Oolite Bulletins

Alas, I think



is more likely ... not least because

Donald Tusk wrote:

"As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety," he told the German newspaper Bild.

Is that a real quote? Or have the BBC mistranslated it?

And you thought you were kidding about the zombie apocalypse!

Kidding? Moi? The ZA is real - even Amazon think so!

One thing that does worry me is the domino effect - a shortage of pizza could have unknown consequences!

Cody wrote:

...a shortage of pizza could have unknown consequences!

Indeed!

As a french, I would like the UK to brexit.
Here's why :
- one less country in the EU with a special status,
- the City would be outside of the EU; the european (mainly german) trade places would be advantaged, the european operations of the City would be more regulated,
- parts of the UK would integrate the EU: at least scotland and ireland; we wouldn't lose so much people, but would gain cooperative governments,
- the England, which is often in favor of USA rather than Europe, would be weakened,
- the sterling pound would be less used in favor of the Euro (less used for transactions, implying less used as a reserve currency, implying more volatile),
- finally the partition of UK would have some interesting advantages too: sovereign powers (I didn't find a satisfying translation for régalien, which means specific to the state, in that a state cannot avoid these powers without ceasing to be a state) would be transfered to Ireland, Scotland, etc, and international relations too (meaning spying, army, etc).

NB, this is not personal: every english people I met personaly outside of work was lovely.

Day wrote:

the partition of UK [...] Ireland, Scotland, etc.

Ireland is a separate, sovereign state - has been since at least 1937 - and a member of the EU in its own right (the Republic of Ireland - drew 1-1 with Sweden the other night). Northern Ireland (beaten 1-0 by Poland on Sunday) is not part of the nation of Ireland, but is part of the UK. Although the majority of people in Northern Ireland seem - according to most opinion polls - to be strongly in favour of remaining in the EU, I think it's unlikely that the UK leaving the EU will cause Northern Ireland to split with the UK (although the decades of economic turmoil, and the dominance of UK politics by the Little Englander-Clown Wing of the Conservative Party, will not do the Northern Irish Unionist cause any favours).

The people of Scotland are also (again, according to opinion polls) strongly in favour of remaining part of the EU. There is a much greater possibility of a second Scottish independence referendum if the UK leaves the EU, although the politics here are problematic: the Scots voted 55%-45% in favour of staying in the UK in 2014, and although the SNP is now the dominant force in Scottish politics it's by no means guaranteed that another referendum would result in a vote in favour of secession (but see above re. the economic turmoil which can be expected as the spivs try to turn London into Europe's offshore tax-haven: I suspect the main impetus behind Brexit is a fear of EU banking regulation). The SNP will not want to be bounced into a second referendum if they think they won't win it: two defeats in quick succession would kill the issue for a generation, at least. There's also the issue that the Scottish government cannot legally call a referendum without the permission of Westminster, although if a Scottish government is elected on a platform of calling a referendum, it would make a mockery of democracy if Westminster was to refuse (although see my earlier post re. the UK and democracy).

The most dangerous issue here is that the deprived parts of England (essentially, everywhere outside the propertied classes in the bottom right-hand corner) are being gulled into voting to leave the EU because they're desperate for something - anything - to change, and the EU have been blamed for their woes. The fundamental problem with the UK, though, is that although the Empire has gone, the structures, habits and expectations of Empire remain. All wealth is channeled into the centre (by which I mean the bottom right-hand corner), where it stays: see this article for some startling statistics, e.g.

At the end of 2011, the IPPR North thinktank totted up all the government's spending on transport projects up till 2015. Londoners enjoyed public investment of £2,731 per head, far outstripping any other region. The north-east received a measly £5 per head.

In the past, the UK drained money from India, Africa etc. and poured it into itself: now it drains money from all the parts of the UK and pours it into London.

The EU actually has a redistributive effect in the UK: the UK pays into the EU, and EU money is spent in deprived parts of the UK because successive Westminster governments don't and won't. If we leave the EU, this will cease, and will mean that even less money gets spent outside the South-East. I don't think that the UK's political structure is capable of realigning itself: there's too much power and wealth invested in maintaining the status quo. What this will do to the social fabric of England is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't be surprised if it increases support for the far Right. It was only five years ago that there were riots in cities all across England, night after night, for several nights running. This is not a sign of a country happy and at ease with itself.

But ... as well ask an astrologer, as seek to predict the future with economics. History is chaotic, in a mathematical sense: tiny changes can have huge consequences, and predictions aren't worth much.

Damn! I'm no longer the lone voice in the wilderness!

Disembodied wrote:

But ... as well ask an astrologer, as seek to predict the future with economics. History is chaotic, in a mathematical sense: tiny changes can have huge consequences, and predictions aren't worth much.

<nods sagely>

Day wrote:

one less country in the EU with a special status

I totally agree with that. If we don't want to be fully in the EU we should withdraw and let the Eurozone get on with its political integration project unhindered.

While we're on the subject, my current favourite example of why the EU way of doing things might be less than optimal is this story about TTIP. The EU has been trying for quite some time to negotiate a free trade deal with the US, and it's run into a fundamental flaw with the EU - that of having to get the thing past 28 disparate nations, all of whom want something different out of the deal. So it's stalled. To get round that problem, the EU is having to utilise another fundamental flaw with its setup - the fact that the European Commission isn't properly accountable to anyone - to try and ramrod the thing through regardless.

Meanwhile, the global trade system is evolving in interesting ways which may mean an end to the big bang TTIP style trade deal favoured by the EU, possibly to be replaced with a more flexible, incremental approach to reducing trade barriers. The question is, is the EU flexible enough to adapt to this type of change, or is it going to be left behind, squabbling over its big deals?

The problem as I see it is that we could easily be left in a position where we can't effectively deal with the EU (because we're on the periphery, having avoided full political integration), and we can't deal with the rest of the world (because we're stuck in the EU, and wouldn't be able to act independently). So I think it's decision time: do we want to be in - properly in - or not? If all we want from the EU is Single Market access, then EFTA is probably a better fit for us, and if we want to throw out all the immigrants and head back to the stone age then Farage probably has plenty of good ideas on how to do that. Personally, I think jumping ship to EFTA would pay of in the long term, and while it's a gamble I don't think it's more of an gamble than staying in the EU.

kanthoney wrote:

If all we want from the EU is Single Market access, then EFTA is probably a better fit for us,

Totally agree, the loss of sovereignty at Maastricht (i.e. who sets the V.A.T. rate) was unforgivable and now is the only chance to reset the relationship. I think the boats on the Thames was a hoot, both campaigns are appalling, and yes we do need to work with our neighbours on things like fish stocks and trade deals. The Ireland-U.K. relationship predates all this by 50 years, but I do agree that the S.E. budget concentration needs to be avoided.

kanthoney wrote:

If all we want from the EU is Single Market access, then EFTA is probably a better fit for us, and if we want to throw out all the immigrants and head back to the stone age then Farage probably has plenty of good ideas on how to do that.

Being part of the EFTA, following the Norwegian model, would cost the UK around £2 billion per annum in fees (and with no EU investment coming back), and we'd have to accept EU trade rules - including free movement for EU citizens - while having no say on what those rules are. It would be a tricky political sell in the aftermath of a vote to leave, to say the least.

PS: Hi, Dr Beeb! Good to see you back again!

There's plenty of scope for influencing Single Market rules from outside the EU. That's because the EU is losing its grip on the Single Market - the EU standards are being replaced by global standards, as required by the WTO, and those standards are being negotiated by global bodies such as UNECE and ISO. So influencing Single Market rules would be a matter of joining those bodies. We'd actually have more say by doing that, as we wouldn't be compromised by having to find a common position with the rest of the EU.

The costs of Norway's EEA membership are discussed here, and depend in part on what EU programs Norway signs up to (Norway has a choice.)

A recent poll shows that 42% of leavers - together with most remainers - would back a Norway style option if we did Brexit, so maybe not that hard a sell.

At least Scotland has a referee at the Euros - that must be some comfort.

Wonder if getting booted out of the Euros would affect the Brexit vote?

That might depend on the nature of England's exit: whether it's due to the failings of their team, or the behaviour of their fans ...

With the vote coinciding with Euro 2016, England’s games could have a major bearing on the result. Imagine, as a footballer, stepping up to take a free kick late in the game and suddenly realising that the whole future of the continent as a political entity, the integrity of Nato and the progress of TTIP rests on it. The pressure will be too much for Ryan Bertrand and he will sky it.