Topic: Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay

[Rocky Mountains]

Scotland to the rescue of English as EU official language?

Mark
Ottawa

What about Ireland?  The first language is English. The second language is Polish.  The third language is Irish.

[MarkOttawa]

Rocky Mountains: From the story:

...Each country is allowed to pick one tongue, and Ireland and Malta — the other two E.U. nations that are predominantly English-speaking — chose Gaelic and Maltese, respectively...

Mark
Ottawa

[tomahawk6]

Until such time as Art 50 is invoked by the UK,there is no Brexit.Maybe not even then because the EU Parliament and governing body must agree to how such an exit would occur.

[milnews.ca]

Even better ...

Until such time as Art 50 is invoked by the UK, and the process is completed, there is no Brexit.

[cupper]

Some interesting things that I picked up listening to various discussions on the way to work this morning.

First, a though experiment. Is it possible that the whole referendum was never intended to actually decide if the UK were to pull out of the EU, but rather a response by Cameron to his detractors (at least in part) within the party to put up or shut up, specifically Boris Johnson? It's no secret that there has been animosity between the two going back to their college years. It gives Cameron the ability to walk away from the leadership and lay blame for the fiasco at the feet of the far right detractors in the party.

Second, although the results show a majority of votes for the Leave side, it's not really a strong, clear mandate to leave. 52% to 48%. a swing of roughly 635,000 votes would have resulted in a split vote. It could easily be justified that staying with the status quo is the best course of action, and pursuing changes to the various treaties and agreements is the more desirable option. And this may well be the out that the Brits may use to unring the bell.

Third, the results are not legally binding, so Cameron could just ignore the results at his own peril. However, going back to the first point, he has a scapegoat to hang it on, and I suspect that his quick decision to resign and delaying the trigger on article 50 for the enjoyment of his successor could well be Cameron's intended course of action, without having to say he's going to ignore the will of the people. And the uproar seems to help rather than hinder his cause if that is indeed the plan

With respect to the reaction of the EU political leadership, the aggressive stance they are taking may well backfire. They may in part be emboldened by the results of the bullying they laid on Greece to force the changes that they wanted without consideration of the effect it had on the Greek economy (and I agree something needed to be done, and in this case their course of action may have gotten them what they wanted). But they seem to have forgotten that the UK is not Greece, and this is going to cause pain across the board. Yes, it may be more of a show to warn the weaker states from pulling the same stunt, but it will come back to bite them in the ***.

Ultimately, I can see this ending with a whimper rather than a brawl. A bunch of drunken idiots starting out playing poke chest, and ending with everyone crying, hugging and expressing their love for each other. Rational (for Europeans that is a stretch) heads will prevail, and they will sit down and address the concerns that precipitated the events.

[cupper]

And to add insult to injury. 

[cupper]

Nigel Farage wins the Sore Loser Award.

Brexiteer Nigel Farage To EU: 'You're Not Laughing Now, Are You?'

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/28/483857209/watch-brexiteer-nigel-farage-to-eu-youre-not-laughing-now-are-you?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160628

Nigel Farage, a member of the European Parliament and the leader of the U.K. Independence Party, spoke on the floor of the European Parliament on Tuesday morning.

It was a special session of the Parliament, called in the wake of the U.K.'s decision to leave the European Union. Farage — whose eurosceptic right-wing party was firmly in favor of the Brexit, and who personally campaigned quite passionately for it — was grinning.

And on a day marked with fiery speeches, his stood out.

Farage was booed from the start — he could barely get out "Good morning." The president of the European Parliament had to chastise the gathered lawmakers into letting Farage speak. When he finally began, here's what he had to say.

"Funny, isn't it?
"When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me.
"Well, I have to say, you're not laughing now, are you?"

Farage told the other members the source of their anger was clear:

"You as a political project are in denial. You're in denial that your currency is failing. You're in denial — well, just look at the Mediterranean! As a policy to impose poverty on Greece and the Mediterranean you've done very well.
"You're in denial over Mrs. Merkel's call last year for as many people as possible to cross the Mediterranean into the European Union [which] has led to massive divisions between within countries and between countries."

Farage invoked the controversial history of the EU Constitution. It failed to be ratified as its own treaty, but most of the elements of the proposed constitution were instituted through the Treaty of Lisbon.

"The biggest problem you've got and the main reason the U.K. voted the way it did is because you have — by stealth, by deception, without ever telling the truth to the rest of the peoples of Europe — you have imposed upon them a political union.
"And when the people in 2005 in the Netherlands and France voted against that political union and rejected the constitution, you simply ignored them and brought the Lisbon Treaty in through the back door."
 

Farage called the vote "a remarkable result":

"What happened last Thursday was a remarkable result — it was, indeed, a seismic result. Not just for British politics, for European politics, but perhaps even for global politics, too.
"Because what the little people did, what the ordinary people did — what the people who've been oppressed over the last few years and seen their living standards go down — they rejected the multinationals, they rejected the merchant banks, they rejected big politics and they said, 'Actually, we want our country back. We want our fishing waters back. We want our borders back.' ...
"In doing so, we now offer a beacon of hope to democrats across the rest of the European continent. I'll make one prediction this morning: the United Kingdom will not be the last member state to leave the European Union."

Here's the line that brought the assembly — which had been occasionally grumbling during Farage's speech, with a few smatterings of applause — into a rage.

"I know that virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives, or worked in business, or worked in trade, or indeed ever created a job. But listen, just listen."

During the resulting uproar, the president of the EU Parliament, Martin Schulz, had to call for order. He chastised the MEPs by, well, insulting Farage's own party:

"I do understand that you are getting emotional, but you are acting like UKIP usually acts in this chamber, so please, don't imitate them," he said.

He also told Farage to cut it out.

"You really can't say that, I'm sorry," Schulz said.

Farage highlighted the trade relationships between the U.K. and Europe, and told an audibly amused Parliament that attempts to punish the U.K. for its departure would only hurt the 27 countries remaining in the EU.

"That trade matters. If you were to cut off your noses to spite your faces and to reject any idea of a sensible trade deal, the consequences would be far worse for you than it would be for us."
[Laughter from MEPs]
"Even no deal is better for the United Kingdom is better than the current rotten deal that we've got. But if we were to move to a position where tariffs were reintroduced on products like motorcars then hundreds of thousands of German works would risk losing their jobs."

Here's how he closed:

"Why don't we just be pragmatic, sensible, grown-up, realistic — and let's cut between us a sensible, tariff-free deal.
[Laughter.]
"And thereafter, recognize that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world.
"But do that, do it sensibly, and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future."

Farage was met with some applause and a great deal of booing, and sat down with a visible smile.

[Brad Sallows]

>they will sit down and address the concerns that precipitated the events.

I doubt it.  If the pro-EU people get their way despite the result, they will pocket the win and carry on with their program.  If they were inclined to address concerns, they would already have done so.

[cupper]

>they will sit down and address the concerns that precipitated the events.

I doubt it.  If the pro-EU people get their way despite the result, they will pocket the win and carry on with their program.  If they were inclined to address concerns, they would already have done so.

Actually I was referring more to the member countries of the EU than the British parties. And they have the incentive that the nationalist movements in their own countries may well push for their own departure.

[Thucydides]

Fallout in the Labour Party:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/jeremy-corbyn-lefts-lunacy/

Jeremy Corbyn and the Left’s Lunacy
NOAH ROTHMAN / JUNE 28, 2016

The two most direct and visible effects of the Brexit vote have been a financial shock and a political implosion. Post-Brexit economic instability is the result of a panic, and it is reasonable to expect the markets to find a new equilibrium soon. The collapse of political stability in Britain, however, is rooted in more fundamental factors that won’t be resolved quickly. The resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron has thrown the Conservative majority into turmoil, but a revolt within the minority Labour Party against its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is also ongoing. It is an ugly reflection on Labour and the left in general that it took a failed plebiscite on Europe to finally wake the party up to what a noxious, paranoid, graceless figure their leader truly is.

Brexit would not have passed as narrowly as it did if it were not for the support of Labour voters to retreat from the EU. That represents a stunning humiliation for the Europhilic center-left Labour and a remarkable defeat for Jeremy Corbyn—although he does not personally view it that way.

Corbyn has always been hostile toward European integration. While conservatives of the “Euro-skeptical” variety tend to cast a suspicious eye on the EU for its anti-market values, Corbyn finds the EU suspiciously too laissez-faire. He voted against the Maastricht Treaty, which created the EU, and the Lisbon Treaty, which established its constitution. He criticized the terms on which Greece was provided loans in exchange for adopting austere budgetary restrictions as being too harsh. “There is no future for a Europe that turns its smaller nations into colonies of debt peonage,” Corbyn wrote as recently as 2015.

This stance is remarkably out of step with his internationalist party, and the failure to prevent Brexit appears the straw that broke Labour’s back. In the wake of the referendum vote, the majority of the shadow Labour government has resigned. Despite all these clear signals that Corbyn has lost the faith of his fellow party members, he still insists he will not vacate his post. Even the Labour-friendly Daily Mirror was reduced to begging this “decent man,” in a “heartfelt message,” to resign “for the sake of your party” and “country.” 47 resignations later, the party declared an open revolt against Corbyn—172 Labour MPs voted against their leader in a confidence vote on Tuesday.

Corbyn is a man who by any sane calculation should never have been elevated to his present position. He bemoaned the fate of the Taliban after September 11th, and claimed that there had been a “manipulation” of information by the omnipotent but ill defined “they” to manufacture international conflict. This kind of conspiratorial thinking is not new to the man who became the Labour’s leader. In an article for Labour Briefing in 1991, Corbyn called the Coalition ouster of Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait a “curtain-raiser for the New World Order.”

When the United States finally killed Osama bin Laden in a Special Forces operation in 2011, Corbyn called it an “assassination attempt,” in which no effort was made to capture the terrorist and bring him to trial. That rendered the al-Qaeda leader’s death a “tragedy” on par with the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in 2001.

Corbyn has long been infatuated with radical Islamist terrorists, if only because he approves of their targets. He described the Iranian terrorist organization Hezbollah and the murderous Hamas in Gaza as the West’s “friends,” and supported a total arms embargo on Israel. Corbyn has gleefully shared a stage with the most unhinged European Holocaust deniers and defended those fringe figures who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by the Israeli Mossad.

Under Corbyn, the Labour Party has been implicated in one anti-Semitic incident after another. In early May, the Telegraph reported that 50 Labour members had been secretly disciplined over anti-Semitic and racist comments amid an “influx of hard-left supporters following Jeremy Corbyn’s election.” Formerly peripheral views about Hitler and Israel’s support for ISIS, which were once relegated only to the darkest fringes of society, were out in the open. They had found a mainstream champion.

Corbyn is not the disease but a symptom; a lagging indicator of an ideology gone mad. Labour’s leader has recklessly legitimized conspiratorial anti-Western and anti-Semitic thought. Corbyn represents so much more than the British left’s overcorrection away from Blairite centrism. He exemplifies an unattractive impulse among younger liberals in America and Britain to embrace the perpetually adolescent unreconstructed socialists of the 20th Century as they struggle to comprehend and navigate the challenges of their own time. These formerly marginal figures were once consigned to the fringe for a good reason.

It has long been obvious to all but the most blinkered of paranoid basement-dwellers that Corbyn is unfit to lead the Labour Party. His elevation to his current position confirms the belief that the Western left has become reckless and radicalized. It wasn’t Corbyn’s conspiratorial thinking, his anti-Semitism, his flirtation with violence and autarky, or his apologies for terrorists that robbed Labour of confidence in their eccentric leader. It was his failure to campaign hard enough to preserve European subsidies that did him in. That fact alone exposes how truly deep the rot within the British left goes.

[milnews.ca]

Is it possible that the whole referendum was never intended to actually decide if the UK were to pull out of the EU, but rather a response by Cameron to his detractors (at least in part) within the party to put up or shut up, specifically Boris Johnson?

If that was the case, Cameron clearly forgot the addage, "be careful what you wish for" ...

[Remius]

I wonder how long they will play hard ball.  No freedom of movement, no access to the single market.  Given that anger at freedom of movement was a plank in the leave campaign

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36659900

[Remius]

This is a decent article that shows the various options that the UK could adopt after they leave. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36639261

Interesting models that I was unaware of.

[Chris Pook]

I note that the next PM now negotiates with:

An active trigger in his hand (Article 50)

Freedom to use it

A sense of urgency in the opposition in Europe

And,

Is negotiating 1 on 1 (UK to Europe) not 1 in 28.

The Chief Negotiator (Juncker) can't be sure of his job, is already discovering that any Bulls that he issues to shun the UK are going to be ignored, and will ultimately get new instructions from his masters in the European Council - the European Parliament being a very weak reed.


The Euros want access to the British market, the British banks and the Royal Navy and support for their economies/armies.

They fear having a low tax haven 22 miles off their west coast - especially an "Anglo-Saxon" one trading freely with the US.


The Tories seem to be coalescing a lot faster than Labour.  Boris Johnson is taking an early election off the table.  The markets are starting to move on.

The Integrationists of the Social Democratic and Christian Democratic persuasion are at risk because Britain has now empowered the Classical Liberals and Nationalists all across Europe, including the European Parliament and in Juncker's own European Commission.

Negotiations continue.

It is just like old times.

[Remius]

Six key questions about the Brexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36637915

Canadians should be watching all of this unfold as it may be used as a precedent for separation in Canada in the not so distant future.

[Thucydides]

Marine Le Pen on how the Nativists in Europe look at the Brexit. Like the Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump insurgency brewing in the United States, many people are not happy at how their lives, hopes and prospects have been rearranged by political "elites" and are seeking means of redress. While you and I might agree that Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen don't represent the "best" choices, these are the ones on the table right now, so anyone looking to offer an alternative will have to get to work right away. (In the UK, I suspect the clear choice is Boris Johnson. Who is our Boris Johnson?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/marine-le-pen-after-brexit-the-peoples-spring-is-inevitable.html?_r=1

Marine Le Pen: After Brexit, the People’s Spring Is Inevitable
Lire en français (Read in French)
By MARINE LE PENJUNE 28, 2016

PARIS — IF there’s one thing that chafes French pride, it’s seeing the British steal the limelight. But in the face of real courage, even the proudest French person can only tip his hat and bow. The decision that the people of Britain have just made was indeed an act of courage — the courage of a people who embrace their freedom.

Brexit won out, defeating all forecasts. Britain decided to cast off from the European Union and reclaim its independence among the world’s nations. It had been said that the election would hinge solely on economic matters; the British, however, were more insightful in understanding the real issue than commentators like to admit.

British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom.

The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will.

Countries in the eurozone face an even less enviable situation. In the name of ideology, different economies are forced to adopt the same currency, even if doing so bleeds them dry. It’s a modern version of the Procrustean bed, and the people no longer have a say.

And what about the European Parliament? It’s democratic in appearance only, because it’s based on a lie: the pretense that there is a homogeneous European people, and that a Polish member of the European Parliament has the legitimacy to make law for the Spanish. We have tried to deny the existence of sovereign nations. It’s only natural that they would not allow being denied.

Brexit wasn’t the European people’s first cry of revolt. In 2005, France and the Netherlands held referendums about the proposed European Union constitution. In both countries, opposition was massive, and other governments decided on the spot to halt the experiment for fear the contagion might spread. A few years later, the European Union constitution was forced on the people of Europe anyway, under the guise of the Lisbon Treaty. In 2008, Ireland, also by way of referendum, refused to apply that treaty. And once again, a popular decision was brushed aside.

When in 2015 Greece decided by referendum to reject Brussels’ austerity plans, the European Union’s antidemocratic response took no one by surprise: To deny the people’s will had become a habit. In a flash of honesty, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, unabashedly declared, “There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.”

Brexit may not have been the first cry of hope, but it may be the people’s first real victory. The British have presented the union with a dilemma it will have a hard time getting out of. Either it allows Britain to sail away quietly and thus runs the risk of setting a precedent: The political and economic success of a country that left the European Union would be clear evidence of the union’s noxiousness. Or, like a sore loser, the union makes the British pay for their departure by every means possible and thus exposes the tyrannical nature of its power. Common sense points toward the former option. I have a feeling Brussels will choose the latter.

One thing is certain: Britain’s departure from the European Union will not make the union more democratic. The hierarchical structure of its supranational institutions will want to reinforce itself: Like all dying ideologies, the union knows only how to forge blindly ahead. The roles are already cast — Germany will lead the way, and France will obligingly tag along.

Here is a sign: President François Hollande of France, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy and acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of Spain take their lead directly from Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, without running through Brussels. A quip attributed to Henry Kissinger, “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” now has a clear answer: Call Berlin.

So the people of Europe have but one alternative left: to remain bound hand-and-foot to a union that betrays national interests and popular sovereignty and that throws our countries wide open to massive immigration and arrogant finance, or to reclaim their freedom by voting.


Calls for referendums are ringing throughout the Continent. I myself have suggested to Mr. Hollande that one such public consultation be held in France. He did not fail to turn me down. More and more, the destiny of the European Union resembles the destiny of the Soviet Union, which died from its own contradictions.

The People’s Spring is now inevitable! The only question left to ask is whether Europe is ready to rid itself of its illusions, or if the return to reason will come with suffering. I made my decision a long time ago: I chose France. I chose sovereign nations. I chose freedom.

Marine Le Pen is president of the National Front party in France. This essay was translated by John Cullen from the French.

[Remius]

Marine Le Pen on how the Nativists in Europe look at the Brexit. Like the Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump insurgency brewing in the United States, many people are not happy at how their lives, hopes and prospects have been rearranged by political "elites" and are seeking means of redress. While you and I might agree that Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen don't represent the "best" choices, these are the ones on the table right now, so anyone looking to offer an alternative will have to get to work right away. (In the UK, I suspect the clear choice is Boris Johnson. Who is our Boris Johnson?)

Well it isn't Boris Johnson.  http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36672591

Bernie Sanders isn't in the same group as Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen and Boris Johnson.  At least not in terms of what people are angry about. 

[Chris Pook]

I think the "coalescing" of the Tories just accelerated.

Don't know the final PM / Chancellor combination - Maybe Gove / May? What is the best role for an articulate cheerleader like Boris?

And by the way, wrt Saunders, Saunders and Trump appeal to exactly the same demographics - those not engaged by the status quo.  In Europe the status quo is defined by the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (neither of whom are democratic) and who have a vested interest in making the most of their limited legitimacy.  Historically the majority of Europeans has rejected both their houses.

In the US the status quo is a lot harder to define. It has shallower historical roots.

[Remius]

And by the way, wrt Saunders, Saunders and Trump appeal to exactly the same demographics - those not engaged by the status quo.  In Europe the status quo is defined by the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats (neither of whom are democratic) and who have a vested interest in making the most of their limited legitimacy.  Historically the majority of Europeans has rejected both their houses.

In the US the status quo is a lot harder to define. It has shallower historical roots.

What you are talking about is populism.  That is what they have in common.  The demographics (and the motivations) are very different.

[Chris Pook]

No, with respect, I reject the term populism for the pejorative implications that are associated with it.

Citizens are citizens and in nations with universal franchise all citizens issues and concerns need to be addressed and valued equally in debate.   It is inappropriate to write off whole sectors of society as not being worthy of consideration.

Universal franchise has only been available for one hundred years - and in many places a lot less than that.  Are we to already start trimming?

Bernie's supporters are not rich.  Neither are Donald's.  Generally speaking both groups of supporters are not conventionally engaged by the existing authorities and their supporters.  Donald and Bernie may be coming at the problems of these people from different perspectives but apparently they are addressing their concerns in ways that nobody else is or has been.

Democracy is not democracy if it is "moderated" to such an extent, by courts, by trimmers, that the citizenry ultimately concludes that the game is a sham and that they are relegated.

[Remius]

No, with respect, I reject the term populism for the pejorative implications that are associated with it.

Not sure why you are rejecting the term.  You essentially just described populism. 

Definition here:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/populist  and here https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/populism

"the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite"


The negative connotation is when there are racial or bigoted overtones associated with a certain brand of populism or what the core issue of the people is.  The word is fine and perfectly acceptable.  The fact that you opt for a more PC version does not change the fact that they are indeed populists.

[Chris Pook]

'Atsfunny.

I have been accused of being PC.!

First time for everything. 

I could equally cite the dictionary definitions of gay, pride, democrat, republican, Scot and Brit, or even Quebecer and challenge you not to react at a visceral level.

I accept your definition.  Equally, I argue, that the majority of the commentariat does not subscribe to populism as an acceptable philosophy.  Any more than the Senate was appreciative of Caesar's base of support.

Consequently, for the duration, I look for more neutral terms in which to frame the debate.

By the way:

Venstre is the Danish word for Left -

Venstre[note 1] (Danish pronunciation: [ˈʋɛnsd̥ʁɐ], literally "left"), full name Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti (English: Left, Denmark's Liberal Party), is a conservative-liberal[6][7] and agrarian[8] political party in Denmark. Founded as part of a peasants' movement against the landed aristocracy, today it espouses an economically liberal pro-free market ideology.[9]

Venstre is the major party of the centre-right in Denmark, and the third largest party in the country.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”

[Remius]

'Atsfunny.

I have been accused of being PC.!

First time for everything. 

I could equally cite the dictionary definitions of gay, pride, democrat, republican, Scot and Brit, or even Quebecer and challenge you not to react at a visceral level.

I accept your definition.  Equally, I argue, that the majority of the commentariat does not subscribe to populism as an acceptable philosophy.  Any more than the Senate was appreciative of Caesar's base of support.

Consequently, for the duration, I look for more neutral terms in which to frame the debate.

By the way:

Venstre is the Danish word for Left -

I think it's when they use the word demagogue that the words and definitions get confused.  Both are similar in nature and definition.  Populism can be used as a front for demagoguery. 

[Chris Pook]

Demagogue | Define Demagogue at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/demagogue
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people. 2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people. verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.

You tell why your man isn't a demagogue and I will tell you why my man isn't a demagogue. And the debate will continue at the visceral level.

[Journeyman]

Look at you guys, going all Scrabble^TM on us.     



I was going to say "lexicography," but I didn't want to come across as some sort of geek.