The article concludes May will probably kick the problem into the long grass which she seems to be doing by saying it won't happen without Scottish agreement which probably won't happen.
"Our new PM was a remainer" - but, she was eurosceptic her entire career, the very first thing she said was literally "Brexit means Brexit", she has repeatedly confirmed it's going to happen and she has set up an entirely new ministry to ensure it does. Meanwhile the EU is so impatient for it to happen they are demanding it starts immediately. There is no way back.
With respect to "it's difficult to leave without screwing the economy", that seems hard to justify given the number of countries that are not in the EU and yet which are not "screwed".
>With respect to "it's difficult to leave without screwing the economy", that seems hard to justify given the number of countries that are not in the EU and yet which are not "screwed".
Never having been in the EU is a totally different situation to being in the EU and leaving. No country has ever done that.
I may appear to be in denial but look at the two closest comparison countries that voted to not be in the EU, Switzerland and Norway. The voters said out but there were huge practical problems with being out so they ended up with basically being in the EU but not completely. That's what I think the most likely outcome will be - something like those countries, still with free trade and movement but a fudge where the politicians can say look we're independent.
Incidentally on the denial thing I voted remain but bet leave would win at the bookies. I'm predicting a Norway solution as the most likely bet rather than my preference.
The Norway solution was already ruled out by the PM.
I agree that there will end up being some compromise, eventually: one that involves free trade without freedom of movement a la CETA. The question is only how long it takes to get there. The EU is starting to realise that leaving is in fact thinkable, and is caving on issues that might upset local populations. Eventually it will realise that blocking European co-operation and blaming it on a country that wants to sign deals isn't going to fly.
> confirmed it's going to happen and she has set up an entirely new ministry to ensure it does.
There is a counter argument that says the new ministry is set up exactly to ensure that brexit fails to happen whilst the government "tried it's best and gave full resources". It is also a convenient way to completely destroy Boris for good.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: And to that end, I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.
It's kind of prophetic that Hacker goes from Minister to PM on the back of some anti-EU stuff whipped up by the tabloids. Of course it's basically BS and nothing much changes with the EU. We'll see how it works out for May.
> With respect to "it's difficult to leave without screwing the economy", that seems hard to justify given the number of countries that are not in the EU and yet which are not "screwed".
I think being outside is not what hurts. Leaving hurts. Business loves stability and brexit is anything but.
Of course, but you have to take into account the strength of feeling over this issue in the UK. The referendum was the most acrimonious vote in the UK in my lifetime. Turnout was very high. The majority of people who normally vote for May's Tory party supported Brexit. There is a staunchly anti-EU party (UKIP) waiting in the wings to pick up large numbers of votes if the Tories don't follow through. UKIP already got 13% of the popular vote at the last election, despite the first-past-the-post system (they only got 0.2% of the MPs).
It's not just general public sentiment that constrain's May. Many of May's own back bench MPs care far more about making Brexit happen than they do about keeping the Tories in government (the number of single-issue anti-eu diehard Tory MPs is greater than the Tories majority in parliament). They will bring down her government if she doesn't move towards Brexit.
That is assuming that the media, backed by recent and coming economic figures won't scaremonger and break away all the other popular arguments against Brexit, as 'no foreigners' wasn't the only argument. Not to mention that procrastination and fearful reports by the government will also help. The longer it takes the easier it will be to kill it.
Of course, all of this assumes May's intention to not exit.
As another commenter pointed out, not doing Brexit would be politically un-tenable, as it would basically hand power straight to UKIP, and further enflame right-wing/fascist sentiment in the UK.
Denialism is not a useful response to our current situation.
It would split Conservative voters across the Tories and UKIP and give Labour or some coalition (Lib-Con, Lib-Lab, rainbow?) chance to hold power. So, the question is what do there Tories care more about, their party winning or the right result for the country - so, yes Tories will keep the UKIPy edges of their party.
Long-term though the plan must be that once the NHS privatisation has been forced they allow much more immigration of those with medical training, the private health companies will need workers. At that point they're going to be losing the right and left wings of the party.
Screwing up Europe will buy May's Tories an extra term I imagine so they presumably don't care beyond that.
Sturgeon painted her comments that way, but what she said was a solution that worked for the whole nation, nothing about Scottish agreement or consent.
If Brexit doesn't happen then the mainstream will be handing power to UKIP who will, quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham. I don't want that, Brexit must happen.
She can't say that. If she said it openly, it wouldn't be a viable strategy.
The problem we've got right now is that multiple political power centers are locked into a multi-way game of chicken over Brexit, which can only be resolved by pulling the trigger on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty or by definitively ruling it out -- and whoever takes responsibility for making it happen (or not happen) will catch a career-ending shitstorm of abuse from the other side.
>”quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham" //
A marginal advisary vote on which headline campaign points on the winning side were demonstrable lies? I don't think that demonstrates our representative democracy is a sham.
It is a shambles, but your conclusion is unsound.
If the populous now would vote the other way, how is pressing for exit of the EU democratic. All you're proving is that good liars can pervert a vote.
The losing side made many, many more lies, much more severe and important. Just a few:
David Cameron, "I will not resign even if the vote is out". He resigned immediately.
Osborne, "if you vote out there will be a 'punishment budget' of huge spending drops and tax rises". Reality: he was gone immediately.
"If out wins Boris will be Prime Minister". Reality: May is PM.
"You will go to the back of the queue", Obama. Reality: State Department immediately reversed the US position. "I think given what has happened, the president is going to try and do both [trade deals with the EU and UK] at the same time," Kerry said. "He knows how to multitask."
Osborne again: "EU will cost every household £4300 a year". Reality: this claim was garbage and was quietly retired after focus groups showed that nobody believed it, not even pro-EU campaigners.
"Leaving the EU means migrant camps moving from Calais to Dover". Reality: Le Tocquet agreement is independent of the EU, exists for practical reasons and France has confirmed it will remain in place.
Economists in general: "here are some models. believe them". I posted about what Krugman thinks of this elsewhere in the thread, as he has shown the problems with the way economists have behaved better than I can:
We will see in one year how much it will cost.
For me personally it costed just after one month more than that amount just in contract rate reduction and pound purchase power lost.
The only lies that mattered is at the end that politicians from remain tagged as "scaremongering" one, as for now, undeniable truth: the decline of uk economy.
>this claim was garbage and was quietly retired after focus groups showed that nobody believed it
The public believing something is totally unrelated to how true it is. This kind of facile populist attitude is what people are criticising about the Leave campaign.
It was a claim about the (distant) future, making it impossible to say whether it's true or not. The only thing that matters about such a claim is therefore plausibility, and it had none. They were right to retire it.
> who will, quite rightly, be able to say that democracy in the UK is a sham.
Except that there is also a large amount of people that had no idea of the consequences. Lots of people were calling for a re-vote afterwards because "oh shit this is actually not so great after all". Which is okay, actually -- it should be possible to change your mind when you see something doesn't work the way you want it (it'd be great if politicians did this more).
The people calling for re-vote originally voted remain. I have not met a single person in real life who voted brexit, who change their mind other than in the media.
The article concludes May will probably kick the problem into the long grass which she seems to be doing by saying it won't happen without Scottish agreement which probably won't happen.