Post Brexit political issues within the UK

[Boggit]

Whoa guys :o

I know you both, and respect both of you.

I also know that you both have informed views, but I also know that you're both coming from polar opposites too.

Nigel Farage is a nationalist, ComradeP is correct. But let's put it into context. Some of his party were ex-BNP supporters who have expressed racist views in the past, but they have been expelled from UKIP for their views. He is a nationalist, but is not part of a far right group like the BNP, or the EDL in the UK. His party has ONE seat in the UK Parliament, and it is not his. The BNP has had MEP's in the European Parliament, but UKIP is definitely not the BNP. He has publicly distanced himself from Marine le Pen (and even her party has changed some from the FN of her father. Even Jean-Marie le Pen got expelled!)

ComradeP is right that Farage hates the EU, but he is often factually correct in his criticism of it's weaknesses, particularly on constitutional matters. When we leave the EU his job as an MEP will be finished, and a lot of his party's support will dissipate unless they can develop a national platform that people find attractive. If he doesn't expand his appeal to the UK electorate outside of Euroscepticism it will be hard for his party to sustain itself.

Farage likes baiting the pro-EU side, which is a source of amusement to Eurosceptics, just as much as a source of annoyance to those who identify with the EU. I get that ComradeP who is generally pro-EU will feel justifiably stung by it. That is Farage's intention.

Is the EU an evil organisation? Of course not. It has done some very good things, but it has some serious faults too. A lot of people don't like the federal direction it's heading in, the democratic deficit, the bureaucracy, the corruption, the declining economy of the Eurozone, the unemployment, the waste of resources, and the general remoteness to ordinary citizens, etc.

I know Attilla60 has developed his view about the best future for Denmark over a long time. It's no knee jerk reaction, but one very considered. He's no extremist for being in favour of independence. Like me with the UK, he just feels that Denmark has a better future outside of the EU. One size doesn't fit all.

The point Attilla60 makes about the reaction Farage got in the European Parliament is probably true. The EU still appears to be in denial over the strength of self determination, and desire for national sovereignty to be reclaimed from the EU in a number of member states. As I've mentioned earlier, this denial is a truly dangerous thing if it pushes self determination into the arms of the far right. Nationalism based on the desire for self determination does not equate to National Socialism.

As I've said before, the EU needs to have a vote of confidence from the citizens within it. There is no point dragging member states whose citizens feel that the EU is failing them into ever closer union. That will entrench resentment, which needs expression. It's far better that the EU acknowledge that as many people support the EU, many are also disillusioned with it too. Surely it is better for the EU to clear the air with in/out referendums throughout the EU? If there is a genuine confidence in the EU then it will do more for unity of purpose than anything else. If not it will be seen as the instrument of oppression if people feel they are forced into an ever closer union without their consent.

[airboy]

On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned.  Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader?  Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?

[airboy]

The Wall St. Journal wrote that the vote was:
London Area - very heavy to stay.   London is a big services center for the EU and has a lot of people with EU passports.
Scotland/Northern Ireland - voted to stay for cultural reasons (i.e. they dislike the rest of the UK).
Wales - the more "British" areas voted heavily to leave.  The more "Welsh" areas narrowly voted to stay.
Rest of England - voted very heavy to leave.

Is this reasonably accurate?

WSJ also reported that the EU blew it by not compromising on immigration to the UK.  With reasonable compromise on that issue their opinion was the vote would have gone the other way.  Is that accurate?

I don't have a dog in this fight but that is what I read today (caught up on the last 4 days of coverage).

[Boggit]

On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned.  Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader?  Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?

Jeremy Corbyn's future depends on the vote of the grass roots labour party, not the MP's, and will as I understand it, be settled by the National Executive Committee. Policy may change as Labour wakes up to the disconnect between their voters and their political "representatives" (sic) in the Westminster bubble.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36658985

[Boggit]

The Wall St. Journal wrote that the vote was:
London Area - very heavy to stay.   London is a big services center for the EU and has a lot of people with EU passports.
Scotland/Northern Ireland - voted to stay for cultural reasons (i.e. they dislike the rest of the UK).
Wales - the more "British" areas voted heavily to leave.  The more "Welsh" areas narrowly voted to stay.
Rest of England - voted very heavy to leave.

Is this reasonably accurate?

WSJ also reported that the EU blew it by not compromising on immigration to the UK.  With reasonable compromise on that issue their opinion was the vote would have gone the other way.  Is that accurate?

I don't have a dog in this fight but that is what I read today (caught up on the last 4 days of coverage).

IMHO, it's an incredibly simplistic view of it. I'd go further and suggest that the reporter was relying more on stereotypes, and stating the obvious re the outcomes, rather than trying to provide any real understanding of the complexities of the issue to explain the reasons for the vote result.

It's sad that the WSJ isn't more inquiring, but this seems to be a common fault with the media on this issue. The EU is a complex issue, and even people like myself who have studied it for years are liars if they say they have a total understanding of it. The media for the most part, generally don't have the knowledge/education to be able to comment on it for much more than a surface analysis - to be fair to the WSJ.

I suggest you have a quick look at the Brexit posts again in Current Events, General Discussion and probably best in R&P, for a better answer. In particular this thread, and this one http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.0 probably has all your answers, if you are happy to persevere with the volume of posts.

The Welsh voting however, deserves special mention. The "Welsh" Welsh areas that voted to remain are typically areas that rely overwhelmingly on farming, then tourism for their local economies. A remain vote was not surprising as these areas were recipients of considerable EU funding, particularly under the Common Agricultural Policy, which provides subsidies to farmers to produce goods they find hard to or can't sell. Few people benefiting from these subsidies would wish to lose them by voting to leave. You see this pattern elsewhere in areas that do benefit from substantial EU money, as the votes outside London tend to follow the money.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/13/what-would-brexit-mean-for-farmers-and-the-common-agricultural-p/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/81314/EU-s-butter-mountain-costs-taxpayers-236m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy

And just to clarify: Wales as a whole did not narrowly vote to leave - there was a slightly lower vote to leave in Wales, but only -0.2% variance to the national vote, so hardly a narrow vote to leave.

[undercovergeek]

On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned.  Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader?  Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?

50% have gone now, one MP in tears this morning over frustration of his inept leadership - the MPs dont decide if he stays or not the Labour Party do, and he has (maybe had) a massive support from them, people actually joined just to vote for him. If he was a man of principles he would accept the vote of no confidence and then simply put his name back in the running for leader and would probably win again - then sack/assassinate everyone who voted against him - i play too much CK2 but you get the idea

[Boggit]

On the actual topic, a number of the Labor shadow ministers resigned.  Since a large proportion of Labor areas voted to exit, will Labor toss their leader?  Or will the labor leader just change his policy given the vote?

50% have gone now, one MP in tears this morning over frustration of his inept leadership - the MPs dont decide if he stays or not the Labour Party do, and he has (maybe had) a massive support from them, people actually joined just to vote for him. If he was a man of principles he would accept the vote of no confidence and then simply put his name back in the running for leader and would probably win again - then sack/assassinate everyone who voted against him - i play too much CK2 but you get the idea

LOL! ;D Geek is right.

[ComradeP]

Boggit: And what does "society" find reasonable? Who actually makes the decision, and what motives do they have for setting the limits as they do? It's a difficult one isn't it? I don't suggest we have elections or referenda every other week, but with my experience on Brexit they certainly should be more regular to engage the electorate, and encourage participation in civil life. After all the politicians are just the agents of the people if we give any credit to thought like Rousseau's social contract. It doesn't hurt for them to be reminded of the fact once in a while.

What society finds reasonable changes with time. It's indeed difficult to pinpoint, but it settles the foundation of both the legal and political system of its time, although the political system more so than the legal system. For example: women in the Netherlands were legally "incapable of taking action" until 1956 in the Netherlands, which meant they couldn't have a bank account or insurance in their name, as their signature carried no legal weight. Women needed permission from their husbands to purchase various expensive goods. They also had to leave their jobs if working for the government when they married. The rapid decline in church visits and openly religious views in general combined with the emancipation of women allowed that to change.

The process of what society finds acceptable tends to have a backlash in terms of economic crisis, when people tend to give up some of their rights in exchange for economic security, or start to look for people to blame. Sadly, I feel the process that is currently going on is similar to that of the 1920's-1930's in a number of ways. In Eastern Europe, the more authoritarian governments of the 1920's-1930's have already made a comeback.

You asked earlier if I thought France had a certain consistent (far) right minority and in my opinion, there is evidence that it does. There's still a strong authoritarian, male-oriented (formerly) catholic minority in the country. In the book Soumission by Houellebecq, the catholic right is in a way happy with the Islamic president of France as women are forced to go home to stay with the family. Though that could be seen as a joke in some way, it does highlight one of the French political issues.

Atilla: Hold on there, what makes you think my stance may come from frustration?

Have you ever given it a thought that maybe, just maybe, I could have an informed opinion?

And frankly, I don't even bother to relate to the rest of your post. It's nothing but unsubstantiated innuendo.

Who said you couldn't have an informed opinion? How am I to know what your opinion is, in order to judge it in the way you mention, based on the short posts you've made in this thread thus far?

A man like Farage is himself a member of the elite, I don't know why that would be unsubstantiated. He doesn't have much in common with the common man, and he seemingly prefers to spend time with that elite instead of his common supporters based on reports on where he was during and after the referendum.

Boggit: Nigel Farage is a nationalist, ComradeP is correct. But let's put it into context. Some of his party were ex-BNP supporters who have expressed racist views in the past, but they have been expelled from UKIP for their views. He is a nationalist, but is not part of a far right group like the BNP, or the EDL in the UK. His party has ONE seat in the UK Parliament, and it is not his. The BNP has had MEP's in the European Parliament, but UKIP is definitely not the BNP. He has publicly distanced himself from Marine le Pen (and even her party has changed some from the FN of her father. Even Jean-Marie le Pen got expelled!)

I'm not sure I can classify him as just a nationalist based on his clear implications during the campaign that immigrants and immigration are not welcome, and the way he spread that message. He doesn't have to be a member of a far right party to imply a message that could be interpreted as racist or as discrimination of foreigners. Reports of attacks on foreigners around the referendum are worrying, and men like Farage (or Wilders in the Netherlands, though he is more vocal on the issue than Farage) are smart enough not to attach themselves directly to openly racist groups, whilst still spreading a clear anti-immigrant message.

ComradeP is right that Farage hates the EU, but he is often factually correct in his criticism of it's weaknesses, particularly on constitutional matters. When we leave the EU his job as an MEP will be finished, and a lot of his party's support will dissipate unless they can develop a national platform that people find attractive. If he doesn't expand his appeal to the UK electorate outside of Euroscepticism it will be hard for his party to sustain itself.

Populism works as long as you don't have to take responsibility. You can play the victim and just blame everybody else for the bad things that happen, conveniently ignoring your own flaws. For some reason, people are fine with that as long as the populist has enough force of personality. In the case of the Brexit, the populists had a problem, as they "won". Immediate result: political chaos, just what was to be expected. The Leave campaigners have not taken their political responsibility so far, with both the Labour and Conservative parties in turmoil and UKIP not being much of an alternative in terms of current and probably future political power as most of the electorate prefers a safer vote on a larger party.

His criticism of the EU's weaknesses might be correct, I can't really say as I'm not sure what he has discussed in recent months, but a man like Farage has experts to help him with such matters. When you hear and more importantly: see him in action, he is probably closer to what he stands for as a person. Furthermore, being right on some issues doesn't mean it's acceptable to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric that is inflammatory during the current debate, yet solves nothing. People will just get angrier. As long as they get angrier, they're more likely to vote for populist parties. At this point, I'm still quite sceptical if Farage actually wants to contribute to a solution to the EU's problems, or if he's mostly in the game for his own political power.

Farage likes baiting the pro-EU side, which is a source of amusement to Eurosceptics, just as much as a source of annoyance to those who identify with the EU. I get that ComradeP who is generally pro-EU will feel justifiably stung by it. That is Farage's intention.

I'm pro-European cooperation, not necessarily pro-EU. The EU is just the main shape European cooperation takes at the moment, which is why I support its policies on that matter. It's fine to criticize the EU, but not without giving a credible alternative. Pointing a finger is easy, but being part of the solution is a lot harder. I haven't seen Farage or his counterparts contribute much to a solution.

The EU is so abstract for European voters that problems that are actually caused by globalization or the specific strengths and weaknesses of a national economy are blamed on the EU. People treat the EU like a European government, which it isn't.

For example: if something like 12 out of 13 new jobs in England appear in the southeastern part of the country, it means the relative importance of London and other cities in that area is too great, similar to smaller countries in Eastern Europe with a large population in the capital. That is the way the UK economy is currently designed it seems, but it isn't caused by the EU. If you're in a place like Blackpool and you're poor, you don't see the benefit of EU membership, but in a more practical sense you primarily don't see much of a benefit of UK economic growth. For those people, tales of how less immigration will magically lead to more jobs are understandably inspiring. They're also misleading.

Another item that was frequently mentioned, at least in the Dutch press, was how people in the poorer areas felt it couldn't get much worse for them as the economic growth of the last decades has passed them by, a sentiment shared by numerous non-urban Europeans. The problem is that things can get much worse, and quite quickly. Poorer people rely more on government subsidies of some sort, so if the government takes hits in the treasury, cuts will have to be made, which in turn will disproportionally hit the poor. Considering that the parents or grandparents of those people grew up in a time where "real" poverty still existed, it's surprising that they believe their situation can't get worse due to being unemployed or not having much of a chance of achieving upwards social and economic mobility.

[Boggit]

As predicted, the markets are continuing to settle post Brexit. Reasonable cooperation between the EU and the UK will encourage this for all.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKCN0ZF01O

[ComradeP]

The markets recovering is good, but there's still a gap between "recovering" and "recovery".

Barclays share and GBP/USD exchange rate.

[undercovergeek]

it never was going to be the armageddon that was predicted, i hope even the remain camp thought that!

whats pissing me off now is a deliberate attempt by the EU to punish us for leaving, to show an example by way of closed trade and tariffs, to teach all other exit wannabes thats what happens to you for leaving - these are nation states FFS, its not nursery where little jimmy has pushed a sand castle over

[mirth]

It's very short sighted for either side to not cooperate for a smooth transition.

[ComradeP]

whats pissing me off now is a deliberate attempt by the EU to punish us for leaving, to show an example by way of closed trade and tariffs, to teach all other exit wannabes thats what happens to you for leaving - these are nation states FFS, its not nursery where little jimmy has pushed a sand castle over

When has the EU closed trade, or imposed tariffs on the UK in the last few days?

[undercovergeek]

its what theyre threatening

[Boggit]

What society finds reasonable changes with time. It's indeed difficult to pinpoint, but it settles the foundation of both the legal and political system of its time, although the political system more so than the legal system. For example: women in the Netherlands were legally "incapable of taking action" until 1956 in the Netherlands, which meant they couldn't have a bank account or insurance in their name, as their signature carried no legal weight. Women needed permission from their husbands to purchase various expensive goods. They also had to leave their jobs if working for the government when they married. The rapid decline in church visits and openly religious views in general combined with the emancipation of women allowed that to change.

The process of what society finds acceptable tends to have a backlash in terms of economic crisis, when people tend to give up some of their rights in exchange for economic security, or start to look for people to blame. Sadly, I feel the process that is currently going on is similar to that of the 1920's-1930's in a number of ways. In Eastern Europe, the more authoritarian governments of the 1920's-1930's have already made a comeback.

None of this is controversial as far as I'm concerned. I agree with your observations.

You asked earlier if I thought France had a certain consistent (far) right minority and in my opinion, there is evidence that it does. There's still a strong authoritarian, male-oriented (formerly) catholic minority in the country. In the book Soumission by Houellebecq, the catholic right is in a way happy with the Islamic president of France as women are forced to go home to stay with the family. Though that could be seen as a joke in some way, it does highlight one of the French political issues.

I partly agree with you on the strength of the French catholic right, but they were primarily strong supporters of Sarkozy's Republican Party (the conservative former UMP led by Sarkozy). That doesn't explain why Marine le Pen has got ever increasing support from the French electorate. I think this is a significant response to the failure of mainstream politicians to engage with the concerns of the electorate. Marine le Pen is populist, but isn't the whole issue of populism related to responding to popular demands? It is no accident either that Francois Hollande is at an all time low in voter confidence in the polls.

Can you say with any real confidence that the same principle holds true for similar trends in countries like Austria, Greece, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Spain etc?

Boggit: Nigel Farage is a nationalist, ComradeP is correct. But let's put it into context. Some of his party were ex-BNP supporters who have expressed racist views in the past, but they have been expelled from UKIP for their views. He is a nationalist, but is not part of a far right group like the BNP, or the EDL in the UK. His party has ONE seat in the UK Parliament, and it is not his. The BNP has had MEP's in the European Parliament, but UKIP is definitely not the BNP. He has publicly distanced himself from Marine le Pen (and even her party has changed some from the FN of her father. Even Jean-Marie le Pen got expelled!)

I'm not sure I can classify him as just a nationalist based on his clear implications during the campaign that immigrants and immigration are not welcome, and the way he spread that message. He doesn't have to be a member of a far right party to imply a message that could be interpreted as racist or as discrimination of foreigners. Reports of attacks on foreigners around the referendum are worrying, and men like Farage (or Wilders in the Netherlands, though he is more vocal on the issue than Farage) are smart enough not to attach themselves directly to openly racist groups, whilst still spreading a clear anti-immigrant message.

ComradeP is right that Farage hates the EU, but he is often factually correct in his criticism of it's weaknesses, particularly on constitutional matters. When we leave the EU his job as an MEP will be finished, and a lot of his party's support will dissipate unless they can develop a national platform that people find attractive. If he doesn't expand his appeal to the UK electorate outside of Euroscepticism it will be hard for his party to sustain itself.

Populism works as long as you don't have to take responsibility. You can play the victim and just blame everybody else for the bad things that happen, conveniently ignoring your own flaws. For some reason, people are fine with that as long as the populist has enough force of personality. In the case of the Brexit, the populists had a problem, as they "won". Immediate result: political chaos, just what was to be expected. The Leave campaigners have not taken their political responsibility so far, with both the Labour and Conservative parties in turmoil and UKIP not being much of an alternative in terms of current and probably future political power as most of the electorate prefers a safer vote on a larger party.
[/quote]

His criticism of the EU's weaknesses might be correct, I can't really say as I'm not sure what he has discussed in recent months, but a man like Farage has experts to help him with such matters. When you hear and more importantly: see him in action, he is probably closer to what he stands for as a person. Furthermore, being right on some issues doesn't mean it's acceptable to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric that is inflammatory during the current debate, yet solves nothing. People will just get angrier. As long as they get angrier, they're more likely to vote for populist parties. At this point, I'm still quite sceptical if Farage actually wants to contribute to a solution to the EU's problems, or if he's mostly in the game for his own political power.

Farage likes baiting the pro-EU side, which is a source of amusement to Eurosceptics, just as much as a source of annoyance to those who identify with the EU. I get that ComradeP who is generally pro-EU will feel justifiably stung by it. That is Farage's intention.

Farage is a factor in Brexit, but look at who were actually running the official vote leave campaign. You will see that he ran an alternate leave campaign. The Eurosceptic consensus is a cross party consensus. A vast number of Labour, not UKIP voters voted for leave hence the present crisis for the Labour party. Without massive cross party support for Brexit it would not have happened.

You are attaching far more importance to Nigel Farage and UKIP to the Brexit outcome than you should.

I'm pro-European cooperation, not necessarily pro-EU. The EU is just the main shape European cooperation takes at the moment, which is why I support its policies on that matter. It's fine to criticize the EU, but not without giving a credible alternative. Pointing a finger is easy, but being part of the solution is a lot harder. I haven't seen Farage or his counterparts contribute much to a solution.

I'm for European cooperation too. In that respect, we're on the same side. But I think the EU model is broken and too monolithic to change. What I'd like to see is a loose confederacy of sovereign, independent European nations working in cooperation for their mutual benefit. Do you have a view on such a revised model of European cooperation? I think it goes a long way to preserving the benefits without the concerns felt by Eurosceptics. To me it seems a win-win solution and a no brainer. I'm not saying that it is a magic bullet, but I think it is a better way forward than the route adopted by the EU.

The EU is so abstract for European voters that problems that are actually caused by globalization or the specific strengths and weaknesses of a national economy are blamed on the EU. People treat the EU like a European government, which it isn't.

You're right it isn't. You were also right that it is too big to be manageable. It is too remote and monolithic to be responsive to the concerns of citizens, and in that are the seeds of its failure.

I think Farage is right that the UK is the first to leave, but there will be others. That doesn't have to be a bad thing for Europe. It may turn out to be the cue for a more flexible and responsive European "community". I think that at least medium term onwards (the markets are already recovering from the shock of Brexit) the UK will do just fine, but I can see that working cooperatively in a system which relies on consensus we are all stronger.

For example: if something like 12 out of 13 new jobs in England appear in the southeastern part of the country, it means the relative importance of London and other cities in that area is too great, similar to smaller countries in Eastern Europe with a large population in the capital. That is the way the UK economy is currently designed it seems, but it isn't caused by the EU. If you're in a place like Blackpool and you're poor, you don't see the benefit of EU membership, but in a more practical sense you primarily don't see much of a benefit of UK economic growth. For those people, tales of how less immigration will magically lead to more jobs are understandably inspiring. They're also misleading.

Immigration in the numbers we have seen, has put a downward pressure on wages. Big business love it, as the workforce costs drop as the result of the oversupply of labour, particularly at the lower skilled end of the workforce. Thus the workforce subsidise their profits. The principle argument by the Leave campaign focuses not so much on present immigration, but on future immigration without any control with regards to the needs of the UK economy. The open door policy is not economically sustainable, given our own unemployment, the pressure of a higher population on schools, hospitals, housing etc, which are all under considerable pressure.

As, a personal example, having been a school governor a few years ago, I can tell you as the Acting Chair of the Resources Committee it was a huge worry about how we were to cope with the changing demographics putting pressure on the limited funds we had to provide additional classrooms, teaching staff etc.

Another item that was frequently mentioned, at least in the Dutch press, was how people in the poorer areas felt it couldn't get much worse for them as the economic growth of the last decades has passed them by, a sentiment shared by numerous non-urban Europeans. The problem is that things can get much worse, and quite quickly. Poorer people rely more on government subsidies of some sort, so if the government takes hits in the treasury, cuts will have to be made, which in turn will disproportionally hit the poor. Considering that the parents or grandparents of those people grew up in a time where "real" poverty still existed, it's surprising that they believe their situation can't get worse due to being unemployed or not having much of a chance of achieving upwards social and economic mobility.

You may be right. There is no doubt that voting areas that were net beneficiaries of EU funding voted to remain, and that many areas that voted to Leave have a case to make that their local economies are ignored, both at the UK, but most certainly at the EU level. But economies in the EU don't necessarily improve as the result of membership of the EU. Greece is probably the best example, but >50% youth unemployment in Spain is another good one, that the EU is no silver bullet. I think a lot of people think that given the chance, we will have a brighter future outside of the EU.