It's 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. If they had a referendum that only allowed landowners to vote, guess whether they'd choose policies that increased or decreased property values? Same if you ask citizens if they should allow non-citizens to live among them. Why not ask the non-citizens too and get a more fair perspective?
'Britain Left' may be the eventual outcome, but we aren't there yet by a long shot. There was an advisory referendum, and the government promised to follow up on its outcome, but all that happened on that front so far is that the prime minister effectively said "yes, I promised that, but I'll resign instead. Let's find somebody else to do what I promised to do".
I'm a little unclear on UK government. Does the resignation of the prime minister require another election?
(If so, it could be spun as an "Are you sure?" remain/leave referendum and thus save face for a remain decision (making the assumption that that is the decision), although even in that case I doubt the EU will be all that welcoming.)
No, Britain (and any other Westminster style parliament) are party political systems, not presidential. You vote for a party, the party selects its leader.
Of course your average voting citizen has not even a bare understanding of civics 101 and quite often in these circumstances various elements of the press demand a new election in order to make certain the PM has a mandate, if it suits their purposes.
Personally I think it's quite likely to turn out as you suggest, Boris is going to fail to negotiate even the slightest terms from Europe and will call a snap election at some point where the parties themselves will campaign on in or out, where both Labour and Conservatives will be in.
As d_t_w indicates: no, it doesn't require it. At the moment, they have to look within the party. Chances are some sacrificial goat will be 'volunteered' that has as task to conclude that things are unworkable and call an election.
That will take time. Give it a few weeks or months, and chances are someone will think he can spin it as "doing a dirty job, but it is best for the country, and somebody has to do it" and get away with it.
It seems many on the remain side are concerned about being able to seek opportunity in other countries, and to have immigrants in their own country. Yet this article reveals that the two most popular destinations for UK families leaving are the USA and Australia - both countries with strict visa requirements and no automatic freedom of movement. So the fears are overblown by the lived experience. The Spanish are not going to kick the English out of the costa deal sol anymore than the English are going to kick out doctors from France.
If anything the property market in London will probably go higher if it is seen as a desirable but firewalled from EU location. There is every chance the UK will become a Switzerland - a place to do business in Europe, but relatively safe from the poorly run economies of Europe now that seem to have been on the brink of bankruptcy for a decade or more.
The decision has been made - the next decisions have to be around creating a USP for the UK as an ideal place of investment. It's an ideal time to introduce things that benefit the startup sector, including Fintech startups by making it easier to avoid the red tape of Europe while tapping into one of the worlds biggest financial sectors.
>this article reveals that the two most popular destinations for UK families leaving are the USA and Australia - both countries with strict visa requirements and no automatic freedom of movement.
On a purely selfish level, speaking as an Australian/UK dual citizen who has an Australian wife who cannot live permanently with me in the UK without submitting to everything short of a rubber glove examination from UK immigration and paying substantial fees for the pleasure, I do hope this changes once the UK leaves the EU. Australia, NZ, Canada and the UK have a shared history, the same language, the same head of state, and similar levels of economic development so it would be nice if there were fewer barriers to moving between these countries.
Australia and NZ have freedom of movement and it would be great if more of the old empire could join us. Pretty sure plenty of brits would love to go live in Australia etc for a while without a bunch of paperwork.
As an Australian who has lived in the US and the EU I'd agree some sort of deal would be a really good idea.
However, actually, the US causes problems because the other Anglo-Saxon countries have much more generous welfare systems and Universal Health Care.
It would be easier between NZ, CA, AU & the UK. However, something could be worked out with the US by limiting access to welfare while allowing for work.
Switzerland is a good place to do business in Europe in part because it has access to the internal market.
Access to that common market has, to this point, required a commitment to the Four Freedoms, free movement of goods, services, people, and capital.
Are you suggesting the UK will be able to negotiate access to the common market without acceding to those four freedoms - something which has never happened before and considering the current EU stance of "hurry up and gtfo" seems quite unlikely.
Or are you suggesting the UK will leave Europe, but still allow free movement of people in order to retain access to the common market? Immigration control was given as the second most important factor by those who voted leave, that would be quite some turn-around.
Or, finally, I guess you could be suggesting that Britain will be a good place to do business in Europe without being a part of the common market.
So Boris has laid out his platform, and he has chosen option one, he claims Britain will retain access to the internal market while also putting an Australian style points based immigration system in place.
He also claims "EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU", which should worry observers, since he appears to be promising everyone a pony.
My guess is he expects to use the threat of an exit to negotiate some control over migration, and never to trigger article 50.
Is there any appetite for humouring Boris in Europe? Well Germany is, as ever, practically minded. France and others? They seem quite prepared to demand a pound of flesh.
It will be a wonderful magic trick if Boris, as laid out in his platform, can have everything he wants at no cost.
My point is immigration is not an on/off scenario.
The U.K. could easily negotiate a visa for Shenghen area countries with reciprocal rights, at different levels for work or travel or retirement.
And yes, where I think he UK could thrive is by positioning themselves as the place to do business without having to deal with the EU red tape directly. If London based financial services are in the right Timezone etc but are firewalled from EU banks and the ECB, then it can easily grow even more. I was there when the Euro started and it was seen as the beginning of the end, but it has grown a lot since then. I think having an independent central bank and currency has been a boon.
And the international language of business is going to be English for a long time yet.
Essentially, my argument is that any country which lowers the regulatory barriers to business will do better. The U.K. Has a chance to do that and undercut other European countries who will remain bound by the countless EU regs.
It's worth noting at this point that Australia welcomes migrants with open arms (excluding, for some bizarre reason, refugees). If you exclude city-states (like San Marino), the only western democracies with higher immigration rates are Norway and Spain (Canada is also neck-and-neck with our migration rate). In 2014, 28% of Australia's population was born overseas - if you exclude the British and the Kiwis, it's 21%. This compares to 14% from all sources for the US and 12% for the UK. Australia's population barely has a replacement birthrate, yet it has increased in population from 19M in 1999 to 24M this year - a 25% increase in 17 years, pretty much all due to inward migration. The #1 source of migrants for the past few years has been China. You're also 100% free to move to anywhere you want once you're inside the country, and there's no land travel to any other countries to make something like Schengen work anyway.
Painting Australia as difficult to migrate to is patent nonsense, given the actual numbers. Yes, there is a political problem with refugees at the moment, but we're absorbing non-refugee migrants faster than almost anyone else and have been for years.
The reason why the US and Australia are migration targets for the UK is that they are English-speaking countries with decent climates and economies. Anglos all over the world are monoglots and generally uninterested in learning other languages; it makes sense that they'd prefer to move somewhere that's nice to live and they speak the language.
> Painting Australia as difficult to migrate to is patent nonsense
From experience, it is difficult. When worked on this a few years ago there were only two options for moving to Australia from the UK.
One was skill-based employment, a points-based assessment scheme for which two-thirds of immigration slots are reserved. Applicants must be under 45 and meet the requirements of the Skilled Occupations List. I've worked in a compatible job for 20 years but didn't qualify because I didn't have a suitable university degree. Why that was relevant after two decades wasn't clear, but terminated my application.
The other option was inward-investment business migration but even that didn't give guarantees of residence, just 'possibility'.
Have you compared the process with that of other countries? I hear similar stories from folks looking to move to other wealthy, stable western countries.
I once had a friend that worked in American universities doing high end coding, supporting academic staff. It took him twenty years to get his residency. Western democracies in general will only take in younger people, because older people are a direct drain on the healthcare system (without having helped to fund it via taxes).
Australia is a popular destination, so they can pick and choose a bit I guess. I guess that makes it difficult to migrate to in terms of competition, but when you look at the overall numbers, there's huge amounts of migrants arriving in comparison to contemporary nations.
It's quite possible some of the Remain crowd were more scared of the economic impacts of brexit than of unchecked immigration (which to be honest was an extremely short-sighted EU policy. Anything left unchecked or without controls will be exploited).
The ultimate irony will be, when the exit conditions are negotiated, if a non-restrictive immigration policy with the EU somehow still makes it.
I'm a European, I love the project of building peacefully a political entity aggregating countries that have been at war for centuries.
This is Europe, and migrants issue is only a very small part of the equation. And, actually, Britain has never been in this Europe I long for. Just like an annoying neighbor who wants to share the commons but not pay for it.
Britain left, for whatever bad reasons: Good news, let her go, Europe will be stronger and will build faster without her.
In ten years, after having realized that none of UKs problems were caused by Europe, after realizing that she's become a small old lady no-one cares about, she'll come and beg us to take her back. And we'll take her back, but this time she'll sign to all the rules, including Euro.
If things get bad in the UK the EU wouldn't really want the UK back as such. They may however eventually permit the UK to rejoin. Once the UK has jumped through all of the hoops that new EU applicants have to jump through of course. The EU may even come up with a few new hoops just for the UK, to hold it to a higher standard than a genuine new applicant.
Apparently some do not like this idea that Europe's fate will be better with brexit. True I didn't see it in the papers, but it seems very natural to me dit many reasons. First Europe should a choice. For many European nations it looks like a process decided above them. It is a very good news that one country tries the way out, it shows that the exit for is open.
Also Europe is this kind of thing that has a lot of hidden benefits, which you'll feel only when you leave. Britain will show this.
On the same line, Europe has been the scapegoat of all rightist populist speech since 15 years. In two years Britain will be out of Europe and all her problems will be worse, showing clearly that Europe was not the cause, but probably the hidden mitigator.
It's also like hard things to do in code, it does not work if it is one way only. I would never say that a database system works if it can only add tables and never delete them. Adding countries to Europe has been proven to work, the reverse operation had to be tried, and I'm happy that Britain take the task to open the way.
No, as that article notes, none of the three examples is a member state withdrawing from the EU. (Two were withdrawals from pre-EU bodies by entities that we not member states when they either became independent of a member state or were granted home rule, and one of those remains associated with the EU as an OCT; the third was a region subject to a member state switching from OMR to OCT status.)
The UK move is interesting. On London, of course the do-well Londoners want to be a part of the EU system. They're doing well under it all. But what's done is done.
From what I can see, the real focus should have been, long ago, making sure ALL of Britain was doing well. Not just London. That ship has sailed and now the UK will have to come together and ensure mutual prosperity or risk further divide.
On Scotland, it seems to me that Scotland already got their vote. I can't see the UK allowing another one. There may be a SNP staged vote, but it won't have any teeth without it coming from Downing St. So I'm dismissive of the Scottish indie idea at this point. It just didn't pan out. Anyone who wants that, needs to at minimum, wait until oil prices rise again. But I don't see any of it happening.
Scotland's chance may have already been spent but Northern Ireland is in the best position of anyone. They're in the best position of all the UK 'principalities' to barter the best economic deal between either the UK or Ireland/EU. They can basically become the New Scotland and do what Scotland was doing, pre-Scottish independence vote. The SNP made a big mistake pushing for their vote before the EU-UK referendum.
I expect Wales and England (outside of London) are pretty content with the outcome of the vote. They had the most to gain. Though I don't think NI and Scotland are going to lose economic power with an independent UK, if they don't start revolting.
Interesting how it all turned out, because this time London was in agreement with the UK states on the periphery. It was Wales and England who wanted out, and I think this was rational and the right move from a working man's standpoint. The EU from what I've seen (I've lived and worked in the EU) is mostly beneficial the elites and people doing well. Most of my friends in France and other EU countries curse the EU a bit. It's not just the Brits who are upset with the undemocratic system the EU put into place or the policies.
I watched all the Scottish independence debates with Alex Salmond vs Alistair Darling and was letdown by Salmond's general performance. Also recently watched the Brexit 'documentary' and was not impressed with the arguments put in place there. Especially the comparison to Switzerland which is the wrong example, for many reasons that I won't go into here. The UK may become a Norway of sorts but not a Switzerland. Honestly, not sure I'd want to become a Switzerland given how they make a lot of their money.
This article is poorly named and rambly. It does not answer "Why Britain left." If you want to write an article explaining "Why Britain Left," then please provide some form of objective evidence, i.e. a survey of the voters who voted to leave.
The author is comparing the more than 5 million undocumented families already living in the United States and participating in the social fabric for decades while having their humans rights denied (the right to work) with syrian refugees going to Germany, they're nothing alike. Making these comparisons only strengthens the discourse of the likes of Trump.
33 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 79.9 ms ] thread(If so, it could be spun as an "Are you sure?" remain/leave referendum and thus save face for a remain decision (making the assumption that that is the decision), although even in that case I doubt the EU will be all that welcoming.)
Of course your average voting citizen has not even a bare understanding of civics 101 and quite often in these circumstances various elements of the press demand a new election in order to make certain the PM has a mandate, if it suits their purposes.
Personally I think it's quite likely to turn out as you suggest, Boris is going to fail to negotiate even the slightest terms from Europe and will call a snap election at some point where the parties themselves will campaign on in or out, where both Labour and Conservatives will be in.
That will take time. Give it a few weeks or months, and chances are someone will think he can spin it as "doing a dirty job, but it is best for the country, and somebody has to do it" and get away with it.
If anything the property market in London will probably go higher if it is seen as a desirable but firewalled from EU location. There is every chance the UK will become a Switzerland - a place to do business in Europe, but relatively safe from the poorly run economies of Europe now that seem to have been on the brink of bankruptcy for a decade or more.
The decision has been made - the next decisions have to be around creating a USP for the UK as an ideal place of investment. It's an ideal time to introduce things that benefit the startup sector, including Fintech startups by making it easier to avoid the red tape of Europe while tapping into one of the worlds biggest financial sectors.
On a purely selfish level, speaking as an Australian/UK dual citizen who has an Australian wife who cannot live permanently with me in the UK without submitting to everything short of a rubber glove examination from UK immigration and paying substantial fees for the pleasure, I do hope this changes once the UK leaves the EU. Australia, NZ, Canada and the UK have a shared history, the same language, the same head of state, and similar levels of economic development so it would be nice if there were fewer barriers to moving between these countries.
Australia and NZ have freedom of movement and it would be great if more of the old empire could join us. Pretty sure plenty of brits would love to go live in Australia etc for a while without a bunch of paperwork.
However, actually, the US causes problems because the other Anglo-Saxon countries have much more generous welfare systems and Universal Health Care.
It would be easier between NZ, CA, AU & the UK. However, something could be worked out with the US by limiting access to welfare while allowing for work.
Access to that common market has, to this point, required a commitment to the Four Freedoms, free movement of goods, services, people, and capital.
Are you suggesting the UK will be able to negotiate access to the common market without acceding to those four freedoms - something which has never happened before and considering the current EU stance of "hurry up and gtfo" seems quite unlikely.
Or are you suggesting the UK will leave Europe, but still allow free movement of people in order to retain access to the common market? Immigration control was given as the second most important factor by those who voted leave, that would be quite some turn-around.
Or, finally, I guess you could be suggesting that Britain will be a good place to do business in Europe without being a part of the common market.
He also claims "EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected, and the same goes for British citizens living in the EU", which should worry observers, since he appears to be promising everyone a pony.
My guess is he expects to use the threat of an exit to negotiate some control over migration, and never to trigger article 50.
Is there any appetite for humouring Boris in Europe? Well Germany is, as ever, practically minded. France and others? They seem quite prepared to demand a pound of flesh.
It will be a wonderful magic trick if Boris, as laid out in his platform, can have everything he wants at no cost.
The U.K. could easily negotiate a visa for Shenghen area countries with reciprocal rights, at different levels for work or travel or retirement.
And yes, where I think he UK could thrive is by positioning themselves as the place to do business without having to deal with the EU red tape directly. If London based financial services are in the right Timezone etc but are firewalled from EU banks and the ECB, then it can easily grow even more. I was there when the Euro started and it was seen as the beginning of the end, but it has grown a lot since then. I think having an independent central bank and currency has been a boon.
And the international language of business is going to be English for a long time yet.
Essentially, my argument is that any country which lowers the regulatory barriers to business will do better. The U.K. Has a chance to do that and undercut other European countries who will remain bound by the countless EU regs.
"The UK will be able to negotiate access to the common market without acceding to those four freedoms"
Painting Australia as difficult to migrate to is patent nonsense, given the actual numbers. Yes, there is a political problem with refugees at the moment, but we're absorbing non-refugee migrants faster than almost anyone else and have been for years.
The reason why the US and Australia are migration targets for the UK is that they are English-speaking countries with decent climates and economies. Anglos all over the world are monoglots and generally uninterested in learning other languages; it makes sense that they'd prefer to move somewhere that's nice to live and they speak the language.
From experience, it is difficult. When worked on this a few years ago there were only two options for moving to Australia from the UK.
One was skill-based employment, a points-based assessment scheme for which two-thirds of immigration slots are reserved. Applicants must be under 45 and meet the requirements of the Skilled Occupations List. I've worked in a compatible job for 20 years but didn't qualify because I didn't have a suitable university degree. Why that was relevant after two decades wasn't clear, but terminated my application.
The other option was inward-investment business migration but even that didn't give guarantees of residence, just 'possibility'.
I once had a friend that worked in American universities doing high end coding, supporting academic staff. It took him twenty years to get his residency. Western democracies in general will only take in younger people, because older people are a direct drain on the healthcare system (without having helped to fund it via taxes).
Australia is a popular destination, so they can pick and choose a bit I guess. I guess that makes it difficult to migrate to in terms of competition, but when you look at the overall numbers, there's huge amounts of migrants arriving in comparison to contemporary nations.
The ultimate irony will be, when the exit conditions are negotiated, if a non-restrictive immigration policy with the EU somehow still makes it.
There is free movement of people _within_ the EU. But that's hardly headline at this point.
This is Europe, and migrants issue is only a very small part of the equation. And, actually, Britain has never been in this Europe I long for. Just like an annoying neighbor who wants to share the commons but not pay for it.
Britain left, for whatever bad reasons: Good news, let her go, Europe will be stronger and will build faster without her.
In ten years, after having realized that none of UKs problems were caused by Europe, after realizing that she's become a small old lady no-one cares about, she'll come and beg us to take her back. And we'll take her back, but this time she'll sign to all the rules, including Euro.
Also Europe is this kind of thing that has a lot of hidden benefits, which you'll feel only when you leave. Britain will show this.
On the same line, Europe has been the scapegoat of all rightist populist speech since 15 years. In two years Britain will be out of Europe and all her problems will be worse, showing clearly that Europe was not the cause, but probably the hidden mitigator.
It's also like hard things to do in code, it does not work if it is one way only. I would never say that a database system works if it can only add tables and never delete them. Adding countries to Europe has been proven to work, the reverse operation had to be tried, and I'm happy that Britain take the task to open the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
The assumption that Britain will do poorly is also questionable. Perhaps it will do just fine.
If so, referendums in other EU countries could start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland%E2%80%93European_Uni...
None of the examples are the same, but they were all in.
There is an article 50 because of these exits. There has been a precedent.
From what I can see, the real focus should have been, long ago, making sure ALL of Britain was doing well. Not just London. That ship has sailed and now the UK will have to come together and ensure mutual prosperity or risk further divide.
On Scotland, it seems to me that Scotland already got their vote. I can't see the UK allowing another one. There may be a SNP staged vote, but it won't have any teeth without it coming from Downing St. So I'm dismissive of the Scottish indie idea at this point. It just didn't pan out. Anyone who wants that, needs to at minimum, wait until oil prices rise again. But I don't see any of it happening.
Scotland's chance may have already been spent but Northern Ireland is in the best position of anyone. They're in the best position of all the UK 'principalities' to barter the best economic deal between either the UK or Ireland/EU. They can basically become the New Scotland and do what Scotland was doing, pre-Scottish independence vote. The SNP made a big mistake pushing for their vote before the EU-UK referendum.
I expect Wales and England (outside of London) are pretty content with the outcome of the vote. They had the most to gain. Though I don't think NI and Scotland are going to lose economic power with an independent UK, if they don't start revolting.
Interesting how it all turned out, because this time London was in agreement with the UK states on the periphery. It was Wales and England who wanted out, and I think this was rational and the right move from a working man's standpoint. The EU from what I've seen (I've lived and worked in the EU) is mostly beneficial the elites and people doing well. Most of my friends in France and other EU countries curse the EU a bit. It's not just the Brits who are upset with the undemocratic system the EU put into place or the policies.
I watched all the Scottish independence debates with Alex Salmond vs Alistair Darling and was letdown by Salmond's general performance. Also recently watched the Brexit 'documentary' and was not impressed with the arguments put in place there. Especially the comparison to Switzerland which is the wrong example, for many reasons that I won't go into here. The UK may become a Norway of sorts but not a Switzerland. Honestly, not sure I'd want to become a Switzerland given how they make a lot of their money.