Brexit Referendum Superthread

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

But again do you think EU leaders should care more about making sure that the UK is the largest loser or or care more about minimising the consequences on the EU?

Those two things are connected.

If the UK comes out a big winner then other wobbly countries will look for the same deal, and the EU will shrink.

If the UK suffers some horrible fate, wobblers and potential joiners will see they are better in than out, and the EU will continue to grow.

Which option do you think the likes of Juncker will pick?

Zubeneschamali

smjm wrote: »

The other option is tariffs, as I've said elsewhere, not the end of the world.

End of the UK, though, as the Scots will be awa'.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Still no, but again I don't understand how you are getting this from what I wrote. What I said is that the simple fact that a member decides to leave is a failure for the European project (until recently talking of members leaving was not even a thing and this is setting a precedent).



If no deal is signed there will be 2 losers (and of course the UK is in a minority and is the one leaving which makes is position weaker, but on the other hand it will not have to compromise between 27 national interests which will give it clearer objectives once it puts itself together).

But again do you think EU leaders should care more about making sure that the UK is the largest loser or or care more about minimising the consequences on the EU?

Would you support the idea of a federal EU government accountable to the European Parliament as the legislative body and the EU government as the executive? This is what the Brexit was also about, the fear of the EU bureaucrats working on the establishing of such a super state, the United States of Europe with a federal legislative system and a European governement that rules the EU. But the European Commission would be abolished because no-one would Need them anymore for to realise that federal European state, you would have to set up a second chamber, the equal legislative entitled Body as the representative Body of the federal member states who also can make bill drafts and bring them into the parliament to pass it into law.

That what I was talking about above is the German model, the model on which the Federal Republic of Germany is founded and works, it works rather good and that since 1949. But you won´t have the backing of such an idea across all the EU member states because many of them are no federal states, they are central ruled countries. And due to the fact that the many are not accustomed to that model, makes them fear it, but it´s better than a centralised government because it means sharing power and responsibility as well as self-rule within the federation. But as often the case, compromise is the main road that makes it work, as well the share of power and freedom.

I wonder what you´d make of this when projected onto the EU as a whole. The British seeked to Keep their Union by semi-federal measures, giving their "constitutional member countries Scotland, an own parliament, Wales and NI an assembly but England has none of it because it has Westminster. This semi-federal system was just a compromise without being fulfilled and left much room for separatism because the last word in matters that affects the whole Union remains to Westminster.

This all means that you either have a proper federal system or you have None because a semi-federal system doesn´t work good enough. But that is what the British don´t understand and won´t understand because the dominating part in the UK was always and still is England. Such as the stereotype goes, British equals just English when it comes to the real power in the UK, not the cultural diversity which is in it, it´s power that counts.

Thomas_..

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

End of the UK, though, as the Scots will be awa'.

Some people won´t believe and realise that reality until the Scottish have voted for their independence.

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Would you support the idea of a federal EU government accountable to the European Parliament as the legislative body and the EU government as the executive?

I think at this stage very few people would support that (to me this only could work if you have EU-wide parties/campaigns/elections to designate that government, which is not happening any-time soon).

But in a negotiation it is a liability to the EU because the other party which has a consistent goal can play different EU members against each other (the US are doing this in TAFTA negotiations).

smjm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

End of the UK, though, as the Scots will be awa'.

They might and they might not. Tariffs, a fluctuating exchange rate, and an end to freedom of movement between themselves and England might discourage them. But go ahead and bet your life savings on it if you're so confident!

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Those two things are connected.

If the UK comes out a big winner then other wobbly countries will look for the same deal, and the EU will shrink.

If the UK suffers some horrible fate, wobblers and potential joiners will see they are better in than out, and the EU will continue to grow.

Which option do you think the likes of Juncker will pick?

In my opinion it is not as simple as you think and I think Juncker knows it.

"If the UK suffers some horrible fate, wobblers and potential joiners will see they are better in than out, and the EU will continue to grow." is not a way to make the EU popular again with Europeans who don't like it any-more. It might (temporarily) refrain their urge to leave, but it will likely make them even more angry at the EU. When you coerce people into something by making an example, you gain their submission but not their loyalty, and one day or another it backfires at you.

I don't think the EU will be punitive or in any way tougher-than-they-need-to-be with the UK in negotiations.

It will be simple from their point of view.

"Single Market access is impossible without freedom of movement of Labour.
Do you want single market access?"

If the UK says yes, then EEA is simple and non-controversial (apart from in UKIP heartlands!). If the UK says no, then it's all relatively straightforward too, UK and EU organise deals in order of priority, that work in both groups' interests. UK industries that are EU-facing will likely move elements to the EU in this scenario, but nobody gets killed and the world keeps turning.

The only issue that there will be is if the EU in any way shape or form permits Single Market Access without the four freedoms, because if it does that, then the Single Market is no more.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

"If the UK suffers some horrible fate, wobblers and potential joiners will see they are better in than out, and the EU will continue to grow." is not a way to make the EU popular again with Europeans who don't like it any-more.

You don't have to like it, you just have to realize it is better than the alternative.

swampgas

It's not like the UK is negotiating with one or two other countries - it's negotiating with 27. If the UK will suffer excessively by leaving the EU, that's something for the UK to deal with. The EU making major compromises just to keep the Brits inside so they can continue to whine about how awful the EU is seems pointless.

If you don't get just how fundamental the four freedoms are then you don't get the EU. And right now many in the UK don't get it.

Lockstep

smjm wrote: »

They might and they might not. Tariffs, a fluctuating exchange rate, and an end to freedom of movement between themselves and England might discourage them. But go ahead and bet your life savings on it if you're so confident!

Clearly everything here is entirely up to speculation but Scotland is clearly veering towards independence: remember, a key reason why so many Scots voted against independence was to remain part of the EU. As such, it's unsurprising that support for independence from Britain has risen markedly to 60%.

Evidently, the risk of "tariffs, a fluctuating exchange rate, and an end to freedom of movement" wasn't enough to keep Britain in the EU, so it's unlikely to sway Scotland into remaining, especially when as a nation, they strongly voted to remain in the EU.

It is evident that we can't guarantee what will happen but this is the big risk the Leave campaign had: their proposal was a massive step into the dark. Given the uncertainty, it's unsurprising that the market reaction to Brexit has been so negative. This was fairly evident well before the referendum with the Financial Times noting

Rarely has there been such a consensus among economists, as there is on the damage that Brexit will wreak on the British economy. The warning may turn out to be wrong — but it is difficult to ignore.

Maybe Brexit will result in a huge boost to the British economy but this seems like an extremely long shot. Far more likely seems to be the expert opinion that it'll hinder the British economy.

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You don't have to like it, you just have to realize it is better than the alternative.

Very good summary of the remain campaign.

smjm

Lockstep wrote: »

Clearly everything here is entirely up to speculation but Scotland is clearly veering towards independence: remember, a key reason why so many Scots voted against independence was to remain part of the EU. As such, it's unsurprising that support for independence from Britain has risen markedly to 60%.

Evidently, the risk of "tariffs, a fluctuating exchange rate, and an end to freedom of movement" wasn't enough to keep Britain in the EU, so it's unlikely to sway Scotland into remaining, especially when as a nation, they strongly voted to remain in the EU.

Indeed, we can only speculate on Scotland's future. As for the UK as it stands now, there was already a fluctuating exchange rate with the Eurozone, and clearly many Leave voters wanted an end to freedom of movement. That just leaves the risk of tariffs, which I'm sure many Leavers would be happy enough to accept as a price of exiting the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

Very good summary of the remain campaign.

And now the UK are going to prove it by example.

Lockstep

smjm wrote: »

Indeed, we can only speculate on Scotland's future. As for the UK as it stands now, there was already a fluctuating exchange rate with the Eurozone, and clearly many Leave voters wanted an end to freedom of movement. That just leaves the risk of tariffs, which I'm sure many Leavers would be happy enough to accept as a price of exiting the EU.

The key problem is the dichotomy of the British position: wanting access to the Single Market while demanding limits on one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms, which the EU has already ruled out as negotiable. Tariffs are a significant hindrance to economic growth and it's debatable just how prepared the British are to deal with this. Even in a completely optimistic scenario, the British household will lose £850 a year .
Even worse is the impact of non-tariff regulatory barriers, especially in services. It will also take many years for the UK to negotiate trade deals and they're completely unprepared for this, so much so that they'll need to hire trade negotiators from abroad (ironic given what a key factor immigration was in the Brexit debate)

Bob24

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And now the UK are going to prove it by example.

It will be at least another 10 or 20 years before anyone can start drawing proper conclusions. Not sure all of us will be left on this forum to discuss again :-)

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

It will be at least another 10 or 20 years before anyone can start drawing proper conclusions. Not sure all of us will be left on this forum to discuss again :-)

If it takes that long to draw a conclusion, it will be a pretty moot one.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

I think at this stage very few people would support that (to me this only could work if you have EU-wide parties/campaigns/elections to designate that government, which is not happening any-time soon).

That is the bogeyman of the anti-EU camp. A federal EU state in which national states are reduced to member states but also would have to power on legislation through this second federal chamber to which each member states sends his presesentatives and can bring in drafted bills that have to be conveyed to the EP and debated there to be converted into law, as well as that this federal chamber had the power to reject federal law if they refuse to give their consent (or approval) and thus object it. It´s further down the road to have that worked out in more Details, but the principle and the principal of the federal System such as it works is mirrored there, in my example.

But in a negotiation it is a liability to the EU because the other party which has a consistent goal can play different EU members against each other (the US are doing this in TAFTA negotiations).

The federal United States of Europe would replace such negotiations and would set up the mirror Image of every existing national government with all its power and responsibility. Europe seems to be more far away from that than it ever was, because you can´t bring different national states into a Union and then further them to give up on their sovereignty. Still, it is this what stood at the end of the founding fathers of the EU, the dream of a United European federal state. It´s utopia, nothing more cos this dream has been corrupted by those politicians who are unable to think beyond their own vested interests. But frankly, it´d be very hard for myself to even imagine that I´d have to give up on the sovereignty of my country. It would be, but also just may be, that I could imagine having it existing within a federal Union without any European Commission, but with elected MEPs who make the laws and are answerable as well as being hold accountable to the electorate for what they do and what they have done. Additionally with the instrument of referenda by the people on essencial matters.

It´s the blue print of a federal republic and because it would have the shape of a republic, one would have problems with still existing monarchies, eventhough that they are constitutional monarchies. I´m a citizen of a Republic and therefore, apart from the "pomp and circumstances" when they have their celebrations, I can´t win anything from it.

Sorry for drifting away in that post, but I think that I might at least pointed out some differences within the EU which might disprove the scaremongering by the anti-EU camp who too often were painting the bogeyman on the wall and make People believe that this would come by the stroke of a pen. It won´t unless, all EU countries which are no republics convert into one.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If it takes that long to draw a conclusion, it will be a pretty moot one.

Why so?

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

That is the bogeyman of the anti-EU camp. A federal EU state in which national states are reduced to member states but also would have to power on legislation through this second federal chamber to which each member states sends his presesentatives and can bring in drafted bills that have to be conveyed to the EP and debated there to be converted into law, as well as that this federal chamber had the power to reject federal law if they refuse to give their consent (or approval) and thus object it. It´s further down the road to have that worked out in more Details, but the principle and the principal of the federal System such as it works is mirrored there, in my example.

But don't you agree there executive power should be give by an EU wide election so that whoever leads your Federal government is legitimate to represent the whole population?

Thomas_.. wrote: »

The federal United States of Europe would replace such negotiations and would set up the mirror Image of every existing national government with all its power and responsibility. Europe seems to be more far away from that than it ever was, because you can´t bring different national states into a Union and then further them to give up on their sovereignty. Still, it is this what stood at the end of the founding fathers of the EU, the dream of a United European federal state. It´s utopia, nothing more cos this dream has been corrupted by those politicians who are unable to think beyond their own vested interests.

[...]

Sorry I don't mean to ignore your post, but when I mentioned a liability I am referring to the current situation whereby there are 27 conflicting national interests, not the federal Europe you are describing.

CMOTDibbler

Bob24 wrote: »

Why so?

Because it will have been a pretty painless transition if it takes up to twenty years to see what its effects are.

Economies aren't that slow. If there's a recession, it'll be in the next five years. That would be enough to slow the British economy for the next ten years at least (it was already in slow down this year).

The yardstick would be how other European economies and the wider world fares in the same period.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Because it will have been a pretty painless transition if it takes up to twenty years to see what its effects are.

Economies aren't that slow. If there's a recession, it'll be in the next five years. That would be enough to slow the British economy for the next ten years at least (it was already in slow down this year).

The yardstick would be how other European economies and the wider world fares in the same period.

It all depends on perspective.

If in 25 years time the UK has thriving manufacturing industries in the North again, a stable economy and a full spectrum of society catered for then I think there'll be plenty of very happy people outside of London.

The UK will not become a failed state no matter what happens, lets get real here. Even with a 10/15% reduction in GDP and an absolutely devastating 4/5 year recession the UK would be a global powerhouse with buckets of possibilities. Some argue that the UK that emerges on the other side of that might be on a better path than the one it could have become within the EU. (Short term pain, long term gain)

I don't think that that tallys, but given we have a observation size of one, we have no way to find out the answer for certain.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Because it will have been a pretty painless transition if it takes up to twenty years to see what its effects are.

Economies aren't that slow. If there's a recession, it'll be in the next five years. That would be enough to slow the British economy for the next ten years at least (it was already in slow down this year).

The yardstick would be how other European economies and the wider world fares in the same period.

That's my point though ... it might ruin the economy for a few years, but if in 15 years the UK is recovering and booming and its citizens are happy while the EU is not doing well and going from a political crisis to another ... it could then be judged as a success. Could also be the other way around, bu we won't know in 2 years time.

CMOTDibbler

So the next British PM will be a woman.

Theresa May 199
Andrea Leadsome 84
Michael Gove 46

9th September for the membership ballot on the remaining two.

smjm

Lockstep wrote: »

The key problem is the dichotomy of the British position: wanting access to the Single Market while demanding limits on one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms, which the EU has already ruled out as negotiable. Tariffs are a significant hindrance to economic growth and it's debatable just how prepared the British are to deal with this. Even in a completely optimistic scenario, the British household will lose £850 a year .
Even worse is the impact of non-tariff regulatory barriers, especially in services.

I always read such reports with an open mind. They might be right; they might be wrong; time will tell. I do remember some fairly dire predictions, a few years back, about the consequences of the UK not joining the Eurozone. Time has, I think, proved those predictions wrong.

Lockstep wrote:

It will also take many years for the UK to negotiate trade deals and they're completely unprepared for this, so much so that they'll need to hire trade negotiators from abroad (ironic given what a key factor immigration was in the Brexit debate)

Low level immigration was never really an issue. If they hadn't opened the door to Poland before other countries in the EU, maybe immigration wouldn't have been the big issue it is today. Folly on the part of the then government.

Bob24

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So the next British PM will be a woman.

Theresa May 199
Andrea Leadsome 84
Michael Gove 46

9th September for the membership ballot on the remaining two.

I still don't understand how the tories think they have so much time in front of them. 2 months will be a very long time for Cameron to be saying to everyone (EU members, investors, etc): "Please wait, I am just keeping the shop while the boss is away and comes to make a decision".

Bob24

smjm wrote: »

If they hadn't opened the door to Poland before other countries in the EU, maybe immigration wouldn't have been the big issue it is today. Folly on the part of the then government.

Yes, and quite ironic as the UK was one of the promoters of a larger EU.

CMOTDibbler

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So the next British PM will be a woman.

Theresa May 199
Andrea Leadsome 84
Michael Gove 46

9th September for the membership ballot on the remaining two.

Wow. I would have thought they'd have this done before two weeks was up, not two months!

Lockstep

smjm wrote: »

I always read such reports with an open mind. They might be right; they might be wrong; time will tell. I do remember some fairly dire predictions, a few years back, about the consequences of the UK not joining the Eurozone. Time has, I think, proved those predictions wrong.

Approaching reports with an open mind does not mean discounting expert opinion. As the Financial Times notes, the consensus among economists is that Brexit will have a negative impact on the British economy. There was never any such consensus among economists on joining the Euro.

Once we start going down the route of "But they might be wrong even though they're experts", we're entering extremely silly territory. That's why we rely on experts. If you can disprove their arguments then go ahead but you'd need to show a very strong burden of proof to show that so many economists are wrong.

smjm wrote: »

Low level immigration was never really an issue. If they hadn't opened the door to Poland before other countries in the EU, maybe immigration wouldn't have been the big issue it is today. Folly on the part of the then government.

Presumably due to ignorance on behalf of the British voters, seeing as EU immigrants have been a huge net contributor to the UK economy. This includes Eastern European ones.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

What I said is that the simple fact that a member decides to leave is a failure for the European project (until recently talking of members leaving was not even a thing and this is setting a precedent).

As I said earlier in the thread (and has been repeated by others), there was a widely-held view within the EU that the UK could never make up its mind about whether it was committed to the EU or not. Now that they are leaving, many within the EU will feel that a number of the union’s shortcomings can be more easily addressed. Granted, it would have been better to do this with the UK still a member, but, as I said, the UK was never a fully signed-up member of the club anyway. They’re essentially moving from slightly inside to slightly outside.

Bob24 wrote: »

But again do you think EU leaders should care more about making sure that the UK is the biggest loser or care more about minimising the consequences on the EU?

As has been pointed out already, the two go hand in hand. The EU will be concerned with preserving the EU and its core values. If that is perceived as the EU “punishing” the UK, then so be it.

Bob24 wrote: »

That's my point though ... it might ruin the economy for a few years, but if in 15 years the UK is recovering and booming and its citizens are happy while the EU is not doing well and going from a political crisis to another ... it could then be judged as a success.

I haven’t seen too many people put forward a compelling case for such a scenario.