Fair enough, mate. I didn’t really think that’s what you meant, but thanks for clarifying it.
So if UK wants a free trade agreement they need to join EFTA, which means abiding by all EU regulations but not having any say in them. So the point of leaving was?
Gut feelings rather than rational thought, at least for the most part.
To stop political integration in its tracks. I believe a sizeable majority of the British public would be content to be part of a free trade zone without the political add-ons that go with it.
Then it is up to southern Ireland to close the border not the UK. That raises the question will the people want to continue with the EU after such a gross infringement of their sovereignty
The Labour Party in open civil war this morning.
What are the “political add-ons” that have nothing to do with free trade and that the British people are unhappy with? You’re thinking of issues like the EU setting standards for worker’s rights, gender equality and the like? Sure, these could also be regulated by each country individually. But for companies that wish to operate across borders that tends to cause a lot of headaches. The thing is: for a trade agreement to be really effective, a lot of politicall issues have to be included.
There are a few political fields that are more loosely connected to trade, such as the common foreign or security policies. But would the UK really benefit from removing itself from these? And then there is of course the immigration grudge that leavers claim is not their only reason for wanting to leave.
Rather unlikely, Ireland has benefited massively from being a base for multinationals selling into the EU and support for it is high.
Firstly, I should have used the term free-ish trade not free-trade. We don’t have free-trade in Europe at the moment. We only have relatively free-trade instead. Continuation of this free-ish trade is what I believe most Brits would support.
What I mean by political integration are things like the single currency(with resulting calls for political integration), the European Commission, the European Parliament, recent calls for a European Army, Schengen etc. Im generally against past political integration, what I fear more though is future integration.
Brexit really was something that could have been avoided. Our safety standards on tires have to follow Germany’s. French ball bearings have to be standardized to meet our requirements. We all get that. What we do not need is a full-time European Parliament, a European Commission or even a single currency. Most of these trade requirements could have been worked out on the negotiating equivalent of a back of a fag packet.
The way you are putting it, it seems the UK is leaving the EU in order to stop someting in its tracks that was never going to happen anyway. EU membership never meant that UK was going to have to join the Eurozone or the Schengen Area. The creation of a European Army would require a treaty change that would be impossible to achieve without Britain’s consent. (Besides, the UK is not the only country that has dismissed the idea.) There is a common European defense policy, the CSDP, but for all I have heard no one is complaining about that.
As for the commission: You seem to agree that aligning on details like standards for ball bearings is generally a good idea. The thing is that in order to work out the details of such an alignment you need the help of experts on the topic. I do not think it is the best approach to let 28 countries all send their own experts to the table. I prefer to let the Commission in which my country is duly represented appoint a panel of experts and let them do what is needed.
What do you think that the European Parliament actually does? A lot of is deciding on trade standards. So now in order to join EFTA the UK still has to actually follow all EU regulations but it doesn’t get any say in setting them. This is a benefit to the UK how exactly?
Oh and of course there is the EU development grants, to wales and cornwell, who now are expecting the UK to match them. So yes congratulations, you really showed those faceless un-elected EU bureaucrats who’s the boss. Well done you!
You think that would be th reaction of the half of the country that didn’t want to leave the EU? Seems to me that it would take a pretty minor shift in public opinion to make that a politically viable position.
I agree. And maybe I’m just a biased American, but Cameron’s fatalism towards this whole thing is baffling. We’re told it would be political suicide to fight the exit, but HE JUST FUCKING RESIGNED AS PM!! He says the referendum is a “once in a generation thing”, but he’s the one who called for the referendum in the first place. Where’s the leadership?
Yes, I do believe that the reaction would be a rise in the populist right. A rise not only in the UK but internationally. You can take that prediction to the bank. If this is not the case then I would expect vast swathes of Mp’s to be calling on Parliament to ignore the referendum results. As of now I believe there is only 1 Mp to have done so. Why? Because although Mp’s are scared of the consequences of Brexit they are horrified at the consequences of ignoring the Brexit result. Take Labour as an example: I could imagine Londoners staying loyal to the Labour Party if Parliament ignored the Brexit result. However, Labour heartlands in the North, Yorkshire, West Mids would defect in droves. They would become ripe for any party embracing a mixture of nationalism, populism, and anti-elitism.
There’s a good article in the New Yorker about the underlying causes that makes the same points that I and others have been making here. A few direct quotations and a concluding paraphrase:
[ul]
[li]One of the best predictors of how people voted was their education level. Those with college degrees tended to opt for Remain, while people without them tended to opt for Leave[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Age and income gradients were also clearly visible in the vote tabulations. The older and poorer you are, the more likely you were to vote Leave.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Racism and nativism … featured prominently in the anti-E.U. campaign. The Leave side went up in the polls after it managed to shift the debate away from the likely economic impact of Brexit and onto immigration …[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Economic anxieties and resentments underpinned the political anger that fuelled the Leave vote. Demagogues such as Nigel Farage, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party, were able to exploit these economic worries, directing them against immigrants and other easy targets.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]What has certainly happened is that decades of globalization, deregulation, and policy changes that favored the wealthy have left Britain a more unequal place, with vast regional disparities. “It’s the shape of our long lasting and deeply entrenched national geographic inequality that drove differences in voting patterns” …[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]My paraphrase: A large part of the reason for the Leave victory is that Cameron ran the Remain campaign poorly, focusing on negatives and using economic-impact numbers that were both large and very specific, which many found not very credible. Meanwhile the Leave campaign told a positive story, albeit by using “lies and disinformation”, claiming that “liberating Britain from the shackles of the E.U. would enable it to reclaim its former glory”.[/li][/ul]
Apparently the disease that has propelled Donald Trump to political prominence like a malignant cancer is not purely an American phenomenon. The only thing missing among the xenophobes and the demagogues that led the Leave campaign were baseball caps saying “Make Britain Great Again”.
Have there been any Brexit polls after the vote ? It’s quite plausible that after watching the financial hit after the vote, some Leave voters might change their mind. If polls showed that Remain was now say 53-47 that might cause a re-think about the politics of stalling on Brexit.
The whole situation is very murky and volatile. Both major parties are in turmoil with their future leadership in the air. An election could happen soon with unpredictable results. Scotland is a major wild card; both for its possible power to block Brexit and the demand for a new referendum if Brexit does go ahead. While some form of Brexit is likely, I don’t think it’s inevitable given the number of moving parts involved.
BTW the New Yorker article misses out a huge part of the story: the massive differentialin turnout by age category. Over-65 voters who were 37% Remain, had a turnout of 83% while 18-24 voters who were 66% Remain had a truly pathetic turnout of 36%. If Brexit goes ahead many of these young voters will have significantly diminished life opportunities, and those who supported Remain but didn’t vote have only themselves to blame.
Hilarious reaction here: the Serbian PM-designated acknowledges that Serbs would vote like the English, but that he would just ignore their preferences.
(Support for the EU has dropped over the last year in Serbia, while support for Russia has risen).
No. Canada has done a free trade agreement with the EU. Have you heard anything about them joining EFTA?
That remains to be seen.