Where do the EU and the UK go now?

[Simon_Jester]

The Lib Dem leader claims that if they win the now-inevitable-election, they intend to ignore the result of the referendum. Which sounds like a suicide note from Tim Farrons career.

Why is general election now considered inevetible?

Bevause the new PM will be considered 'unelected'?

And they won't need a majority of the votes to do it either, all they'd need to do is get enough seats with/without another Remain party as a coalition partner to prevent parliament from invoking article 50. It wouldn't be hard for them to do that either, especially as the Tories may split over this issue and UKIP will further split the right wing vote. You could easily have a situation where with just 35% of the vote the Liberal Democrats manage to win enough seats to undo the referendum.

For those in the Remain camp who want the referendum undone simply because you do not like the results, would you be comfortable with a minority government with a minority of the votes ignoring a referendum where the majority voted to leave? Do you think that "for the greater good" is a valid excuse for ignoring the will of the electorate when the rules on the referendum were clear? If that happens, do you think it will be a one-off, or will the government start using that as a an excuse for all sorts of things even more than they do now?

I think that if a minority government ignores the referendum in a parliamentary system, that's fine.

In a parliamentary system, I think it is acceptable for governments to resign rather do things they personally loathe, and frankly I think that's a great feature of a government. There are many circumstances where "we're disbanding this government and handing the job of moving forward to a successor" is exactly what the nation should say. American-style systems where all elections are held on a strict timetable don't permit this, which means it is effectively impossible to cause meaningful change in government except by waiting for an election cycle.

When it comes to momentous decisions like Leave/Remain, that's a handicap, because it leaves the consequences of the decision entirely in the hands of a government that was selected for reasons which have nothing to do with the decision.

For instance, the government the US would have selected to deal with the aftermath of 9/11 might not the government it actually had. If we'd gone into the election cycle expecting a major terrorist attack that would force us to fight a war, McCain (a military veteran) might have won the Republican primary over Bush (a draft dodger whose main credentials were in bidness). Or Gore (with experience in the White House that included knowledge of national security issues) might have won out over Bush (who lacked these things). Or not, I suppose. But the point is, we do not and can not know- because there was no option after 9/11 to go "wait, shit, this isn't the situation we picked this government for."

[Yes, I am aware that there was a mass rally of popular support behind Bush after 9/11; my point is that nearly anyone could have benefitted from that boost just by sitting in the Oval Office and making a few resolute-sounding speeches. It wasn't anything about Bush personally, it was simply that he was the guy in charge at the time people wanted to be protected by the guy in charge.]
________________________

In this case, if a government is formed after an election with a mandate from that election to ignore the referendum, I don't think that's subverting British democracy.

[Crazedwraith]

Interesting point raised in the other thread. Even if we go through with this. What;s going happen to all the EU Migrants that are already here? Chucking them out, or making them register for visas or trying to do anything will all 2 million of them all at once is going to be a logistical nightmare.

[Zaune]

I am legitimately scared to learn the answer to that question.

[Lord Revan]

Another intresting question is just how much of UK's imigrants are from the EU and how much are from outside EU and more importantly will that make any difference?

[Elfdart]

The UK is negotiating from a position of fundamental weakness. The EU can, at the cost of some pain, drive this country into the ground by erecting heavy tariff and regulatory barriers. A huge amount of our remaining manufacturing is for export to the EU (e.g. the Nissan plant in Sunderland). The City derives a big chunk of its income from Euro-denominated assets that they no longer have any real incentive to allow us to trade. And I don't even want to touch on how we've set every single fucking one of our existing trade agreements on fire the moment we actually exit or how our legal system is now basically in a state of 'eh, dunno' on tens of thousands of laws.

Worse, it's almost in their interests to inflict maximum damage to keep anyone else from leaving and we know from watching the last ten years of events that the EU leadership does not give a fuck how much it hurts smaller members when it needs to defend itself. They can't allow the UK to do too well after exit or others will follow.

Our best hope is that Merkel stays in control. She will seek a compromise and mutual benefit. If politics turn to vendettas and tit-for-tat, we are so badly fucked.

I am developing a distinct dislike of English people. And I'm English.

Since none of the Leave leaders have called for pulling the pin on Article 50 yet, the smart thing for the EU to do would be to keep quiet and spend the next few months haggling for a new deal with the UK Parliament and act like this tantrum didn't really happen, or it didn't really matter. Waiting for the results of the upcoming snap election would also clear things up. While it might seem satisfying to tell England not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out, it would also come across as petty and might incite more hostility. As the gangsters in The Godfather kept saying, "It's business, not personal".

[Ralin]

As the gangsters in The Godfather kept saying, "It's business, not personal".

This seems like the wrong analogy to use given that you're responding to someone who thinks the EU is going to punish the UK as harshly as they can specifically to send a message to anyone else who decides to opt out of their organization.

[FireNexus]

If the UK pulls the pin on Article 50, but things get even worse and the public demands a rethink, could the EU use this to wring concessions out of them? Like maybe adopting the Euro or agreeing to be a big player in the pan-Euro military? At least as far as the common currency, I know that the UK has special privileges. Could they theoretically stay in but end up in an even less sovereign position than they currently are?

Also, related, what steps could the EU take to homogenize their culture/fix the issues with their competing governments a little bit? It seems like their biggest problems come from a culturally heterogenous assortment of countries trying to act like a pared down US. It's like the wet dream of US states rights folks, with all the problems you'd anticipate. Would they need to take actions restricting the sovereignty of member states that just aren't palatable?

Or is this just doomed, and we're looking at the prelude to the failure of the EU?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Here's The Telegrasph's breakdown of turnout based on age and region. Make of it what you will.

[bilateralrope]

Scotland might be able to block Brexit.

Q&A: Why the Brexit result is not cut and dried

Could MPs ignore the British referendum result?

The short answer is yes. This is because the result of the referendum on Britain's EU membership is not legally binding. It's simply advisory and could be disregarded by the Government.

What about Scotland's role?

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has warned that the Scottish Parliament could try and block the UK leaving the EU using an obscure legal mechanism even if it infuriates the English.

What is her argument?

Sturgeon said she believes Westminster requires a legislative consent motion (LCM) from the Scottish Parliament to enact Brexit as it impacts directly on the latter's devolved responsibilities.

How would Scotland react?

She confirmed that SNP MSPs would seek to block any such motion, even if this prevented the UK from leaving the EU, in order to reflect the overwhelming Remain vote in Scotland. The SDLP later echoed her intervention, warning the Northern Irish "have the right to say no".

What does this mean for Brexit?

The threat raises the prospect of a prolonged legal battle over enacting the result of the referendum, which saw the Scots and Northern Irish vote by overwhelming margins to Remain.

Do others agree?

David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, and Theresa Villiers, his Northern Irish counterpart, said the devolved administrations cannot veto Brexit. James Chalmers, Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow, said they could only make the process more "awkward" by rejecting the LCM.

What support is there for Sturgeon's position?

The First Minister was asked about a Lords report outlining the role of the UK's three devolved parliaments in implementing the legal agreement implementing the UK's withdrawal from the EU. Sir David Edward, who sat on the European Court of Justice between 1992 and 2004, told the Lords EU select committee that the consent of the Scottish Parliament would be required for any measures "extinguishing the application of European law in Scotland". This would be provided by the Scottish Parliament passing an LCM, a device used where Westminster wants to legislate in devolved areas. Sturgeon argued that such a motion would be required for the "legislation that extricates the UK from the EU".

What is her view on that?

She told the BBC: "Looking at it from a logical perspective, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be that requirement - I suspect that the UK Government will take a very different view on that and we'll have to see where that discussion ends up." Pressed whether she would consider asking the Scottish Parliament not to back the LCM, she replied "of course". She added: "If the Scottish Parliament was judging this on the basis of what's right for Scotland then the option of saying look we're not to vote for something that's against Scotland's interest, of course that's got to be on the table".

What about another Scottish independence vote?

Sturgeon also warned that the next Prime Minister would be fighting a losing battle to stop her staging a second independence referendum and argued that the UK that Scots voted to remain in two years ago no longer exists. She rejected claims that a European Commission briefing note to MEPs means Scotland would not be permitted to stay in the EU while the rest of the UK comes out, saying the situation was completely unprecedented and there were "no rules".

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Interesting point raised in the other thread. Even if we go through with this. What;s going happen to all the EU Migrants that are already here? Chucking them out, or making them register for visas or trying to do anything will all 2 million of them all at once is going to be a logistical nightmare.

I'd be very surprised if UKIP actually had a plan should this situation arise, I would love to see their answer to this very question.

[Crown]

Here's The Telegrasph's breakdown of turnout based on age and region. Make of it what you will.

The only problem with that I don't know where they're getting their data from. For general elections "representatives from political parties stand outside polling stations asking for your voting ID number, and collate this information country-wide to figure out who voted (and guess how, based on canvassing data). However, they tend not to at one-off votes, such as referendums, and didn't on Thursday" (source).

So I think this is like the tweet I linked from New Statesman earlier; some guesswork (assuming New Statesman is correct in their assertion about the difference between general election and referendum practice).

Also, related, what steps could the EU take to homogenize their culture/fix the issues with their competing governments a little bit? It seems like their biggest problems come from a culturally heterogenous assortment of countries trying to act like a pared down US. It's like the wet dream of US states rights folks, with all the problems you'd anticipate. Would they need to take actions restricting the sovereignty of member states that just aren't palatable?

Or is this just doomed, and we're looking at the prelude to the failure of the EU?

Those are such good questions but I don't have the time to get into it tonight, but I have to ask; how much about the EU do you already know? Like do you know what all the decision making institutions are and how they relate? Or in a American terms how a bill becomes a law within the EU?

Scotland might be able to block Brexit.

Q&A: Why the Brexit result is not cut and dried

Every Remainer's last hope. I don't think Nicola will go for a dissolution of the UK (for all the reasons I've already listed, and some more I can't be bothered right now).

[EnterpriseSovereign]

If the UK pulls the pin on Article 50, but things get even worse and the public demands a rethink, could the EU use this to wring concessions out of them? Like maybe adopting the Euro or agreeing to be a big player in the pan-Euro military? At least as far as the common currency, I know that the UK has special privileges. Could they theoretically stay in but end up in an even less sovereign position than they currently are?

Also, related, what steps could the EU take to homogenize their culture/fix the issues with their competing governments a little bit? It seems like their biggest problems come from a culturally heterogenous assortment of countries trying to act like a pared down US. It's like the wet dream of US states rights folks, with all the problems you'd anticipate. Would they need to take actions restricting the sovereignty of member states that just aren't palatable?

Or is this just doomed, and we're looking at the prelude to the failure of the EU?

That would be a great way to kill any movement to rejoin stone dead, since not being yoked to either of those things was one of the cornerstones of the Remain campaign- at which point it boils down to who needs whom more- UK or EU?

Some of those in Europe are calling on us to fuck off pronto, regardless of the realism of such a prospect.

EDIT: Shit, I can't believe I misspelled 'Telegraph'

[FireNexus]

Those are such good questions but I don't have the time to get into it tonight, but I have to ask; how much about the EU do you already know? Like do you know what all the decision making institutions are and how they relate? Or in a American terms how a bill becomes a law within the EU?

Only vaguely. I know there is an EU parliament with some level of power dictated by treaty. I know that they have a central bank that controls monetary policy, but that a lot of the specifics of how member states operate give them a large degree of autonomy, including the issuance of sovereign debt. Apparently some of that autonomy combined with lacking the usual relief valves for getting out of economic trouble (like controlling the value of currency) led to the Greek/Spanish/Italian crises during the financial crisis.

I assume such autonomy is present in other sectors, but is restricted in ways that make more right-wing types chafe. And there is a clear lack of a feeling of identity around being European. Everybody thinks of themselves as German or Greek or French, not EU citizens.

What roadblocks there are to further merging operations (I'd take even money that it would require new treaties in a lot of areas) are unknown to me. For instance, I know they've been trying to institute a pan-EU military for a while, but something is holding it up. Though that could easily be issues with individual treaties signed by the members prior to the attempt, like NATO (if all EU members are not NATO members already), making it a unique case.

[Zaune]

Scotland might be able to block Brexit...

The Scottish Parliament could do that, probably, but only in much the same way that HM the Queen could dissolve Parliament and appoint a new PM: It might be legal, but it would cause a major political crisis and make a lot of people whose goodwill they depend on for their current position of authority very angry, and with some justification. Even using the threat of it as leverage to get a second independence referendum is a gamble, even if I don't think the Tories under Boris Johnson would be suicidal enough to try and unilaterally roll back devolution in reprisal.

[Thanas]

Britain shouldd pray really hard that Merkel manages to keep her power for the next years.

[His Divine Shadow]

Also, related, what steps could the EU take to homogenize their culture/fix the issues with their competing governments a little bit

For starters, stop looking at it like a problem in need of fixing.

[jwl]

Why is general election now considered inevetible?

Bevause the new PM will be considered 'unelected'?

And they won't need a majority of the votes to do it either, all they'd need to do is get enough seats with/without another Remain party as a coalition partner to prevent parliament from invoking article 50. It wouldn't be hard for them to do that either, especially as the Tories may split over this issue and UKIP will further split the right wing vote. You could easily have a situation where with just 35% of the vote the Liberal Democrats manage to win enough seats to undo the referendum.

For those in the Remain camp who want the referendum undone simply because you do not like the results, would you be comfortable with a minority government with a minority of the votes ignoring a referendum where the majority voted to leave? Do you think that "for the greater good" is a valid excuse for ignoring the will of the electorate when the rules on the referendum were clear? If that happens, do you think it will be a one-off, or will the government start using that as a an excuse for all sorts of things even more than they do now?

Who the hell would trust the LibDems on anything now? They reached their zenith on a single pledge which they promptly reneged on the moment they got to sit at the big table. Although, if Campaign Leave are getting cold feet, it might be a blessing for them.

About as comfortable as ~35% of the electorate actually voting to take us out of the EU... oh, wait.

Stop being so salty, less than that voted to take you in it in 1975 (Wiki source)!

Having said that though, the one thing I would love to know is voter turn out as a breakdown of age group. There wasn't any data collected for the Referendum but social media ( I know) was passing this around. Which if true (and it probably isn't, but it amuses me to think it is) then the young weren't 'robbed' by angry old white people; the ME-llennial generation confused updating Facebook status with actually, you know, turning up to vote.

I think it would be more accurate to say the Lib Dems reached their zenith back when they were the Liberal party and were winning elections outright. The SDP-Liberal alliance was effectively just a load of Labour MPs defecting to the Liberal party, even if it wasn't presented that way.

The young always vote less than the old, it pretty much every election ever. It sounds pretty unlikely those going on about stuff on Facebook didn't vote though, most people who didn't vote probably only talked about it to say "why is does everyone keep going on about this 'referendum' thing, it's annoying".

[jwl]

Interesting point raised in the other thread. Even if we go through with this. What;s going happen to all the EU Migrants that are already here? Chucking them out, or making them register for visas or trying to do anything will all 2 million of them all at once is going to be a logistical nightmare.

I'd be very surprised if UKIP actually had a plan should this situation arise, I would love to see their answer to this very question.

I'm not aware of any UKIP plans to kick EU migrants out, but in the (2010?) manifesto they talk about stopping all permanent residence migration for five years (interestingly, the maximum length if a temporary residence permit is... five years). The rationale for this was because it would be easier then to discover and deport illegal immigrants, but I suppose you could use the same process to deport EU migrants if you wanted to, presuming that it works.

But what UKIP does or doesn't think is pretty much irrelevant now. They have only one MP, and he used to be a Tory until fairly recently. Their large numbers of MEPs have now been rendered irrelevant. They could possibly still put pressure on the Tories and Labour by threatening their seats, but will they still be so threatening now the point of their existence has disappeared?

[FireNexus]

Also, related, what steps could the EU take to homogenize their culture/fix the issues with their competing governments a little bit

For starters, stop looking at it like a problem in need of fixing.

Is it not exactly that in the context of maintaining a politically-united Europe in difficult times? I've been reading about Eurozone tensions rising from a fractured cultural and political landscape since the financial crisis.

[K. A. Pital]

Also, related, what steps could the EU take to homogenize their culture/fix the issues with their competing governments a little bit

For starters, stop looking at it like a problem in need of fixing.

Is it not exactly that in the context of maintaining a politically-united Europe in difficult times? I've been reading about Eurozone tensions rising from a fractured cultural and political landscape since the financial crisis.

But what is the alternative, Americanize everything to the point where every cultural difference between EU member nations are wiped out in the name of the superstate? I mean, cultural differences might exist, but why shouldn't they, given the centuries of history behind each country? Should Europe also speak one language? Which one, Esperanto? Or American English?

Neither alternative is appealing. I'd rather learn a couple more languages than erase one of the existing ones. That's like cutting off your hand to pass through a jammed door.

Give the Eurocrats even more power to create secret anti-democratic pacts like the TTIP that introduce shit food and wage slavery "Made in USA" to Europe? Give more power to the corporations and supranational bodies that could shut up any dissenting small nation by force?

But perhaps the EU should remain a confederacy only. A union of states but never a superstate. And maybe Brexit has just helped to achieve that.

Of course, Britain will suffer as a result, but the key point is: by trying to forcibly jam people into something where they don't want to be would have the exact opposite result. Forcibly "homogenizing" the "culture" - that is, globalizing it and Americanizing until you destroy the differences between Portugal and Slovakia, say - will just give the Euroskeptics the much-needed ammo to destroy what's left of the EU once and for all.

And there'd be not much to weep about at that stage, either.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Since none of the Leave leaders have called for pulling the pin on Article 50 yet, the smart thing for the EU to do would be to keep quiet and spend the next few months haggling for a new deal with the UK Parliament and act like this tantrum didn't really happen, or it didn't really matter. Waiting for the results of the upcoming snap election would also clear things up. While it might seem satisfying to tell England not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out, it would also come across as petty and might incite more hostility. As the gangsters in The Godfather kept saying, "It's business, not personal".

Unfortunately, I think a lot of Europe has had about enough of us dicking around, and the EU doesn't seem overly inclined to negotiate or grant extra concessions behind the scenes. Barring a drastic climbdown from the UK, which is politically unfeasible now barring drastic changes, I think the die is cast.

However, it's going to take months for us to be ready to pull the pin. Our political system is on fire and our civil service hasn't been allowed to prepare an exit plan of any sort. A drastic climbdown isn't impossible if events move sufficiently. Just very, very unlikely.

But I think we're gone. 95% probability. And it's going to hurt. There's no way it can't really. The uncertainty alone will drive business away from the UK.

[Tribble]

If the UK actually does leave, with any luck it will cause the EU to either undergo some major reforms or break apart. I'm not against Europe working together, what I am against is the EU in its present form. It needs to drastically change its policies - either bring all the countries under a single federal government with all the powers that implies (single taxation, army, bank structure, pension plan, health care, welfare, education, fiscal transfers etc) or acknowledge that fact that full political integration is never going to work and move towards some kind of free-trade zone or confederation like K. A. Pital is suggesting. IMO at the very least they need to reform the European Commission and have direct elections for its members, it's ridiculous that an unelected group of bureaucrats are the sole initiators of legislation.

[Zaune]

And what happens if it breaks apart? I don't know whether or not you've noticed, but we have just a bit of an ongoing humanitarian crisis thanks to the Middle East imploding, not to mention Russia's little adventure in the Ukraine and the looming spectre of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Do we really want to add Britain's current clobbering x26 to the problem?

Unless the intent is to cause the entire socio-economic underpinnings of human civilisation to collapse in order that the survivors can start afresh and build something new and better from the ruins (which I'm not wholly opposed to) that strikes me as likely to cause far more problems than it solves.

[Tribble]

And what happens if it breaks apart? I don't know whether or not you've noticed, but we have just a bit of an ongoing humanitarian crisis thanks to the Middle East imploding, not to mention Russia's little adventure in the Ukraine and the looming spectre of Donald Trump as President of the United States. Do we really want to add Britain's current clobbering x26 to the problem?

IMO yes, you do want to deal with Brexit now and deal with major restructuring of the EU because IMO trying to maintain things as they are will lead to an inevitable collapse anyways. If the EU's goal is an "ever closer union" why would they want to have a country which is dead set against the concept? The UK referendum was not "an ever closer union" vs "Less Europe," it was "leave" vs "maintain the status quo." Big difference. If the referendum had been about leaving vs joining the Eurozone and Shengen area, IMO a far greater majority would have voted to leave. If the EU is dedicated to forming a single European superstate no matter what and it is committed to serious reforms in order to do so, the UK's interference will only get in its way, so it's better off that the two go their separate ways in the long run, at least when it comes to a poltical / economic union.

On the other hand, it may be that a European superstate is simply untenable in the long term and it would be better off to form a looser confederacy or some kind of free-trade zone than what they have now. If that's the case, the UK's withdrawal may kick-start that process now rather than having several more years of stagnation before people wake up. Why the EU was stupid enough to do things like having countries such Greece and Germany share a fiscal union via the Eurozone is beyond me, everyone with a working brain knew right off the bat stuff like that wasn't going to end well.

Unless the intent is to cause the entire socio-economic underpinnings of human civilisation to collapse in order that the survivors can start afresh and build something new and better from the ruins (which I'm not wholly opposed to) that strikes me as likely to cause far more problems than it solves

The only reason that would happen is purely out of spite and a steadfast refusal to accept the fact that the status quo isn't working. There is no reason why a trading union needs to have a political union in order to work- the USA, Canada and Mexico have been in a trading union for 20 years now without having to join into a bigger superstate. IMO that would probably be the best option for the UK and the EU- both groups can trade with each other without one interfering with the other's political affairs. There is no reason why a political union is a necessity to a military alliance either- organizations like NATO have been around since the Cold War, no need to have a single European Army. As for the absurd idea that a total political union is the only thing that's stopping Western Europe from starting WW3 with itself... well, IMO if Europe is that close to war already, a forced political union isn't going to help matters much.

[K. A. Pital]

Britain shouldd pray really hard that Merkel manages to keep her power for the next years.

Merkel was not at all friendly today. She said Britain is leaving and that leaving means you can't remain in the EEA while not accepting freedom of movement. If it comes to this, Merkel would throw Britain out with pleasure, just to make sure everyone understands the EU has rules and isn't some feelgood club.