity, and I think this is the type of golf club conservative that gets riled about the EU flag, the EU anthem, the EU changing the colour of our passports, the whole concept of EU citizenship and the 'European project'.

Is there enough of them + a chunk of the 48% to support a government in favour of Norway? That would be my bet.

Yeah, Norway does have some leeway in implementing European standards in some areas (agriculture and fishing I believe?) but it seems a stupid tradeoff for your voting rights and political influence, in particular when you're the second largest economy in the whole thing, and not a country with less population than London alone.

I believe it's totally out of agriculture and fishing, but has leeway in implementing other policies which is very rarely used.

[Sheilbh]

You're arguing that a minority of the majority equals the democratic mandate. The democratic mandate is to leave the EU, there is no known democratic mandate on in what manner Britain should leave.

Exactly.

[Sheilbh]

Incidentally a few Labour MPs suggesting Corbyn is at least partly holding on because he wants to apologise for Iraq and call for a war crimes prosecution of Blair in response to the Chilcott inquiry next week.

Interesting piece by Vice on Corbyn and the Remain campaign, including some footage from their really interesting behind the scenes documentary on him:
https://news.vice.com/video/corbyn-insiders-struggled-to-get-the-uk-labour-party-leader-to-fight-brexit-video-reveals?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

The original film is a fascinating insight:
https://news.vice.com/video/jeremy-corbyn-the-outsider

Determined to be taken seriously as a major political party, UKIP plunge into crisis:

Leave donor plans new party to replace Ukip – possibly without Farage in charge
We must ensure public get what they voted for, says Arron Banks, also saying Leave.EU will be 'rightwing Momentum'
Wednesday 29 June 2016 19.23 BST Last modified on Wednesday 29 June 2016 20.58 BST

The Brexit campaign's biggest financial donor has said he is considering backing a new political party taking in members of Ukip, Labour and the Conservatives.

In a sign that the referendum aftershocks already rocking the Conservative and Labour parties could be spreading to Ukip, the insurance multi-millionaire and Ukip funder Arron Banks criticised the party's growth and proposed harnessing Brexit support in a new party. When asked if Farage would be in charge, he said the Ukip leader "may have had enough".

"I think Ukip needs to be reformed root and branch and we will be looking at that," said Banks. "With a million supporters there's also a wonderful opportunity if we want to do something, to back something. I think a new party, a brand new party."

"Ukip grew so rapidly it had problems with personnel and all sorts of issues and I believe that could be better tackled with a new party," he said.

The Bristol-based founder of GoSkippy and Southern Rock insurance is the largest donor to Farage's party and, in what is thought to be the biggest ever single donation to a UK political cause, spent £5.6m of his personal fortune funding the Ukip-backed Leave.EU campaign.

"I think we have a good shot at taking over from Labour as the opposition because Labour are imploding and Labour voters for the first time ever have defied their party, voting for leave," Banks said on Wednesday.

But he hinted Farage might not be his choice of leader for any new party, saying: "He may have had enough. And by the way, going out at the top is a good way in politics."

"Arron is an entrepreneur in business and in politics," said Farage's spokesman. "He is always looking for opportunities and there is certainly a huge opportunity for Ukip to grow significantly, with the sight of Labour deliberately and conscientiously abandoning its base, and the sight of so many people in the Conservative party reneging on the free movement of people."

Banks has been credited with professionalising Ukip's referendum push through the Leave.EU campaign. He deployed senior executives and staff from his insurance companies and hired the Washington DC political campaign strategy firm Goddard Gunster on a multimillion-pound fee to sharpen its message.

"It was taking an American-style media approach," said Banks. "What they said early on was 'facts don't work' and that's it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn't work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It's the Trump success."

One video on the Leave.EU Facebook page, viewed 1.6m times, begins: "Are you concerned about the amount of crime committed in the UK by foreign criminals?" before ending with the message: "Isn't it time to take back control."

"The Conservatives are now trying to rewrite the campaign that immigration wasn't important, but boy was immigration important," Banks said. "The first thing we did was poll everybody and we found that if immigration wasn't the issue, the issue was schools or education, proxies for immigration. It was the number one issue by a country mile."

Speaking before Banks made his comments, Ukip's chairman, Steve Crowther, said the party was already hoping to capitalise on the "huge market opportunity" of the referendum. He said it received 500 membership applications in the two days after the result.

"The Labour party has torn itself in two halves, neither of which actually is directly appealing to the Labour voter," said Crowther, adding that any equivocation by Conservative leaders over border controls will be "a powerful incentive for people to come our way".

Leave.EU was not designated the official leave campaign by the Electoral Commission, but co-ordinated Ukip, Labour Leave led by Kate Hoey MP, the Grassroots Out movement led by Eurosceptic Tory backbenchers, and several smaller groups. Banks this week told supporters that the campaign spent a total of £11m, even though its legal limit for spending in the two-month official campaign period was just £700,000. That means it must show the Electoral Commission that it spent the other £10.3m between July 2015 and 15 April 2016, before the official campaign began. Andrew Wigmore, spokesman for Leave.EU, said it would do so and "there is nothing to hide".

Banks said Leave.EU would now continue in the role of "a rightwing Momentum", a reference to the leftwing grassroots movement group that has been mobilising in recent days to try and keep Jeremy Corbyn as Labour party leader.

"As a lobby group we have a million supporters and followers, people passionate about the leave campaign," he said. "Our job now through Ukip and through this is to keep the Conservatives clean in terms of not backtracking on this. I don't think Boris ever wanted to leave. We will use the army [of Leave.EU supporters] to put them under pressure."

"We are not above causing trouble," he continued. "Our job is that the public get what they voted for. A lot of the people following us are Conservative party members. There is a lot of influence to be exerted here on the candidates to make sure they do what they said they were going to do."

I don't entirely disagree with his analysis

[Razgovory]

Any immediate attempt to undo the referendum is going to infuriate the Leave core which is already animated by a sense of "elite" bretrayal (regardless of whether well placed or not).  Hard to see politically how it would fly.

More workable is a deal for EFTA status for equivalent.  Then, after some years pass, explore readmission.

If the whole thing is still standing in a few years.