Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It's not intended as condescension. Some responses have pretty much said that the British economy is going to tank itself or wishing that it would happen. I think as Irish people we should want the very best outcome for our British friends in this negotiation.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That's how it is coming across. I live in London so I'm certainly hoping for a strong economy. I would just like to have an idea what sort of UK might exist in 2020.

Bit cynical

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm inclined to believe that an anti-establishment mood fuelled much of the turnout and was an important card which Farage played often. He did achieve over 4 million votes in 2015 so it was a strong one.

However, let us say for the sake of argument that the political establishment had for a long time been ignoring popular concerns about the EU for some time, then we could expect that same establishment to be a target in any brexit campaign. In order to bring about brexit, the campaign targets those who support brexit - "the establishment". But, were this the case, it would be easy make the mistake of thinking that "the establishment" was the primary target.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's how it is coming across. I live in London so I'm certainly hoping for a strong economy. I would just like to have an idea what sort of UK might exist in 2020.

Good evening!

Last post for today.

The UK in 2020 will be the UK that people voted for.

The thing is that people need to be listened to. That means not just the affluent lefties living in Islington but also working class people in Barking and Dagenham and Havering who voted overwhelmingly for exiting.

Their concerns need to be listened to as much as yours do. They've been sidelined and ignored for too long. They feel the pressures of inward migration in a way that most middle class people (myself included) just don't see.

The country needs to work for everyone.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK in 2020 will be the UK that people voted for.

What did they vote for though? The mandate ends at exiting the EU. There was no vote on whether or not the UK should apply for EEA status, cooperate on security, tighten links with Inida, Australia and North America or anything else. Just leave.

130Kph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is just you wheeling out your condescending strawman yet again. I know the country isn't in mortal peril. All I have said is that I would like to know what sort of immediate future the government is going to aim for. That's it.

Don’t forget his equally condescending slur of calling all posters on this, a serious discussion forum, who think that on balance despite all its many faults - the EU is a force for security, stability and good :-

‘europhiles’ !!!

snip: attack the post please!

K-9

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Last post for today.

The UK in 2020 will be the UK that people voted for.

The thing is that people need to be listened to. That means not just the affluent lefties living in Islington but also working class people in Barking and Dagenham and Havering who voted overwhelmingly for exiting.

Their concerns need to be listened to as much as yours do. They've been sidelined and ignored for too long. They feel the pressures of inward migration in a way that most middle class people (myself included) just don't see.

The country needs to work for everyone.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Well the UK is not going to meet its budget this year and it's predicted it could be 2020 before it balances the budget.

Nothing particularly new there I suppose but if the economy was doing so well it wouldn't have to revise those figures. It's one thing to not meet targets in a recession but in a growing economy?

Thomas_...

recedite wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's just presented a load of vague soundbites such as a weak pound boosting exports. No specifics or source have been provided.

I linked to sources showing low unemployment, low inflation, narrowing deficit balance of payments.

Would you not agree that a weak pound and a narrowing budgetary deficit illustrate a cause and effect for the boost in exports?

If you want to pick holes in what I was saying, I suggest that KindofIrish is on the right track. UK is still in the EU, and for the moment it is "having its cake and eating it".

That is the whole point, the latter, the UK still being in the EU and after they have finally exited the EU, things might look rather different and not with that much positive prospect. Some Brits already think that they are out and as things are going these days it isn't all that bad, but I'd rather wait how things develop after their exit, then it might getting harder for them and maybe then they will realise what they have done to themselves.

It rather looks to me that it will be a hard Brexit cos the Brits are banging on essential rights of the EU which they will probably not sell out. They can't because that would threaten the very existance of itself by having other countries demanding the same for themselves, like restrictions on free movement of people within the EU.

Thomas_...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Therefore claiming that the sky is going to fall in is premature.

This is just you wheeling out your condescending strawman yet again. I know the country isn't in mortal peril. All I have said is that I would like to know what sort of immediate future the government is going to aim for. That's it.

Me too. But so far, they appear to can't get anything done due to the split in the govt itself, like Corbyn has pointed out yesterday in PMQ in the Commons. Maybe they will wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on whether Parliament is to have a vote on triggering Article 50 or not. But by just sit and waiting they will remain ill-prepared when it comes to vote on it in the Commons. The present British govt appears as being the worst ever, acting like amateurs but being professional politicians and look to be utterly confused with no clue at all how to path the way to reach the aim they are set out to achieve.

Thomas_...

This is how Mr Johnson likes to deal with other countries on trade in the regards of the Brexit and it Shows again that this man is unfit to be UK Foreign Sectretary because he's causing more damage than anything for the UK:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995606

An Italian minister has accused Boris Johnson of "insulting" his country by suggesting it should back his version of a Brexit deal or face losing sales of Prosecco sparkling wine.
...
describing a conversation with Mr Johnson about the UK's preferred Brexit outcome, Mr Calenda, Italy's economic development minister, told Bloomberg TV: "His idea is, 'We want to have access to the common market without giving you access in terms of free circulation of people,' and I think this is wishful thinking.
"His answer was, 'OK, but you are selling a lot of what we call Prosecco in the UK... and you will allow us to do this because you don't want to lose Prosecco exports.'
"I said, 'Maybe we're going to lose some Prosecco; you're going to lose some fish and chips exports. The difference is I'm going to lose [exports] to one country, you to 27.'
"Putting things on this level is a bit insulting."
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The foreign secretary's comments reflect the strength of the trading relationship between the UK and Italy.
"We're looking to ensure this continues as we depart the EU."
Whitehall sources insisted that the comment about Prosecco had not been an insult but part of a "constructive" conversation.
...

With politicians like Johnson it is no wonder that more people get frustrated by politics. This man is just an embarrassment to his Nation but more so to himself, the utter clown that he is and he really believes that he is funny but he isn't, he is just awkward.

Hammond's Autumn statement murmurings sound an awful lot like Osborn's much belittled 'emergency budget'.

Only difference is that Osborn was aiming to close the deficit, a target which is now gone.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I don't think he's saying that.

The point is that Britain hasn't fallen apart. People are still in work. The fundamentals are still strong. The value of sterling is helping in many cases.

That means at the very least that Brexit has had an immaterial impact on employment to date. The apocalypse hasn't happened. It probably won't happen at all. There will be a price but the discussions haven't begun.

Therefore claiming that the sky is going to fall in is premature.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I was lucky to attend an economic briefing by Dame Frances Cairncross yesterday morning.

Regrettably her slides are not publicly accessible, but the 1980s-to-current productivity graph, painted a rather alarming picture: a steady dead cat bounce since 2008. In the face of the UK's job creation to date and fairly low unemployment rate by G7 standards.

This backs up her position that most of the jobs newly created since 2008 do not contribute much of anything to the UK GDP (because they are hand-to-mouth low-value jobs like pushing trolleys in supermarket car parks and washing cars on ex-petrol station forecourts, taken up by retirees and immigrants).

What the UK has enjoyed, is a low wage recovery. There is another 3 or 4 years of it to expect, before the next bust comes along in the cycle.

Now, more immediately, position the above in the developing context of:

• rapid inflationary pressure (estimated to reach 5% at next year's end...and that's conservative IMHO: witness the latest UK government announcement that they'll be changing their official preferred inflation measure to the CPIH from March next year); and
• rapid curtailment of free money: end of asset price driving through QE (this is Trump's declared policy in the US, it will filter through to the UK quick) and the UK is already close to the 'test limits' of its Laffer Curve;

which guarantee a slower growth come what may in the next few years.

Add Hammond's £100bn budget hole pre-Brexit for the 2016/2017 exercise and, well...The apocalypse won't happen, sure. But a foretaste is well on the cards.

Thomas_...

Interesting question, more concerning British expats living in other EU member states in regard of their rights there affected by Brexit:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37987830

Brexit: Could UK get associate EU citizenship ?
Freedom of movement, access to healthcare abroad, voting rights - some fundamental aspects of British life in the EU must be clarified before Brexit happens.
A Luxembourg liberal MEP, Charles Goerens, has proposed offering British citizens the option of retaining their EU citizenship for a fee. This "associate EU citizenship" idea could be part of the Brexit negotiations but it raises all sorts of legal questions.What is EU citizenship?
The EU treaties say EU citizenship "does not replace national citizenship" but "is additional to it". So EU citizenship cannot be acquired by giving up UK citizenship.
Once the UK leaves the EU, British citizens will lose their EU citizenship. And once Prime Minister Theresa May triggers the Article 50 withdrawal process, which she aims to do before next April, there will be just two years to resolve citizenship issues.
Citizens' rights have to be part of the Article 50 negotiations because about 1.2 million UK citizens live in other EU countries and three million EU nationals live in the UK. They need to know what, if any, reciprocal rights they will continue to enjoy after Brexit.

Important decisions about jobs, homes, pensions and healthcare could depend on those safeguards.
...

Not a bad idea at all, just complicated in the making if that will be an option for an offer on the expats.

Peregrinus

I think the notion of offering EU citizenship "for a fee" to someone who is not a national of a member state is going to meet objections - strong objections. You're basically just selling citizenship to people rich enough to buy it, which is kind of seedy.

There's a much more obvious way to address this, which is to agree with the UK, as part of the Brexit deal, that British citizens will enjoy rights in the EU equivalent to the rights of EU citizen (either generally, or in relation to specific rights) in return for reciprocal treatment for EU citizens in the UK.

Of course, if this means that British citizens get the right to settle in the EU, the flip side would be that EU citizens would have the right to settle in the UK, which would cause Brexiters to foam at the mouth.

An alternative that might be more acceptable would be a "grandfathered" status - British citizen already settled in the EU as at Brexit date could get this protection, and vice versa for EU citizens already settled in the UK. Or, the UK could seek special status for its citizens in the EU in return for a financial contribution to cover the costs to member states of meeting British citizens' entitlements under the deal. The British citizens benefitting from this wouldn't get EU citizenship; just parallel treatment. And they wouldn't be paying for it themselves.

Thomas_...

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the notion of offering EU citizenship "for a fee" to someone who is not a national of a member state is going to meet objections - strong objections. You're basically just selling citizenship to people rich enough to buy it, which is kind of seedy.

There's a much more obvious way to address this, which is to agree with the UK, as part of the Brexit deal, that British citizens will enjoy rights in the EU equivalent to the rights of EU citizen (either generally, or in relation to specific rights) in return for reciprocal treatment for EU citizens in the UK.

Of course, if this means that British citizens get the right to settle in the EU, the flip side would be that EU citizens would have the right to settle in the UK, which would cause Brexiters to foam at the mouth.

An alternative that might be more acceptable would be a "grandfathered" status - British citizen already settled in the EU as at Brexit date could get this protection, and vice versa for EU citizens already settled in the UK. Or, the UK could seek special status for its citizens in the EU in return for a financial contribution to cover the costs to member states of meeting British citizens' entitlements under the deal. The British citizens benefitting from this wouldn't get EU citizenship; just parallel treatment. And they wouldn't be paying for it themselves.

I was rather presuming that the fee would be on a rather low scale and not as much as one might pay for getting citizenship like in some EU member states like the Hungarians do. All in all, there is much talk and suggestions coming up which have meet a level of negotiations and of course some sustainability. I rather do not believe that this will happen cos as you already mentioned, the foaming Brexiteers would have right a fit on that one. By their die-hard stancas it will probably end up with a hard Brexit and that is precisely what they are after. In return, they can forget about their unrestricted access to the single market cos if will fail on their opposition toward the free movement of people. The Brexiteers still refuse to realise that but that's how the brain of the bigots work, no room for compromises.

But as this suggestion is also but just some theory, why not talk about it, it doesn't means that it will come to that. Your suggestions are also interesting, but I doubt that it might be taken up cos it is also about one of the EU principles to even get an associated status a non-EU state has to meet and comply with. The Brits won't comply and so there is just a tiny chance to get an agreement that satisfies both sides.

Jaggo

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a much more obvious way to address this, which is to agree with the UK, as part of the Brexit deal, that British citizens will enjoy rights in the EU equivalent to the rights of EU citizen (either generally, or in relation to specific rights) in return for reciprocal treatment for EU citizens in the UK.

I think there is regional issues relating to this.
The British citizens living in the EU tend to be on the older side. The add little to economic activity while consume allot of state services. (There are some intra-state transfers but nearly enough to compensate the host country). They also tend to be in Mediterranean countries.

The EU citizens living in the UK, are economically active and a net contributor to the UK state. Many are from Eastern Europe.

There are winners and losers in that scenario.

Peregrinus

Jaggo wrote: »

I think there is regional issues relating to this.
The British citizens living in the EU tend to be on the older side. The add little to economic activity while consume allot of state services. (There are some intra-state transfers but nearly enough to compensate the host country). They also tend to be in Mediterranean countries.

The EU citizens living in the UK, are economically active and a net contributor to the UK state. Many are from Eastern Europe.

There are winners and losers in that scenario.

There are. But the British retirees living in Spain don't just consume state services. They also transfer private resources from the UK to Spain - their social security pensions, plus their private income - and they spend it in Spain, generating a certain amount of economic activity. And, while the EU nationals working in the UK are contributing to the UK economy and the UK public finanaces, they are also benefitting themselves (they choose to be in the UK after all) and in many cases generating a flow of transfer payments back to the home country. So picking winners and losers can be quite complicated.

But my point is not really about picking winners and losers; it's about finding a reasonable basis on which the free movement of people could be preserved after Brexit, as far as possible. I don't think selling EU citizenship to individual British people who choose to buy it is a starter; leaving aside the seediness of selling citizenship at all, on what possible basis could the EU justify a stance of selling citizenship only to British citizens? I think some form of free movement which starts from the system already in place and seeks to continue it, so far as practicable, looks like the way to go. And if the UK is to be according some special status not available to other member states, that has to be on the basis of an agreement with the UK government, not single transactions with individual British citizens.

Jim2007

U.K. or other EU/EEA/CH retirees do not become a burden on the host state unless they meet one of two criteria:
- they are dual citizens and hold the citizenship of the host state
- the majority of their state pension is derived from the host state
In all other cases the EU/EEA/CH state from which the retiree derives the majority of their pension must cover the costs. The big worry for U.K. retirees is will the U.K. continue to do this. For instance here in Switzerland it costs the U.K. About 6,000 pa per person.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a much more obvious way to address this, which is to agree with the UK, as part of the Brexit deal, that British citizens will enjoy rights in the EU equivalent to the rights of EU citizen (either generally, or in relation to specific rights) in return for reciprocal treatment for EU citizens in the UK.

Of course, if this means that British citizens get the right to settle in the EU, the flip side would be that EU citizens would have the right to settle in the UK, which would cause Brexiters to foam at the mouth.

Good evening!

How is this any different to the status quo?

It's obvious that if May advocates a status quo solution to what the UK has already that that won't be acceptable with those who voted for change.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

That means at the very least that Brexit has had an immaterial impact on employment to date. The apocalypse hasn't happened. It probably won't happen at all. There will be a price but the discussions haven't begun.

But why would it up to now? The UK still enjoys full access to the single market and that accounts for 48% of it's total exports. It still retains it's rights under all other EU negotiated deals such as WTO etc. So unless UK firms suddenly decide to stop exporting or consumers decide to stop buying UK goods you should not see any big impact until the months leading up to the two year cut off at the earliest.
As for negotiations, A50 is about an exit agreement not a trade deal, yet another fact that Boris and friend seem to overlook. Yes there is a requirement to give an indication of what the future relationship might be, but that is all. And I would expect that if Boris and friends keep on with stuff like FMOP is not in the treaty of Rome, Article 3(c), etc... the EU will get tired of it and simple let them go as a third country.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

How is this any different to the status quo?

It's obvious that if May advocates a status quo solution to what the UK has already that that won't be acceptable with those who voted for change.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They only voted to leave the EU though. That's as far as the mandate goes.

A Dub in Glasgo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They only voted to leave the EU though. That's as far as the mandate goes.

According to the resident Brexiters on here, the UK voted to sever every status quo tie with respect to Europe and to take back control of... something

ancapailldorcha

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

According to the resident Brexiters on here, the UK voted to sever every status quo tie with respect to Europe and to take back control of... something

That's madness. The EU won't accept full access to the single market without a concession on free movement. The Brexiteers have overstated the importance of the UK multiple times, often comically. Even the libertarian think-tank, the Adam Smith Institute which advocated leave now states that it thinks that EEA status is the best option though it is pro-free movement.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

How is this any different to the status quo?

It's obvious that if May advocates a status quo solution to what the UK has already that that won't be acceptable with those who voted for change

Well spotted. That's pretty much my point.

We come here to a the fundamental dilemma facing May. The political context is constrained by a few simple parameters:

1. The UK has voted to leave the EU.

2. But it was a close run thing. The UK-wide margin was fairly slender, and signficant parts of the UK - including Scotland and NI - voted to remain by rather wider margins.

3. Opinion poll show that a majority of leave voters wanted (a) to control immigration to the UK, and (b) to continue trading freely with the EU. A bit schizophrenic, you may think, but loud voices on in the Leave Campaign sought to convince them that this was attainable.

4. It turns out it isn't.

May can Brexit on terms that can satisfy one or other aspirations of the Leave voters, but not both. The referendum result gives her - and us - no clue as to how Leave voters would prioritise these aspirations. Most likely they would be divided on the question meaning that, when we take the views of remainers into account, there is no UK-wide majority in favour of prioritising either of them.

But, in any event, it's not May's job to do what is popular. Parliament didn't refer the question of whether to prioritise trade or migration to a referendum and, given the train-wreck that was the last referendum, it's not likely to. It's May's job - and Parliament's job - to do what is in the best interests of the UK.

May has decided to prioritise migration control at the expense of trading rights. But every choice involves winners and losers. The losers here are (a) British citizens settled in other EU countries, whose long-term status is now uncertain, (b) British citizens who might wish to settle in other EU countries, or who might like to have the option of doing so, whose right to do so is now uncertain and (c) British businesses wishing to employ citizens of other EU countries. Both in justice to these groups and for political self-interest (remember, the Brexit margin in small and uneven) May needs to do what she can, within the constraints of her choice to control migration, to protect the interests and aspirations of these groups.

I agree with you that absolutely no change at all to migration rules is a non-starter, politically. But May will, I think, want fairly minimal change, in so far as changes affecting British citizens are concerned. And, given the reciprocal nature of these things, the flip side of that may be fairly modest changes to the rights of EU nationals in the UK.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's May's job - and Parliament's job - to do what is in the best interests of the UK.

If that were true, she would just call the whole thing off.

Peregrinus

Politically, she can't; she was elected to Parliament on a commitment to respect the results of the referendum. Furthermore her position as Prime Minister is dependent on the continued support of the parlaimentary party and, even if she were prepared simply to ignore the referendum, the party almost certainly isn't.

If, hypothetically, she thinks that Brexit would be a disaster for the UK and wishes to stop it, then she needs to seek a mandate to do so, either through a second referendum or, more realistically, through a general election. But if she also thinks she wouldn't get such a mandate, she might think the public interest is best served by not having a second referendum or an immediate election, and the way to make the best of a bad situation is to proceed with Brexit on the least awful terms that can secure parliamentary approval.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They only voted to leave the EU though. That's as far as the mandate goes.

Good morning!

This brings about the philosophical question.

If "leaving" the EU means being bound to it in the same way as it is today then have Britain really left the EU?

The people definitely voted for more than that. The polling that was posted earlier on this thread shows that. Leaving the EU must involve some form or change - that's what the people asked for. I disagree with the view that we somehow know nothing of the motivation of the voters.

If we get the status quo what was the point in holding the referendum - we might as well just stay in the EU. That definitely isn't what the people wanted.

I think May is right to try and deliver both sovereignty over legislation and over borders. I think it is the job of politicians to enact the will of the people. Anything else will be seen as a betrayal by remainers. I also question that the difference of a million voters can be viewed as "slender".

I also disagree that free trade isn't attainable. It may be via a third country agreement rather than single market membership but I don't share the assumption that a good trade deal isn't attainable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The people definitely voted for more than that. The polling that was posted earlier on this thread shows that. Leaving the EU must involve some form or change - that's what the people asked for. I disagree with the view that we somehow know nothing if the motivation of the voters.

We don't know anything about their motivation from the referendum results. The referendum tell us what they don't want, which is EU membership, but not why they don't want it. For that, we have to look to opinion polls, market research and other, less precise (but still meaningful) measure of public sentiment.

The problem is, as already pointed out, that the margin in favour of Brexit is pretty thin, and pretty uneven. There are a variety of beliefs and aspirations reflected in the Leave vote, and as far as we can tell motivations are quite diverse - as in, people voted "Leave" for different reasons. And some people voted for a variety of reasons, not all of which are coherent. And some people voted for reasons which are, in fact irrelevant - e.g. people voting "Leave" because they think, mistakenly, that this will result in the UK no longer being bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

The result of all this diversity of motives is that, in fact, it's hard to discern any one motive which clearly enjoys the support of a majority of the UK electorate. May thinks it's immigration control and she might be right. On the other hand, she might not.

The immediate conclusion from this is that the referendum was extremely badly thought-out. People were asked to indicate if they disliked the current situation, but not to indicate support for any alternative. It would be a bit like asking the UK electorate to endorse abolition of the monarchy, with no proposal as to what structures would replace it in the British constitution.

However, it's not much use pointing that out now. The referendum happened; the results create a political mandate which can't be ignored. Like it or not, the responsibility for framing and implementing a Brexit strategy now rest with the UK government and parliament (and possibly - this remains to be seen - the devolved governments and parliaments). And they have the unenviable task of delivering a relationship with the EU which is (a) sufficiently changed to meet the expectation that "Brexit means Brexit", but (b) not changed in a way which divides or alienates people to the point where the new relationship doesn't enjoy popular support - which is a real danger, given the thinness of the Leave margin and the diverse expectations of Leave voters.

Too soft a Brexit fails to deliver on the referendum mandate. Too hard a Brexit damages the UK, fractures the pro-Brexit majority and lacks legitimacy and, probably, durability. Somewhere in between, May has to hope, lies the sweet spot of a Brexit that delivers real change, acknowledges and accommodates the concerns of Remainers, and still commands popular support in the UK.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

See that's my point. I don't agree with your claim that the votes of a million people are slender or that 2 percentage points is "thin". That's a lot of people. What I'm sure of is that the 52% didn't vote to stay in the EU by the back door.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

A Dub in Glasgo

^^^^

It is a 2% margin and what scenarios are you claiming is staying in the EU by the back door?

Peregrinus

The Brexit vote was 51.9% to 49.1%, a margin of 3.8%, meaning that if one voter in 50 changes their mind, the margin could go. And we can't ignore the practical reality that the 51.9% leave vote was endorsing a really not very well-thought-out or well-presented proposal. If one voter in 50 thought that they could vote 'Leave" and the UK could still participate in the single market, for example, a Brexit strategy which leads to the EU exiting the single market could put the kibosh on the pro-Brexit majority. That's the kind of risk that May has to factor in when deciding on the Brexit strategy.

I agree with you that the referendum creates an irresistible mandate for Brexit, and that Brexit must mean real change. But in implementing that change May would be in a much happier position if (a) there had been a thumping majority for Brexit, more spread across the UK as a whole, or (b) the Brexit vote had been based on a concrete and detailed Brexit proposal, including a model for future British engagement with the EU, or (c) preferably both. She's now in the unenviable position of having to do the Brexit planning that should have been done before the referendum and put before the people so that they could know about it when they voted, and of having to do so without taking decisions which could threaten the margin of support for Brexit which, I still say, is quite vulnerable, both because of the relative thinness of the margin and because of the poor quality of the campaign that preceded the vote.