Brexit Vote: 51.9% leave, 48.1% stay

[The Bread Guy]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[a_majoor]

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. 

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

'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. 

 

[Kirkhill]

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 ScrabbleTM on us.    ;D



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

 

[Remius]

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.

I'm not sure where it is exactly I defined who my man is exactly? Or accused anyone of that.

I stated that they are both populists with support from different demographics. Not sure why you think the debate about the definitions being used is visceral.

So, yeah...not sure where we're going with this.    :dunno:

 

[Kirkhill]

Short form:

Any discussion is better served examining what is on the table rather than what might be on the table or what might be the motives of the people doing the proposing.

And I don't know who your man is, nor does it really bother me.  It is just that the word demagogue, like so many others that are chucked around, is loaded with baggage.  Merely to utter it suggests an opinion.

I do have to say that, with respect to Brexit, I fully expect, in light of the current situation in the UK it wouldn't surprise me if a Third Party showed up with a primary platform of Separating Westminster. 

Labour has already lost its base to UKIP and the Tories are looking more and more as if they are going to pragmatically and carefully slag them off as well while trying to finesse the results of the referendum and hold off triggering Article 50 until the referendum itself is stale dated.

Church vs chapel all over again.

 

[a_majoor]

While Cameron and the British "elites" may try to game the Brexit and thwart the will of the people, they may discover (much like those who dismissed the TEA Party movement in the United States) that what comes afterwards is far worse. The dismissal of the TEA Party movement's concerns by the newly ascendent Republican Congress and Senate after the midterms is the trigger that allowed Donald Trump to happen. The "Occupy" movement is the mirror image on the left, the Democrats tried to play them but once the Occupy crowd discovered that Goldman Sachs had far more pull with the White House and presumptive Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton then they did, Bernie Sanders was almost inevitable.

At any rate, the EU "Parliament" and more importantly the various unelected bodies that actually run the EU are trying to stampede the UK by demanding that Britain invokes Article 50 ASAP. If the British Parliament does so, then the window to thwart the Brexit closes and the British people will be free to forge a new social, political and economic arrangement.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/30/how-boris-johnson-was-brought-to-his-knees-by-the-cuckoo-nest-pl/

Apparently Mr. Gove is a clever man.  And his wife may be more clever by half.

The historian and constitutional expert Lord Hennessy explains why the UK has never really warmed to Europe.

The crossbench peer told PM presenter Eddie Mair: "Europe was set up by clever, catholic, left wing, French bureaucrats, and most Brits have got problems with at least three of those five."

http://army.ca/forums/threads/123419/post-1442188.html#msg1442188

 

[jollyjacktar]

Politics is a blood sport.  I am a little surprised, however, that Boris walked into the ambush so easily.  I also wonder what this will cost Gove in the long run by showing is true colours like this.  Bugger can't be trusted.