
Britain is sailing into a storm with no one at the wheel - Turukawa
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/06/anarchy-uk?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/anarchyintheuk
======
saltvedt
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/2...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/lifelong-
english-european-the-biggest-defeat-of-my-political-life-timothy-garton-ash-
brexit)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash)

~~~
alexchantavy
Great read, thanks very much

------
lifeisstillgood
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
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-
independe...](https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independent-
from-the-uk-and-apply-to-join-the-eu)

~~~
Joeboy
Pretty sure the independent London thing is just a joke.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I would suggest it's a serious joke. No one "serious" thinks London could
split from the country but believe it is a interesting way to highlight the
massive disconnect between rural England and much of the rest of the country

Ironically there are going to be plenty of people who are "voting" for London
to leave but don't expect their vote to have an effect and it's just to send a
protest message.

~~~
vidarh
I'm sure it's a joke to most, but it's gone beyond that to some, and people
are organising. It may not go anywhere, but it won't just go away either.

------
DonaldFisk
[http://news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-
brexit-p...](http://news.sky.com/video/1717859/islam-there-is-no-brexit-plan)

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

~~~
branchless
Except Cameron greatly weakened the uk by resorting to printing through land.

~~~
x0x0
I don't understand. What does printing through land mean?

~~~
adwf
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
Nobody benefits from it except he money issuers. It's not growth it's
inflation.

~~~
x0x0
At least in sf, landlords do incredibly well for themselves...

------
rrggrr
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.

~~~
Xylakant
> 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.

~~~
rrggrr
> Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU.

Until its not. The EU would be delighted to look the other way if it means
keeping the Union together. Yes, it may be that immigration reforms have to be
extended throughout, and that move would be welcomed in most EU countries.

------
vonklaus
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?

~~~
Lerc
Not being in the EU is not nearly as big a deal as leaving the EU. They need
an entire framework for dealing with the EU that doesn't currently exist.

It's like Britain just drank some poison, then went into a shop and said

"Hi, I drank some poison and you're the only person that sells the antidote,
What kind of deal can you give me on that?"

~~~
vonklaus
This is case and point what I indicated above. Bizarre assertions and
analogies that don't even attempt to explain why it is bad.

I am having trouble finding out legitimate answers to why this is actually
heralded as a catastrophicly bad move:

> "Hi, I drank some poison and you're the only person that sells the antidote,
> What kind of deal can you give me on that?"

Doesn't really cover it. I guess it could be translated to, there is a
mismatch in leverage for trade negotiations and GB will need the EU much more
than they need it, thus weakening their position.

~~~
davidgerard
* Because "leave" involves untangling the UK from the EU, which is ridiculously more complicated than never having joined at all.

* Because Scotland overwhelmingly voted "Remain", and are already talking about another independence referendum so they can stay in Europe.

* Because a large chunk of the "Leave" voters (I don't have percentages, I expect they'll show up soon) are regretting it already. They're the dogs that chased a car and caught it and don't know what to do.

* Because everyone who has any idea what "leave" would imply thought it was such a bad idea that they didn't take the idea seriously.

* Because the "Leave" campaign didn't expect to win and had (seriously) _no plan at all_ for how to achieve this.

* Because everything the "Leave" campaign promised was literally lies, and now they have to explain this to the people who voted their way.

* Because David Cameron originally said that if "leave" won, he'd invoke Article 50 the next day - and instead, he went "you know what? bugger this" and resigned, punting it to whichever unlucky bozo takes over as Tory leader and will thus be personally responsible for visiting a disaster upon the UK.

* Because all of the details of the above, and plenty more besides. It's a cluster of clusterfucks, each of which contains another, smaller, clusterfuck.

~~~
Joeboy
> Because a large chunk of the "Leave" voters (I don't have percentages" are
> regretting it already.

Clearly those people exist, but is there really any reason to think they are
"a large chunk"? It's possible, but I would be surprised if millions of people
had done a complete political U-turn overnight.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
A lot of people in the UK's more deprived areas have been relying on EU money
to keep some semblance of economic activity going.

These areas literally have nothing. There used to be industry, but the Tories
killed most of that and sent it abroad because they could make more money by
selling and/or offshoring it.

There's some tourism. Maybe some food production. A little light industry. And
that's pretty much it.

These areas had some of the strongest leave votes. Today they've woken up and
demanded that the UK government continue to give them the same level of
funding they got from the EU.

Which is never going to happen. So - regrets - they have a few. But then
again, certainly not too few to mention.

~~~
vidarh
Just to be clear in case someone thinks this is exaggerated:

Cornwall voted Leave. Cornwall Council immediately started begging Westminster
to plug the 60 million pounds/year funding hole that Brexit will leave as a
result of lost EU funds. From [1]:

> John Pollard, the leader of Cornwall council said: “Now that we know the UK
> will be leaving the EU we will be taking urgent steps to ensure that the UK
> Government protects Cornwall’s position in any negotiations.

> “We will be insisting that Cornwall receives investment equal to that
> provided by the EU programme which has averaged £60m per year over the last
> ten years.”

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-
cornwa...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-cornwall-
issues-plea-for-funding-protection-after-county-overwhelmingly-votes-in-
favour-of-a7101311.html)

~~~
vonklaus
but where did the money come from? The EU doesn't just randomly dole out
capital, right? The UK must pay into some sort of central fund? I have heard
they pay as much as 3%(of GDP, taxes I am not sure) but the money must come
from somewhere, of course. What capital flows out of UK and into the UK based
on the old (or current) model?

~~~
vidarh
The EU doesn't "just randomly dole out capital", no, but Cornwall is one of
the most deprived regions of the EU, and so got development funds from funding
mechanisms earmarked for under-developed regions.

Notably, it was/is this underdeveloped because pre-EU British government had
not bothered to invest much in Cornwall.

In terms of payments, the UK is a net contributor overall, but part of the
issue is that the UK could have funnelled money into regional development
whenever it wanted to, but hasn't, so for Cornwall to think that the
government will prioritise them now is quite comical, given that the
government will have to prepare for extensive reductions in treasury income
that's likely to make the EU contributions seem cheap.

This has been a recurring theme: The wishful thinking that a post-Brexit UK
government will suddenly change priorities and allocate lots of money to
things they have been mercilessly cutting so far, even in the face of massive
economic uncertainty.

Many of the areas voting Leave will be in the same boat as Cornwall of having
substantial EU funding stripped, while facing an uphill battle to convince the
UK government to replace it.

------
arethuza
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.

~~~
davidgerard
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.)

------
PaulHoule
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
Care to comment on this article specifically, or are we now reduced to simply
throwing out hollow partisan platitudes?

