EU Referendum / BREXIT

[Suiko]

I'm not dismissing it... I just think that's really what it is - flighty investors who need to get a grip. Nothing is going to change overnight. Doesn't it take 2 years or something for negotiations to finish? I'm sure I read that somewhere...

I think the main reason why there was such a turnout was because that people felt like the choice they made would actually matter. I know that in the general elections nowerdays the parties are almost interchangeable, which makes people uninterested. This was one or the other with no in between.

I'm a little nervous about change, but like I said,  that's human reaction. If we let fear stop us from changing things then nothing would ever be done. It might go badly wrong, but I'd rather have things end badly having tried than regret not doing anything.

Also Reiji, just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything you said. Immigration was definitely a pushing point. People have said they've had enough.

[Kythia]

I'm not dismissing it... I just think that's really what it is - flighty investors who need to get a grip. Nothing is going to change overnight. Doesn't it take 2 years or something for negotiations to finish? I'm sure I read that somewhere...

At least two years, yes.  Referenda aren't actually legally binding so there'll need to be an act of parliament to confirm those results.  No idea what the timeline is on that but I imagine it'll be pretty sharpish. 

As per my post above, things have changed overnight though.  The pound has sunk to a thirty year low.  LSE opens in an hour and a half and the latest prediction I read is saying an 8.8pc drop.  The third worst drop in history.  You'd assume FTSE 250 will drop even further.

EDIT: Units mistake

[Nachtmahr]

The whole thing going on with immigration did seem a bit the key of why people were pushing for Brexit.  One of the British commentators I follow - a gay libertarian named Milo Yiannopolous - noted that there was a Gallup poll detailing the attitudes of Muslims living in the UK.  According to the pool, out of 1000 British Muslims:

52% said homosexuality should be illegal (vs 11% of the general population)
47% said gays shouldn't be allowed to teach in schools (vs 14%)
40% said that a woman should always obey her husband (vs 5%)
35% said that Jews had too much power (vs 9%)

Sociological commentary on the poll suggested that, in contrast to most trends, Muslims who leave the Middle East and live in the West do not become more liberal, but more conservative.

Now, this is but one specific aspect of what's been happening, but I think worry and fear of the possibility of allowing in more immigrants - whether or not they're refugees or simply economic migrants - who hold these attitudes.  Not to mention the problems that I've been hearing with the failure of immigrants to assimilate into the national culture (which is one of the key components of a national identity, which you need to be a nation).

I feel like this might spin the discussion into something completely different. On the other hand, I also feel like a study of 1000 people is hardly any kind of conclusive or convincing evidence that Muslims become increasingly conservative as they move to the west, as though they have no expectation that society here is, by our definition, more liberal.

Deeper rant about polling 1000 people and passing it off as any kind of fact.

First of all you have to consider the potentially large number who would not answer truthfully because of fear of potential, if unlikely, repercussion. Secondly you have to consider where the sample was taken, and the amount of time that has passed since the person came to the country. A "Good" Muslim, so to speak, who abides by their faith is unlikely to change their views in 4 months, but if you give them a handful of years who knows what might happen? As mention, it also depends on where in the country this sample was taken. If one half of people polled live under ghetto-like conditions in nearly Muslim-exclusive communities, they are obviously likely to become more isolated and conservative as it's easier to conform to the norms of a micro-society than to go against them and risk isolation. The same thing would happen with pretty much any other group if squeezed together in a new environment: They would become decreasingly liberal and increasingly fond of values they held pre-migration.

Anyways, that's a different discussion, let's just stick to the point that I don't think a poll of 1000 people is valid when you're with a figure hundreds of times bigger than that. It was a very exciting vote to watch as someone who enjoys stuff like this more than sports, etc. I am definitely worried about what consequences this might end up having in the long run, while it's unlikely to change the world in a day. I question whether or not it's the right decision as someone who is critical of the EU but not a right-winger or interested in leaving at this point in time.

I mean, I honestly get a lot of the non-immigration issues. There are some good points to be made about why the EU isn't working as intended. I'm just not sure that I think it's really the right time, and I feel like David Cameron really wasn't prepared for how this might turn against him and change the world far beyond the borders of the UK. This is not an isolated event after all, and it's something that could have very severe consequences for at least half a billion people in the years to come.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that, as quite a few smarter people than me seem to agree, leaving the EU isn't going to do much to change migration-issues. Indeed the effects may not be felt for 2 years in terms of policy-changes within the UK itself, meaning that the whole migrant-crisis could be over and dealt with by the time the actual exit happens. Then people voting to leave on that account will potentially have voted for nothing.

[consortium11]

The whole thing going on with immigration did seem a bit the key of why people were pushing for Brexit.  One of the British commentators I follow - a gay libertarian named Milo Yiannopolous - noted that there was a Gallup poll detailing the attitudes of Muslims living in the UK.  According to the pool, out of 1000 British Muslims:

52% said homosexuality should be illegal (vs 11% of the general population)
47% said gays shouldn't be allowed to teach in schools (vs 14%)
40% said that a woman should always obey her husband (vs 5%)
35% said that Jews had too much power (vs 9%)

Sociological commentary on the poll suggested that, in contrast to most trends, Muslims who leave the Middle East and live in the West do not become more liberal, but more conservative.

Now, this is but one specific aspect of what's been happening, but I think worry and fear of the possibility of allowing in more immigrants - whether or not they're refugees or simply economic migrants - who hold these attitudes.  Not to mention the problems that I've been hearing with the failure of immigrants to assimilate into the national culture (which is one of the key components of a national identity, which you need to be a nation).

That's not really relevant to this discussion though... as the highlighted part indicates. Our status in or out of the EU has very little to do with how we handle immigration from the Middle East and demographically EU immigrants are more likely to be Roman Catholic than Muslim.



So, quick post-mortem.

1) In many ways this followed a similar pattern to the Scottish Independance referendum. One side needed to rely on urban centres and while they did well there it wasn't enough to make up for virtually the rest of the country going against them, especially with a relatively underperforming turnout in those places and some of the victories being far narrower than expected.

2) Both campaigns were pretty negative overall but at least the Leave side actually put forward a somewhat positive vision of what life outside the EU could be like. Pretty much all of the Remain campaign's arguemnts broke down to saying "listen, we're so rubbish we can't make it with the EU propping us up" and the closest thing to a positive statement on the EU from them was basically "yes, we know there's a lot wrong with it but we'll reform it eventually"... something we've been told for decades and lacking even more power when the attempts to reform by Cameron in the buildup to this got very few actual results. Now, those points may or may not be true... but it's hardly an inspiring message to take to the electorate.

3) Kythia's mentioned this above but Labour going AWOL for the majority of the debate meant that one could be mistaken for thinking it was an internal Tory referendum with UKIP popping up every weeks to make some stupid claim and get some headlines. There were centre right visions for life both in and out of the EU from the Conservatives and there were at least some centre left visions from the Labour figures who did support Leave but in terms of a centre-left vision really saying why we should stay in? Not so much.

4) Part of that is the fact that Labour (and the left in general) is caught up in a battle for its own identity that the EU serves as a great example of and appears more and more with each election. "Old Labour" had its powerbase with the traditional working class in industrial towns... the sort of people who are extremely worried by immigration and the like. But from at least Blair onwards Labour has had far more of a metropolitan, upper-middle class twist with a supporting act of immigrant and "minority" (for lack of a better term) communities. You can see that in the results here; the North East (traditional Labour heartland) was pretty heavily leave while London (modern Labour's heartland) was almost entirely remain.

5) More of an addition to the last point than a new one, you could see Corbyn's struggles to articulate or support his positions whenever he spoke; many of his interviews sounded more like a Leave campaign speech then for someone who wanted the UK to remain in. My suspicion is that in a free world Corbyn would have actually gone for leave himself but a combination of political advisors and a distate for sharing a platform with UKIP and the Leave side of the Tory party meant he bit his tongue and went through the motions of supporting the Remain campaign.

6) Whoever in the Remain campaign thought that getting foreign leaders/figures to deliver "stay in or else" type messages, even if they were far more polite and nuanced then that in reality, needs a big pay rise from the Leave campaign. I can't see how anyone thought that what could easily be presented as foreigners scolding the UK electorate to do what they're told would be a good idea.

7) Like him or hate him Cameron has previously proven himself one of the most effective campaigners in recent UK history; while he may not have always taken up official positions it wasn't exactly hard to spot that he supported what became the winning side in both the electoral system and Scottish independence referendums while also winning a shock majority in the last election. But effective campaigner or not, Cameron was outgunned and outnumbered here. Leave could bring out Farage for the attack dog stuff, Grove for the more "academic" approach or Johnson for bumbling charm. Remain? They had Cameron and that's about it when it comes to leaders. One man can only do so much... and it's a strange thing to think that Cameron was about 2% of the vote away from becoming one of the great statesmen of our time.

[Kythia]

Per your point seven, and slightly off topic but say what you want about Cameron I don't think you can fault his political bravery. For me it was pushing through gay marriage in the face of his own party. I'm not sure he'll survive this, my money is that he will, but I think he will be a loss if he doesn't. Frankly I'm not sure Corbyn can survive this either, and it seems pretty clear he'd be less of a loss.

[gaggedLouise]

*wakes uo and finds that the answer is NO*

It is definitely going to spark new discussions along the same lines in a couple of other countries, including Sweden and Denmark. Perhaps Poland too, right?  ::)

[consortium11]

Per your point seven, and slightly off topic but say what you want about Cameron I don't think you can fault his political bravery. For me it was pushing through gay marriage in the face of his own party. I'm not sure he'll survive this, my money is that he will, but I think he will be a loss if he doesn't. Frankly I'm not sure Corbyn can survive this either, and it seems pretty clear he'd be less of a loss.

Corbyn will keep bumbling along... the Labour party aren't ruthless enough when it comes to their leaders and the fact he's got a pretty nasty attack dog unit wanting to take chunks out of the rest of the party at the best of times will mean already reticent MP's aren't going to want to rock the boat.. Frankly I think Corbyn wishes he'd never run for party leader; he was living a perfect happy life as a backbencher who had little responsibility and could do what he wanted but now he finds himself in a job he's clearly and obvious completely out of his depth in. This referendum would have been the perfect chance for him to establish himself and his vision while the Conservatives ate each other... instead he shirked his responsibility. In some ways even worse because the ongoing "The Tory's are split over Europe" weakness is no longer ongoing; at this point whether a Conservative is a Eurosceptic or a Europhile has no practical relevance any more. The Tory's have cut off the head of one of their great weaknesses... and Corbyn barely challenged them let alone took advantage.

Circumstances may have somewhat demanded it but it's been under Cameron's watch that three lingering (or should that be festering...) issues that I suspect few, if any, expected to ever become referendums. That takes political guts as does the point you make about him staring down some of the old guard of his party. A similar but less poitnent point can be made with regards to HS2; the planned route takes it pretty much straight through some traditional Tory shires and as such has got the expected complaints.

I think Cameron will survive, at least in the short-to-medium term. There's little to gain for the party by discarding him now and I don't think any of the likely future leaders are in a position to take over. Give it two years... enough time for Osbourne to try and rebuild his reputation, Boris to add some more "serious" elements to his act, Grove to carve out his territory nad May to raise her head above the parapet... and I can see it but right now? Not so much. Of course, I could be proven wrong during this upcoming press conference.

[gaggedLouise]

Cameron just stated he is planning to see a new party leader and PM in place before the next Tory conference in the autumn.

[gaggedLouise]

The voting breakdown by regions gives a really sharp image of a nation split down the middle. Strong REMAIN majorities in London, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and a resounding LEAVE vote in all other regions (Wales is close to the national result).

It's not a big surprise that London feels more in on the EU ride ticket and on "big Europe" aspirations than many other parts of the country. If the same kind of referendum happened in Sweden and Denmark (and this is something people will start pushing for over time) you'd likely get a STAY in the capital cities (and financial/ corporate motors of the two countries) but a LEAVE in most other regions.

[TheGlyphstone]

It's a little late, but this might lighten the mood a little:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/CatsForBrexit?src=hash

vs

https://twitter.com/hashtag/CatsAgainstBrexit?src=hash

[Kythia]

Cameron just stated he is planning to see a new party leader and PM in place before the next Tory conference in the autumn.

Prime Minister Gove or Prime Minister Johnson then.

[Renegade Vile]

I've always been on the fence about this. Europe is a corrupt amalgamation made to serve the rich, but at the same time, it also creates significant safety in numbers and support. Belgium, believe it or not, has had a very troubled history with the EU. By and large, Flanders has been opposed to it, while Walloonia has been largely pro. If a referendum like that was done over here, I would not be surprised if Belgium left the EU as well (which would be quite hilarious, given Brussels' position). I'd normally applaud the decision, as the EU is a shell of what it was once intended to be, but at the same time, now is -not- the moment to be doing it. Most economies are still reeling from the crisis and there isn't that much improvement on the horizon. Having personal experience with what the economy in the UK is like right now, this is only going to make people poorer because I don't think the UK can handle the hit to their economy right now. Maybe quite a few years ago? Sure. But right now? *winces*

I don't know how to feel about this, honestly. I'm opposed to the EU as it is in its current state, but pro in what it was originally intended to be.
Ah well, we'll see what happens. This won't solve anything for the UK though, its politicians will remain a collection of corrupt idiots, as is the case everywhere. They've just gotten rid of some idiots from a different organization.

[TaintedAndDelish]

This change in the value of Sterling and the Euro is not just a knee jerk reaction. The things that gave the Euro and Sterling value are being changed, so both are declining in value as those who hold these currencies move their money elsewhere. If I have a million British pounds and I know that the pound will decrease in value by even a few percentage points, I would be a fool to not exchange those pounds for a more stable currency.  In this example, not exchanging my hypothetical million pounds for say US Dollars or Yen would cost me 10,000 gbp for each percentage point lost. I believe the pound fell by something like %15 overnight. That's  something like a loss of 150,000 pounds per million.  The up side to having a currency that is worth less is that its good if you are exporting stuff. In this case, you would make %15 more... but then the whole trade agreement bit comes into play.

[gaggedLouise]

Prime Minister Gove or Prime Minister Johnson then.

An exit process navigated by PM Boris and his guys sounds like a nightmare...but at the same time I think this referendum shows the downside of top politicians hedging their bets too heavily on institutions that are not really accountable in a democratic sense - but which are supposed to last forever (just because some godfathers and eurocrats said they would).

The UK isn't the only country where politicians have been trying hard to brush any questions on "what do we want the EU to be? what sort of authority do we want it to hold on us?" out of the way. Here in Sweden politicans are sometimes using "it's what the EU says, so we must follow" or "we want to be part of the club, don't we?" as evasive excuses, and sometimes as a way of pushing political issues out of reach for real political debate. EU- and Europe-related questions absolutely *never* make an appearance in any normal election campaigns with the mainstream parties, except in the Euro parliament runs which are brief parentheses with a low voter turnout. Both politicians and ordinary voters know that in some ways, the EUP is a Mickey Mouse parliament (to borrow Thatcher's eloquent phrase) and the European commission (the de facto "government" of the EU) sometimes a dumping ground for politicians that wouldn't cut it in the national cabinets anymore  :P - but there's a tacit agreement never to bring those questions, or any "too hot" Europe-related topics, up in day-to-day debate, or even in most newspapers here.

Also, I can recognize the lofty ideal ambitions of the EU, but I can't see any realistic way of getting there from the state the EU has been digging into over the last ten years or so. It's only getting more bureaucratic, more jumbled and less accountable (even corrupt sometimes).

[Cassandra LeMay]

Also, I can recognize the lofty ideal ambitions of the EU, but I can't see any realistic way of getting there from the state the EU has been digging into over the last ten years or so. It's only getting more bureaucratic, more jumbled and less accountable (even corrupt sometimes).

National governments have always been bureaucratic, jumbled, and unaccountable, even way before the EU. The EU is just an easy target to blame all that on while ignoring the fact that national governments are just as messed up. I think for many people claiming that "our government could be great if only for the EU" is just a way to excuse themselves for electing politicians who supported those "bad" decisions in the first place. The politicians you elected didn't reign in the EU? Who is to blame? The EU, or just maybe you for electing those politicians? Really? Me? My vote? Of course not!

(Please note that I am employing a wee bit of hyperbole here and do not intend to use "you" in the sense of adressing any specific reader personally.)

[Renegade Vile]

National governments have always been bureaucratic, jumbled, and unaccountable, even way before the EU. The EU is just an easy target to blame all that on while ignoring the fact that national governments are just as messed up. I think for many people claiming that "our government could be great if only for the EU" is just a way to excuse themselves for electing politicians who supported those "bad" decisions in the first place.

I agree, the problems won't magically disappear now.

[Kythia]

Initial market reaction seems to have settled. Cost us around two hundred billion pounds today so far and I'd imagine that number will go up not down.

[Nadir]

There's a slight silver lining to that - it's a taste of what will happen if the UK does leave (this vote was nothing more than a strawpoll, and as legally binding) which will hopefully keep the MPs from voting 'leave' right out the gate. The debate will probably be batted around for a couple of years to give the illusion they are considering it, then quietly shot when the public find something else to freak out over. 

*crosses fingers*

(also, wow, Farage does the fastest U-turn on his over inflated promise real fast)

[gaggedLouise]

It would be like the Eagles put it, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave".  :P

[Nadir]

* Dim Hon laughs

thank you, Louise, I needed that~

[Kythia]

There's a slight silver lining to that - it's a taste of what will happen if the UK does leave (this vote was nothing more than a strawpoll, and as legally binding) which will hopefully keep the MPs from voting 'leave' right out the gate. The debate will probably be batted around for a couple of years to give the illusion they are considering it, then quietly shot when the public find something else to freak out over. 

*crosses fingers*

(also, wow, Farage does the fastest U-turn on his over inflated promise real fast)

I'd be very very surprised if that's what happens. Hope to hod it does and we're granted a second chance but that's not really what is being suggested.

[Nadir]

shhhh I'm in denial

[Lilias]

Well, Little Britain doesn't exactly have the same kind of ring, does it? ;D

[gaggedLouise]

Well, Mr.Juncker said just before the referendum that if there was a Remain win there would be nothing further that Cameron could get in negotiations with the EU, no further whittling down on anything (and this likely helped the Exit side) but he may just have been trying a tough tactic. perhaps showing off that "if the Brits vote out, they won't be getting an easy ride either, so watch your step" .- without coming right out and saying it.   ;)

Maybe have to count in that some of the things politicians would be saying, in the UK and in Europe, will be more about position fighting or about trying to stick to a certain line than about their real limits to what they're gonna accept.

Also, I think Kythia had a very good point somewhere up this thread that there's no way the Commonwealth could really make up for the EU, not as trade partners, nor as political brothers on the world stage. Not in the short term anyway, let's say the next decade or two.

[AmberStarfire]

This concerns me personally. The only reason I can live and work here in Ireland is because I have EU treaty rights. I'm not sure what this means for me being here. At the moment I have my papers in order until 2019, but after that (I don't think before it) I may lose all rights to be here.