5 ms·

Britain is sailing into a storm with no one at the wheel

44 points by Turukawa 10y ago

saltvedt 10y ago
Renowned British historian Timothy Garton Ash[1] wrote a very good comment in The Guardian, which takes a step back and considers some of the larger picture: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/lifelong-english-european-the-biggest-defeat-of-my-political-life-timothy-garton-ash-brexit http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/2... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash
- alexchantavy 10y ago
  Great read, thanks very much
arethuza 10y ago
I noticed that on Question Time one of the panel mentioned the possibility of a "Government of National Unity" - which is something the UK hasn't had since 1945 and the end of WW2. Still requires a leader to stand up and become PM though.
- Someone 10y ago
  But what's the alternative? Without a government of national unity, stepping up to become prime minister doesn't look like a smart career move at all. I see this eventually (but hopefully soon) going to elections. I guess the best (or rather, least bad) possible follow-up would be that some parties put "we won't follow the outcome of the referendum" as #1 issue in their campaign, with those parties getting a decent majority (2/3 or more) of votes that way. That would be bad for the UK (they would lose negotiation power with the EU, as their continuous threat of leaving would have lost credibility), but probably not as bad as Scotland breaking of the UK. An alternative would be to have new parties pop up playing the "we won't leave" card, and getting reasonable support. That is unlikely in Britain's first past the post system, though. And of course, for both options, it probably must go bad for the UK soon for large amounts of pro-brexit voters to change their minds. Edit: reading http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-t..., it seems Boris is maneuvering to get the PM post in such a way it won't be poisonous for him. I don't see how the EU would accept the "we are leaving, but want to keep all the table silver" kind of divorce that he is advocating, though. Yes, as Switzerland and Norway show, you can get some of the EU niceties without being part of the EU, but that doesn't mean you can cherry-pick what you want (for example, Switzerland is fairly tied to the EU https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_r...)
- davidgerard 10y ago
  Cameron leaving was a poison pill - whichever idiot takes over as Tory leader will be faced with having this blitheringly stupid idea attached to their name forever, or torpedoing themselves out the gate by not going forward with it. (What will actually happen is some glib fool will come forward who actually thinks it's a good idea. They're not short on those.)
rrggrr 10y ago
If 1940's Germany or 1970's Soviets had wanted to decapitate British leadership they could have done little better than this. It would be nice if the Queen were to exercise Royal Perogative - quickly - and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. In this way, the Queen could minimally pacify all sides and Britain could extricate itself from this quagmire with some face intact. She would set herself above the fray and if the EU objected it would be Brussels at fault thereafter.
- arethuza 10y ago
  She could maybe do something like that, but it would probably mean the end of the Royal family, who do have power but are arguably only allowed to have power on the strict understanding they don't use it. The last thing we need is the chaos of the Royals becoming mixed up in all of this. [Edit: I'm a very mild republican - but I'd be happiest if the Royals decided for themselves that the current state of affairs is a bit silly and they decided to do something else. Also if the alternative is an elected political president as HoS then I'll keep the Royals.]
  - rrggrr 10y ago
    No. This was a protest vote and I seriously doubt the actual consequences are what the majority of voters actually want. A move by the Royal Family now would secure their position for a hundred years to come and keep the Kingdom together.
- Xylakant 10y ago
  > and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU. You can't honor all other obligations without honoring this one. The ironic twist is that for people from new EU member states, there is a transitional phase where movement and work permits can be restricted and the UK explicitly opted out in the case of Poland, because at that time they were in dire need of cheap labor - and now they're complaining. In any case, there's no question at the moment if the UK needs to honor all EU membership obligations: Until the UK government decides to invoke the exit clause, the UK is a full member with all privileges and all obligations - and it seem they're not in a rush to do so. However, I fully expect them to be sidelined in all upcoming negotiations, especially the ones that don't require an unanimous vote. They've already thrown away the improvements that Cameron negotiated in February, those were under reserve of not leaving the EU. Fun times ahead, for sure.
vonklaus 10y ago
Every single article I have read had indicated this is terrible. I have seen a lot of people who would I guess be classified in America as progressive liberals, e.g. the types who speak of privelege and safe-spaces, decrying how the country has gone to ruin via fascism. Just in general, younger people seem to be totally against this. All the 'economists' on CNN, FOX, Bloomberg, ect are saying this was stupid and economically catastrophic. All this is to say, everyone has pretty much decided this is terrible for Britain. Is it? I have seen some data and understand that they will lose an outsize ability to steer European affairs and that they will lose out economically because they contribute less to the euro union than they net back. However, there hasn't been much explanation other than sillyness and name calling. What did they gain, and honestly why is this so negative. There hasn't been a particularly strong or cohesive explanation other than saying Cameron is an idiot and the world is over?
- jessriedel 10y ago
  I don't really disagree with that, but it seems only tangential to the OP article. "The storm" here is the process of Britain extricating itself from the EU, which everyone agrees will be very complicated and messy regardless of whether Brexit is net good or bad. The Economist is just arguing that a power vacuum at the start of this process is bad.
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    And that the "Leave" campaign seriously did not expect to win and had literally no plan for winning. They certainly didn't expect Cameron to go "you know what, bugger this." Hence Johnson and Gove's faces on Friday morning.
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      That's the ultimate crime here. This was really all about the personal ambitions of Cameron, Johnson, and Gove. They were using the vote to gain control over the government. It's doubtful if they're even particularly Eurosceptic. What they've actually done is broken apart the UK, destabilised Europe, and rocked the world economy. All for personal gain - and now they've won it, it has turned into something they really don't want to deal with. Honestly, they should be imprisoned for this for the rest of their natural lives. The most applicable crime is treason. Because if this isn't repaired, the UK will literally be over - politically, economically, socially, and culturally. The absolute best that can happen here is that the EU reconsiders some of its neoliberal arrogance and becomes more accountable, the UK has a referendum or election with an honest promise of a new relationship, and somehow everyone moves on, with some new and more reasonable faces in charge. The absolute worst doesn't bear thinking about, so I really hope we don't end up there instead.
PaulHoule 10y ago
Reading the economist lately I note they are going on with the same neoliberal patter that they always have, little oblivious to the fact that neoliberalism is what we got to this place. (A few weeks ago they were gushing about a congressman from Nebraska who had an intellectual epiphany when he learned there was a town named Chicago with a University of Chicago in it that has an economic department...) If they showed some empathy for the "little people" from time to time, things might have worked out differently.
- zzalpha 10y ago
  Care to comment on this article specifically, or are we now reduced to simply throwing out hollow partisan platitudes?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- fleitz 10y ago
  I see it more as the right finally being able to put together a coherent identity politics strategy. I think it has little to do with the ideology much to do with strategy.
DonaldFisk 10y ago
http://news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-plan http://news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-p...
lifeisstillgood 10y ago
The positive things that could happen are all European - that is the rest of Europe could take this as a wake up call and start dismantling the "bureaucracy" and giving member states electorate more direct access to decisions. This is apparently being talked about (cf Politico) But there is almost nothing positive UK can do. All our moves depend on others. Negotiating treaties with EU, India, cutting immigration, introducing trade barriers. All of it we cannot unilaterally do without breaching serious treaties with serious consequences. And you don't do that without a clear mandate. And we don't have one. We are likely to have to have another referendum or general election just to discover what the plan actually is. I mean did the British electorate just vote for sending home immigrants now? For reducing net migration to 10,000 pa? To erecting tariffs on Steel imports? How the duck does one ask that of an electorate? Ballot papers would look like crossword puzzles. Nothing discussed in the election actually represented the serious expectation they would win. And now they did. Chances are high Boris will turn round tomorrow and prevaricate. "Not turning out backs on Europe" And this will tear the right wing apart. A large chunk of voters thought we were really leaving the EU, actually going. This time Farage will be able to convert those people into MPs in the inevitable general election. And we will have a three way split in the right wing - remain camp, Boris leave and Farage leave, probably sharing 1/3 of the middle and right wing. Add the SNP in and a weaker labour and there will be six or so parties none of whom are strong enough and no tradition of coalition. This power vacuum will last for years.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Tack onto this the extreme increase in boldness from SNP - they're no longer taking about just a second referendum, but about negotiating directly with the EU about how Scotland can remain in, and about talks with London. And the instant demands for a referendum on Northern Ireland. And the fact that we now have a small but serious (amid a much larger signed-a-petition-for-the-hell-of-it crowd [1]) starting to work towards independence for London - it's too early to tell if it will turn into something lasting, but there are people working on drawing up plans to create an actual political party. This will be a circus. And it's virtually certain at this point that the UK will no longer be united in 5 years time. The question now is whether it'll be just Scotland that leaves, or if Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will follow. London won't happen anytime soon - most of those signing the petition for London independence will have forgotten about it in days -, but expect substantial further devolution to all the major cities over the coming years to try to prevent such movements from actually gaining traction. Westminster will have the choice between being left stripped of power or stripped of land. This referendum will be remembered as the start pistol for the dismantling of the UK. [1] https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independent-from-the-uk-and-apply-to-join-the-eu https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independe...
caf 10y ago
Frankly they're lucky that Cameron didn't just resign on the spot. "You break it, you bought it. Cameron out."
- branchless 10y ago
  Except Cameron greatly weakened the uk by resorting to printing through land.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    I don't understand. What does printing through land mean?
    - adwf 10y ago
      I'm guessing he means helping inflate the housing bubble as a means of pumping our GDP. The UK may be one of the fastest recovering economies since the recession, but a lot of the growth is in housing. And if you don't happen to live in the south-east where the housing pressure is at its worst, you probably aren't benefiting from it at all. Hence the North/South divide in the referendum.
      - branchless 10y ago
        Nobody benefits from it except he money issuers. It's not growth it's inflation.
        x0x0 10y ago
        At least in sf, landlords do incredibly well for themselves...
    - jlu 10y ago
      wanna know++

44 points by Turukawa 10y ago

Renowned British historian Timothy Garton Ash[1] wrote a very good comment in The Guardian, which takes a step back and considers some of the larger picture: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/lifelong-english-european-the-biggest-defeat-of-my-political-life-timothy-garton-ash-brexit http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/2... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash

alexchantavy 10y ago
Great read, thanks very much

arethuza 10y ago

I noticed that on Question Time one of the panel mentioned the possibility of a "Government of National Unity" - which is something the UK hasn't had since 1945 and the end of WW2. Still requires a leader to stand up and become PM though.

Someone 10y ago
But what's the alternative? Without a government of national unity, stepping up to become prime minister doesn't look like a smart career move at all. I see this eventually (but hopefully soon) going to elections. I guess the best (or rather, least bad) possible follow-up would be that some parties put "we won't follow the outcome of the referendum" as #1 issue in their campaign, with those parties getting a decent majority (2/3 or more) of votes that way. That would be bad for the UK (they would lose negotiation power with the EU, as their continuous threat of leaving would have lost credibility), but probably not as bad as Scotland breaking of the UK. An alternative would be to have new parties pop up playing the "we won't leave" card, and getting reasonable support. That is unlikely in Britain's first past the post system, though. And of course, for both options, it probably must go bad for the UK soon for large amounts of pro-brexit voters to change their minds. Edit: reading http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-t..., it seems Boris is maneuvering to get the PM post in such a way it won't be poisonous for him. I don't see how the EU would accept the "we are leaving, but want to keep all the table silver" kind of divorce that he is advocating, though. Yes, as Switzerland and Norway show, you can get some of the EU niceties without being part of the EU, but that doesn't mean you can cherry-pick what you want (for example, Switzerland is fairly tied to the EU https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_relations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_r...)
davidgerard 10y ago
Cameron leaving was a poison pill - whichever idiot takes over as Tory leader will be faced with having this blitheringly stupid idea attached to their name forever, or torpedoing themselves out the gate by not going forward with it. (What will actually happen is some glib fool will come forward who actually thinks it's a good idea. They're not short on those.)

rrggrr 10y ago

If 1940's Germany or 1970's Soviets had wanted to decapitate British leadership they could have done little better than this. It would be nice if the Queen were to exercise Royal Perogative - quickly - and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. In this way, the Queen could minimally pacify all sides and Britain could extricate itself from this quagmire with some face intact. She would set herself above the fray and if the EU objected it would be Brussels at fault thereafter.

arethuza 10y ago
She could maybe do something like that, but it would probably mean the end of the Royal family, who do have power but are arguably only allowed to have power on the strict understanding they don't use it. The last thing we need is the chaos of the Royals becoming mixed up in all of this. [Edit: I'm a very mild republican - but I'd be happiest if the Royals decided for themselves that the current state of affairs is a bit silly and they decided to do something else. Also if the alternative is an elected political president as HoS then I'll keep the Royals.]
- rrggrr 10y ago
  No. This was a protest vote and I seriously doubt the actual consequences are what the majority of voters actually want. A move by the Royal Family now would secure their position for a hundred years to come and keep the Kingdom together.
Xylakant 10y ago
> and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU. You can't honor all other obligations without honoring this one. The ironic twist is that for people from new EU member states, there is a transitional phase where movement and work permits can be restricted and the UK explicitly opted out in the case of Poland, because at that time they were in dire need of cheap labor - and now they're complaining. In any case, there's no question at the moment if the UK needs to honor all EU membership obligations: Until the UK government decides to invoke the exit clause, the UK is a full member with all privileges and all obligations - and it seem they're not in a rush to do so. However, I fully expect them to be sidelined in all upcoming negotiations, especially the ones that don't require an unanimous vote. They've already thrown away the improvements that Cameron negotiated in February, those were under reserve of not leaving the EU. Fun times ahead, for sure.

vonklaus 10y ago

Every single article I have read had indicated this is terrible. I have seen a lot of people who would I guess be classified in America as progressive liberals, e.g. the types who speak of privelege and safe-spaces, decrying how the country has gone to ruin via fascism. Just in general, younger people seem to be totally against this. All the 'economists' on CNN, FOX, Bloomberg, ect are saying this was stupid and economically catastrophic. All this is to say, everyone has pretty much decided this is terrible for Britain. Is it? I have seen some data and understand that they will lose an outsize ability to steer European affairs and that they will lose out economically because they contribute less to the euro union than they net back. However, there hasn't been much explanation other than sillyness and name calling. What did they gain, and honestly why is this so negative. There hasn't been a particularly strong or cohesive explanation other than saying Cameron is an idiot and the world is over?

jessriedel 10y ago
I don't really disagree with that, but it seems only tangential to the OP article. "The storm" here is the process of Britain extricating itself from the EU, which everyone agrees will be very complicated and messy regardless of whether Brexit is net good or bad. The Economist is just arguing that a power vacuum at the start of this process is bad.
- davidgerard 10y ago
  And that the "Leave" campaign seriously did not expect to win and had literally no plan for winning. They certainly didn't expect Cameron to go "you know what, bugger this." Hence Johnson and Gove's faces on Friday morning.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    That's the ultimate crime here. This was really all about the personal ambitions of Cameron, Johnson, and Gove. They were using the vote to gain control over the government. It's doubtful if they're even particularly Eurosceptic. What they've actually done is broken apart the UK, destabilised Europe, and rocked the world economy. All for personal gain - and now they've won it, it has turned into something they really don't want to deal with. Honestly, they should be imprisoned for this for the rest of their natural lives. The most applicable crime is treason. Because if this isn't repaired, the UK will literally be over - politically, economically, socially, and culturally. The absolute best that can happen here is that the EU reconsiders some of its neoliberal arrogance and becomes more accountable, the UK has a referendum or election with an honest promise of a new relationship, and somehow everyone moves on, with some new and more reasonable faces in charge. The absolute worst doesn't bear thinking about, so I really hope we don't end up there instead.

PaulHoule 10y ago

Reading the economist lately I note they are going on with the same neoliberal patter that they always have, little oblivious to the fact that neoliberalism is what we got to this place. (A few weeks ago they were gushing about a congressman from Nebraska who had an intellectual epiphany when he learned there was a town named Chicago with a University of Chicago in it that has an economic department...) If they showed some empathy for the "little people" from time to time, things might have worked out differently.

zzalpha 10y ago
Care to comment on this article specifically, or are we now reduced to simply throwing out hollow partisan platitudes?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
fleitz 10y ago
I see it more as the right finally being able to put together a coherent identity politics strategy. I think it has little to do with the ideology much to do with strategy.

DonaldFisk 10y ago

http://news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-plan http://news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-p...

lifeisstillgood 10y ago

The positive things that could happen are all European - that is the rest of Europe could take this as a wake up call and start dismantling the "bureaucracy" and giving member states electorate more direct access to decisions. This is apparently being talked about (cf Politico) But there is almost nothing positive UK can do. All our moves depend on others. Negotiating treaties with EU, India, cutting immigration, introducing trade barriers. All of it we cannot unilaterally do without breaching serious treaties with serious consequences. And you don't do that without a clear mandate. And we don't have one. We are likely to have to have another referendum or general election just to discover what the plan actually is. I mean did the British electorate just vote for sending home immigrants now? For reducing net migration to 10,000 pa? To erecting tariffs on Steel imports? How the duck does one ask that of an electorate? Ballot papers would look like crossword puzzles. Nothing discussed in the election actually represented the serious expectation they would win. And now they did. Chances are high Boris will turn round tomorrow and prevaricate. "Not turning out backs on Europe" And this will tear the right wing apart. A large chunk of voters thought we were really leaving the EU, actually going. This time Farage will be able to convert those people into MPs in the inevitable general election. And we will have a three way split in the right wing - remain camp, Boris leave and Farage leave, probably sharing 1/3 of the middle and right wing. Add the SNP in and a weaker labour and there will be six or so parties none of whom are strong enough and no tradition of coalition. This power vacuum will last for years.

vidarh 10y ago
Tack onto this the extreme increase in boldness from SNP - they're no longer taking about just a second referendum, but about negotiating directly with the EU about how Scotland can remain in, and about talks with London. And the instant demands for a referendum on Northern Ireland. And the fact that we now have a small but serious (amid a much larger signed-a-petition-for-the-hell-of-it crowd [1]) starting to work towards independence for London - it's too early to tell if it will turn into something lasting, but there are people working on drawing up plans to create an actual political party. This will be a circus. And it's virtually certain at this point that the UK will no longer be united in 5 years time. The question now is whether it'll be just Scotland that leaves, or if Northern Ireland and Gibraltar will follow. London won't happen anytime soon - most of those signing the petition for London independence will have forgotten about it in days -, but expect substantial further devolution to all the major cities over the coming years to try to prevent such movements from actually gaining traction. Westminster will have the choice between being left stripped of power or stripped of land. This referendum will be remembered as the start pistol for the dismantling of the UK. [1] https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independent-from-the-uk-and-apply-to-join-the-eu https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independe...

caf 10y ago

Frankly they're lucky that Cameron didn't just resign on the spot. "You break it, you bought it. Cameron out."

branchless 10y ago
Except Cameron greatly weakened the uk by resorting to printing through land.
- x0x0 10y ago
  I don't understand. What does printing through land mean?
  - adwf 10y ago
    I'm guessing he means helping inflate the housing bubble as a means of pumping our GDP. The UK may be one of the fastest recovering economies since the recession, but a lot of the growth is in housing. And if you don't happen to live in the south-east where the housing pressure is at its worst, you probably aren't benefiting from it at all. Hence the North/South divide in the referendum.
    - branchless 10y ago
      Nobody benefits from it except he money issuers. It's not growth it's inflation.
      - x0x0 10y ago
        At least in sf, landlords do incredibly well for themselves...
  - jlu 10y ago
    wanna know++