Post Brexit political issues within the UK

[Boggit]

Some interesting issues have arisen immediately post Brexit. One is just sour grapes by Remain supporters, but some others merit more thought and clarification in shaping the new UK:

Let's deal with the most contentious...

1. A second referendum

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/could-britain-actually-have-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/petition-second-eu-referendum-crashes-house-of-commons-website
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-result-latest-david-lammy-mp-eu-referendum-result-parliament-twitter-statement-stop-this-a7102931.html (IMHO, For David Lammy democracy is inconvenient if it doesn't yield the result he wants. I wonder if his opposing candidates should ask for a re-election on the same basis? ;))

This comes as no surprise, and as I mentioned in previous posts, e.g.

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17250.msg453797#msg453797
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg450139#msg450139
http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=16806.msg454566#msg454566

a democratic referendum resulting in a call for Brexit might be subsequently challenged after the decision to leave was made, as with ignoring the French and Dutch 2005 referendums on the EU constitution, the Irish 2008 referendum rejecting the EU constitution, and the Irish 2009 referendum ratifying the EU Lisbon Treaty, which contains the EU constitution.

It is interesting that now the people have spoken, with 1.6 million more voters wanting to leave, there is a new campaign to call for another referendum.

Not only that but the people calling for another referendum want new thresholds added so that the truly democratic result of more than 52% that gave a Brexit outcome will be skewed to represent the minority vote. Interesting as to what it says of some remain voters and their attitude to democracy... "if we don't get the result we want we'll have another referendum, and change the criteria so we get the result we want" - how predictable, how dishonest, how undemocratic!

It speaks volumes, and we've been here before with referendums in other EU member states.... >:(

2. Should UK resident EU citizens have had a vote in Brexit?

Well certainly the Irish did, and were encouraged by Enda Kenny, the Irish Taioseach (PM) for the benefit of Ireland to vote remain. As he saw it, a remain vote was in Ireland's best interest. http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/enda-kenny-urges-irish-born-voters-to-back-remain-in-visit-to-uk/ar-AAh7YMt . I have no idea, what proportion actually did follow his lead, but speaking to Irish friends the consensus seems to be that a lot did, but not all. This raises the issue as to whether allowing resident Irish EU citizens to vote would vote remain in what they saw as the best interest of the UK, or in the best interest of Ireland, which are not necessarily the same.

But the Irish are only part of the story, and I think there was a reasonable case to enfranchise resident EU citizens into the referendum, as for many when they came to the UK a Brexit wasn't even on the table. In the referendum non EU British citizens who also had a British passport could vote in the referendum, but not otherwise. Clearly those non British EU citizens who have been here a long time did not need a British passport to relocate here, because the legal regime permitted it, and now if the UK does actually secede from the EU they will need to naturalise themselves as British in order to participate in future national elections and in direct politics. But the long term EU migrants to Britain did not get a say in their future, and I think that was unfair. I think that all EU citizens who would have qualified for naturalisation - i.e. had been in the UK for over 6 years, and had amply demonstrated a commitment to living in the UK as their home should have been given the opportunity to have voted in the Brexit referendum as of right. Moreover, if the UK does secede from the EU they should then qualify, at their option, for dual British citizenship, again as of right.

In the long term in many respects, dual nationality is a workable solution for engagement in UK political life as in the UK dual nationality is common, but in several EU member states dual nationality is not recognised. It might be a hard and painful decision for a non British EU citizen to remain in a post actual Brexit UK, as a lot depends on their state of origin recognising dual nationality.

I found this comment from a non British EU resident interesting, but look also at the following comments which are generally quite fair views... https://www.quora.com/Should-EU-immigrants-be-allowed-to-vote-in-the-UK-referendum-on-leaving-the-EU

3. Did ethnicity act as a determinant in Remain voting areas?

There is something that the media has not focused on, and with the PC fear of touching any thing connected with race it doesn't take a genius to figure out why. Certainly for London, and a few other areas where white British people are a minority it betrays another dynamic in the general voting mix that is not as widely reflected outside these and metropolitan areas.

It is ethnic identity, and the impact that might have on voting dynamics. The ethnic percentage of white British born people who live in London is the smallest in the UK, with the highest 'vote Remain' voting areas reflecting this in the polls :
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11

The concerns that many white British people have about immigration affecting their identity within the a community was seized upon by the Leave campaign. It is hardly a surprise then that the significant non white immigrant communities, encouraged by vocal non white political leaders from those same communities like Keith Vaz, David Lammy, Chukka Umunna, Diane Abbott and Sadiq Khan sought to vote remain. The remain vote is reflected in the demographics of areas of England particularly with higher concentrations on non white British citizens. I think there is clear evidence on the demographics and the voting results, evidencing a clear reaction by immigrant communities towards the issue of immigration affecting the ethnic identity of British communities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#/media/File:United_Kingdom_EU_referendum_2016_area_results.svg

3. Can any parallels be drawn from the issue of identity to the results in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar?

I think it is a fair question although ethnicity, per se, probably isn't as deterministic as nationalism. I won't assume that the issues are treated the same way in Northern Ireland as in Scotland... well it's complicated... and the motivations to leave or stay with the EU depends on who you speak to.

The areas in Northern Ireland that voted for Remain tended mostly to be nationalist areas, and those for Leave tended to be unionist areas. It is no secret that Enda Kenny called Irish voters to vote for Remain, and that might very well be extremely persuasive to someone living in Northern Ireland with Irish republican leanings. I'm speculating here, but by the same token there is evidence for it. https://www.neweurope.eu/article/northern-ireland-calls-referendum-united-ireland/

However, Northern Ireland also has a very strong unionist voice in favour of Brexit http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/northern-ireland-news/unionists-overwhelmingly-back-brexit-dodds-1-7371572 , and there are republicans who will have voted for Brexit to pursue their own separatist agenda. http://redo.me.uk/1/www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/northern-ireland-unionists-republicans-brexit-backers

Now I think the overwhelming vote throughout Scotland (62%) is a totally different matter to Northern Ireland, though I do think it has rather more to do with UK politics rather than the relative merits of the EU. Why should I say something so contentious?

If you look at Scottish voting patterns there is a strong historical voting pattern of Scotland being a major supporter of the Labour Party (and to some degree the Liberal Democrats who used to perform well, IIRC in the Highlands, Isles and Orkney), and more latterly of the Scottish National Party http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11586534/scottish-election-results-2015-live.html . Both Labour, the SNP, and the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson were vehemently for remaining in the EU, so I'm not surprised that with the support the combined efforts the SNP, Labour, the Scottish Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats had created that Scotland followed its lead with a remain vote.

There was no major Scottish party political leader who campaigned for Leave, so it is remarkable that so many Scottish voters (38%) actually voted to Leave despite the overweening political pressure to remain. You would have expected the percentage to be much lower. I wonder why 38% of the Scottish voters actually voted Leave, as practically the entire Scottish political establishment were overwhelmingly for Remain. I speculate that their vote was not a politically partisan one, but a canny view on what is developing as a future for Scotland in the EU. As I say I am speculating, but it is still a lot of people in Scotland who voted against the will of the Scottish political class, and the perceived popular will to remain in the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36599102
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/scottish-brexit-poll-shows-big-drop-support-remain/

As for Gibraltar's 96% in favour of Remain, I think this is something that deserves special consideration. http://thedailyvoicenews.com/2016/06/23/brexit-results-gibraltar-results-released/

Unlike Scotland, and Northern Ireland, Gibraltar is not part of the UK, per se, but is an Overseas Territory, much as Hawaii was prior to becoming the 50th State of the USA, or Puerto Rico is now. Given that Gibraltar is not incorporated into the UK, I think it is conceivable that with careful negotiation and good will between the UK and the EU, a solution should be worked out that gives effect to the will of the Gibraltarian people. I suspect it would be a complicated arrangement, but it is not impossible to create a special arrangement, which achieves the dual aim of staying in the EU, and in the UK as an overseas territory.

I note that Spain has used Brexit to try and get control of Gibraltar, but the Gibraltarian's are having none of it, and we are right to support their wish. They rejected co-sovereignty with Spain back in a 2002 referendum.

http://en.mercopress.com/2013/12/05/how-gibraltar-2002-referendum-foundered-plan-for-joint-sovereignty-with-spain
http://chronicle.gi/2016/03/britain-must-include-gibraltar-in-post-brexit-negotiations-report-says/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36618796
http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/26/hms-ambush-arrives-in-gibraltar-to-protect-it-from-spain-5967455/

4. The media, and Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) have been whipping up anti-EU immigrant fear as to their future in the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36627394
https://jonathanfryer.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/should-eu-migrants-fear-brexit/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bf000248-12ce-11e6-839f-2922947098f0.html#axzz4CgTjwyte
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/sturgeon-warns-europeans-could-lose-right-to-stay-1-3475453

Should EU migrants living here be concerned with their own situations? I think not. The immigration debate raised by the Leave campaign did focus on EU migration, but there was no call for deportation, nor lesser employment, or social rights than are presently enjoyed by EU migrants already in the UK. The citizen rights charity - the Citizens Advice Bureau makes it quite clear that the rights of EU citizens are unaffected, unless government should change it in the future. To date that has not been made an issue by the Leave campaign, and there are no plans to do this.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/brexit/brexit/

Could their rights viz their UK counterparts change? In principle, the start point is no. No one, save Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP (more later) has suggested it.

I think that might depend to some extent on the how the EU reacts to UK citizens living in the EU post Brexit. I seriously doubt that the British public would support initiating any legislation that punishes the rights of EU citizens who arrived here legitimately, unless the EU deliberately made life difficult for British expatriates. In which case, I think an automatic option of British citizenship should be offered as a matter of right to EU nationals that have settled here to protect their interest from harm as a result of any spat between the EU and the UK. After all they have been hostage to fortune in a sense with Brexit, and have no influence on EU policy. I think it behoves the UK to do something like that to protect them, as an innocent party, if the EU is not reciprocal with maintaining the status quo for ex pat UK citizens.

The issue on migration by the Leave campaign was always related to future EU migration, and not the current residential status of EU migrants who are legally domiciled in the UK.

Frankly it is disingenuous, indeed malicious, for the media to suggest otherwise. Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP, has also jumped onto the bandwagon. In particular, she has been dishonest in her disgusting, and blatantly fear mongering speech that non British EU residents in Scotland might lose their right of residential status.

No one in mainstream politics on the Leave side of the debate has called for repatriation, nor lesser rights for EU residents if they already live here. Given the anxiety felt by some EU residents, it really needs to be publicly addressed and emphasised that Brexit does not mean they are not wanted. Moreover, it needs public reassurance that they won't be treated unfairly or insensitively if the EU decides it will make life difficult for EU ex pats. The non British EU residents are entitled not to be put in fear so that Nicola Sturgeon can manufacture a political point. She should be ashamed. >:(

5. The voters for Leave, were ill educated, poor, working class etc...

The view of the pollsters maybe
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/24/the-areas-and-demographics-where-the-brexit-vote-was-won
http://www.populus.co.uk/2016/05/brexit-index-whos-remain-leave-supporters/

But no one I know was polled by the polling companies who provide the demographics from the poll samples. I am fortunate to live in an affluent area, on a nice street, with other mostly professionally qualified neighbours, who work in insurance, tax accounting, IT services (a company director), teaching, construction, estate agency, a fire brigade senior officer, nurses, and small business owners etc. In conversations with my neighbours, most were pro-leave and NONE of us have been polled. The attitude of the pollsters and the media is that Leave voters are a bunch of uneducated plebs. My neighbours don't fit that typology, and I hardly think that we are atypical. ::)

The moral being that the polls are misleading and the media relying on them are patronising Leave voters by blanket branding of them as ignorant, and lacking in aspiration. It just isn't true, even if it is cathartic for the media and pundits of the Remain campaign so they can feel better about themselves.

[Staggerwing]

If Gibraltar was involved in the referendum, was Bermuda as well? IIRC, it is also an Overseas Territory. Same goes for the BVI ,Falklands, etc.

[bayonetbrant]

Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?!   >:D

[Atilla60]

Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?!   >:D

Well, technically this is a post-Brexit thread  :)

[Atilla60]

Paul Joseph Watson and Stefan Molyneux discuss the aftermath of Brexit
Therre's some food for thought.

[Boggit]

Molyneux is quite insightful, and as far as I can tell does do his research. I've checked up his sources on other videos, and generally they check out well.

[Boggit]

I love this Irish guy. He's accurate and hilarious. His comments on the post Brexit twitter comments are great.

Warning: he is not PC at all ... ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTPJsUGHrUo

[Boggit]

The second referendum demand is now being investigated for fraud... C:-)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36634407

[Boggit]

If Gibraltar was involved in the referendum, was Bermuda as well? IIRC, it is also an Overseas Territory. Same goes for the BVI ,Falklands, etc.

Yes, it is a bit strange. It looks like just Gibraltar, as an overseas territory got a vote in the referendum. I don't know why the others didn't, and can only surmise that they are not subject to EU laws, whereas Gibraltar definitely is.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/649517/EU-referendum-2016-Voting-Voters-Allowed-British-Irish-Commonwealth-Citizens-European

[mirth]

Dude - how many Brexit threads do we need?!   >:D

that's like asking how many Civil War gaming threads do we need?

[Pinetree]

What I found amusing is that the 2nd referendum petition was initially set up by a pro-Brexit supporter before the first referendum who thought that they would lose. It had 22 signatures before referendum night, then the pro-EU crowd found it and took it over.

[ComradeP]

From across the sea, the impression is that UK politics are very chaotic at the moment and that there were no back-up plans in case of a Brexit aside from immediate stabilization of the pound if necessary.

After such a serious step, strong political leadership is needed and in the Netherlands, a close partner of the UK with many similarities in terms of its political and economic stance within the EU, the businessmen and journalists in particular are getting worried. The general public doesn't care all that much for now.

The Brexit was welcomed by some commentators as it allowed us to say goodbye to the British as EU members as friends, before more British demands caused additional problems over those made earlier this year. Continued UK membership was seen as, over time, causing more problems than it would be worth due to the demands they would make.

Dutch newspapers stressed that tabloids, which don't really exist here as our version of the Telegraph is still fairly tame compared to UK tabloids, staged an anti-EU campaign for decades. They also mentioned that the tabloids are mostly in the hands of billionaires who don't like not having influence in the EU, with Murdoch quoted as having said that everybody ignores him in Brussels, implying that he has a say in things in the UK.

Obviously, the UK government and several parties have done their fair bit of pro-EU propaganda that didn't have a factual basis as well, but the headlines and articles in tabloids that I've seen were...not pleasant to read considering how many people are probably influenced by what the tabliods report.

Personally, I see this as the end of the European Experiment. It has clearly failed. I also see this a victory for 21st century politics where emotion and short-term thinking played a greater part than taking responsibility and trying to be part of reforms. A restructuring of the EU is certainly necessary, and I think 28 member states is way too much to be able to make effective political and economic decisions, but you achieve those reforms through decisions by member states. That's also why I support the current decision by the most important EU members to leave the UK largely out of the decision making process and to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, before October. It's somewhat surprising to see strong leadership come from the EU political bodies, but here it is. You can't afford to have large scale political uncertainty in these situations.

It's a sad illusion propagated by the pro-Brexit crowd that the UK would continue to get benefits from EU treaties as a non-members whilst being able to ignore political influence from Brussels. A country like Norway still accepts about 75% of EU regulations in order to comply with the numerous treaties and regulations that allow it its specific position in Europe.

As an aside, I didn't know you had to register to vote in the UK, and it was reported that the majority of the younger British citizens didn't vote or register on time, whilst they were amongst the most pro-EU groups. I've always found it surprising that you can be in favour or against a party or a political idea whilst not attaching political commitments to it through voting.

I hope the UK will economically and politically have a soft landing, but the initial signs are not good.

[Toonces]

Man alive, Boggit. Have you always written such long posts, or it this something new? 

You make Jason Pratt look succinct by comparison! 

[bayonetbrant]

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/people-are-really-really-hoping-this-theory-about-david-cameron-and-brexit-is-true--bJhqBql0VZ

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-manoeuvred and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

[Boggit]

From across the sea, the impression is that UK politics are very chaotic at the moment and that there were no back-up plans in case of a Brexit aside from immediate stabilization of the pound if necessary.

Absolutely correct. A huge part of the political establishment thought in their arrogance that there was no chance of a Leave vote succeeding. I really don't think Cameron would have buckled to pressure from within his party if he thought there was a real chance of a Leave vote succeeding. That it did, and with more than 1.6 million votes more than the Remain side shows just how large the disconnect is between the British political establishment and the voters.

That also explains the present political fallout in the mainstream parties, and the general lack of contingency planning for a Brexit.

After such a serious step, strong political leadership is needed and in the Netherlands, a close partner of the UK with many similarities in terms of its political and economic stance within the EU, the businessmen and journalists in particular are getting worried. The general public doesn't care all that much for now.

I agree that strong political leadership is needed, given that a substantial number of people (but a minority all the same) wanted to remain in the EU, in order to set a clear road map for progress. I totally disagree that the general public doesn't care about this - unless you are referring to the impression on the Dutch population - we had an unprecedented turnout to vote at over 72%.

In the UK, the media is heavily politicised, with publicly funded television being biased to the left, and the newspapers being generally more disposed to the right. I think the businessmen are ultimately realists, and will know that nothing concrete will arise in the immediate future - we, still remain part of the EU, and there has been no structural change to the economy since Brexit. They will have plenty of time to adjust to whatever changes may result, and will have a far clearer idea of the long term economic prospects by the time the UK secedes from the EU.

Clearly the unexpected vote introduced uncertainty to the markets, which is why the stock and financial markets have reacted as they have. The business community are reacting to what they see as a political crisis, and unless they choose to make it one, it is not a crisis caused for economic reasons. In that respect, the issue is not as bad as the media will have us believe.

The Brexit was welcomed by some commentators as it allowed us to say goodbye to the British as EU members as friends, before more British demands caused additional problems over those made earlier this year. Continued UK membership was seen as, over time, causing more problems than it would be worth due to the demands they would make.

I don't think the relationship between the EU and the UK has ever been a truly happy one. When the UK voted to join the Common Market as it then was, there was no indication given to the general public that it would become an ever increasing federalist super state. That became clear around the time of the 1992 Maastricht treaty, and has become ever more obvious since. The Lisbon Treaty made the direction of the EU absolutely clear. A lot of people in the UK feel that direction is inconsistent with our desire for sovereignty and national identity, which was reflected in the recent Brexit referendum result.

I can see your perspective very well, that by making exceptions for the UK as to what they have to accept from the EU if they remain can be galling to the Dutch electorate. The Dutch are submitting to the full ambit of the EU decisions in their lives, whereas the citizens of the UK are uncomfortable with that.

My view is if the Dutch electorate want less say in their lives by submitting to the policies of the Commission, then that is a matter for them. The message from the UK is that the UK don't want that world order. But I get perfectly that the Dutch might quite justifiably resent having to follow the EU rules, yet the UK get exceptions for their wider cooperation. It is unfair on the Dutch electorate, but it also shows that the EU principle of one size fits all doesn't work either.

Dutch newspapers stressed that tabloids, which don't really exist here as our version of the Telegraph is still fairly tame compared to UK tabloids, staged an anti-EU campaign for decades. They also mentioned that the tabloids are mostly in the hands of billionaires who don't like not having influence in the EU, with Murdoch quoted as having said that everybody ignores him in Brussels, implying that he has a say in things in the UK.

That is very true. That said, the sale of physical newspapers has dropped dramatically in recent years, which impacts on their effect. Not so of online news sources, which dilute the effect of the ownership of the traditional newspaper as a means of putting over a view. Public television on the other hand is still very influential, and over recent years the bias of publicly funded news broadcasters such as the BBC, Channel 4 etc, has visibly shifted from a neutral to a leftist view of affairs.

If anything, in the battle for hearts and minds over the EU, the strength of the media in reporting the on the EU has been more to the left and more in favour of the EU. For me, it is a disappointment. It is better in my opinion for news agencies to be neutral, voicing and analysing the strengths and weaknesses of both points of view, so people can make informed choices. Sadly, while they will report events, the level of analysis is usually very weak.

The BBC with partisan reporting is probably even more prone to that than ever before. It seems that this has been ever more the case since the government clipped its wings following the MP's expenses scandal a few years ago. The government has since introduced new plans to appoint half of the board members of the BBC, which is supposed to be an "independent trust" (sic), in exchange for continued tax funding. It means that the influence of government will be felt even more in what is supposed to be an "independent" news agency. Well go figure, the truth dies first...

Obviously, the UK government and several parties have done their fair bit of pro-EU propaganda that didn't have a factual basis as well, but the headlines and articles in tabloids that I've seen were...not pleasant to read considering how many people are probably influenced by what the tabliods report.

I agree with the view that both sides made exaggerated claims, with Remain being slightly more disingenuous. But you're right both sides have stretched the truth to their ends.

That all said, we haven't since Brexit gone to war with anyone, and the sun still rises. Actually it is quite nice today. :)

Personally, I see this as the end of the European Experiment. It has clearly failed. I also see this a victory for 21st century politics where emotion and short-term thinking played a greater part than taking responsibility and trying to be part of reforms. A restructuring of the EU is certainly necessary, and I think 28 member states is way too much to be able to make effective political and economic decisions, but you achieve those reforms through decisions by member states. That's also why I support the current decision by the most important EU members to leave the UK largely out of the decision making process and to insist on a quick Article 50 procedure, before October. It's somewhat surprising to see strong leadership come from the EU political bodies, but here it is. You can't afford to have large scale political uncertainty in these situations.

I don't know if it is the end of the European experiment. If you take the view that the EU was a house of cards and that one member state secedes will cause the collapse of all, then maybe.

I don't see it panning out that way. With the rise of euroscepticism throughout Europe, now is the time to give every member state a referendum on whether the citizens consider the EU works in their best interest or not. The member states who remain can be confident that they have the support of their populations, and can move on in relative unity.

To deny the citizens of member states a referendum is far more dangerous. Firstly, those opposed to the EU will be able to legitimately say that the EU is remote and frightened of the will of the people, that it is unrepresentative, and thus its laws are illegitimate. In other words, it will be even more widely regarded as despotic, having the same democratic legitimacy as the Soviet Union did.

So what then? Even people who may have voted to remain in the EU will start waking up to the democratic deficit, that the people who propose the laws have only the most tenuous democratic mandate, and for all practical purposes cannot be deselected if the citizens are unhappy with the laws passed. What then? My prediction is that if the EU refuse fair, or use weighted exit referendums, then you will push people who were not extreme into the extremes of politics. It will be clear to many that the political class do not represent their interest, which the far left and far right will be happy to say they do. Therein lies the path to a widely disaffected and disenfranchised population. We have seen this before with the rise of Fascism, and with the rise of Bolshevism. I predict that will be the outcome, and we all know how that ended. :'(

Am I being overly dramatic? I don't think so. Look at the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, and the rise of far right and far left parties throughout Europe. They capitalise on the lack of representation of the best interests of the people, perceived or otherwise. I watched these clips last night, which gave me further food for thought:
The warnings are all here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XksZYV3-6eg
When democracy fails to deliver, the right capitalise...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ukaXTgI2o
When government is remote and unresponsive extreme politics flourish...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4t5mqxCMX4
Changes in the nature of democracy, and the consequences examined
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkI1U5jesS0
It is no accident that the EU's failure to address wealth differentials, economic failure, and managed immigration is changing the political climate. But the political class are not offering solutions to ordinary people. The extreme right is offering hope, where none is seen or believed from the "mainstream politicians". It isn't working.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaWGCaNj1Vw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VZfgs_HBo

If the EU effectively disenfranchises people from government that represents their concerns, and they deny them a voice, then don't be surprised that those who claim they will remedy that in the people's interest will gain support. If Frexit is ultimately refused - and I know that Hollande has just done this - then where is the outlet for the expression of people who feel disenfranchised?

There is a good reason why the far right across Europe are supporting Brexit, and it has very little to do with any perceived lack of democracy, and opportunities to trade more freely in the global market. They are relying on the fear of the Euro élites to any more exit referendums, because they can say legitimately - look, "you have been denied a say in your future, by these rich, unelected Eurocrats who care only for their own interest, and the interest of big business." And in very simple terms (and I readily concede there is much, much more to it than that) they will be seen as right. It is no accident that Golden Dawn, which was practically unheard of a few years ago is now Greece's third largest party.

I really don't want to see the far right in control, but I am more than ever convinced that this is going to happen if real democracy, and the positive connection of government policies with the people continue to be suffocated.

While you are right to point out that the UK now needs strong leadership, you need the same in the EU, because after a serious lack of it for years, the chickens are coming home to roost, and some consequences of a lack of moral courage now don't bear thinking about.

I really agree with you that the EU is too big to properly manage. In any event, it doesn't manage itself. It was abundantly clear that many countries now in the Eurozone were never going to match the economic criteria required for admission, yet here we are. The ongoing economic disaster with Greece is no accident, and it will get worse. The EU allowed it to happen, and yet the situation in Greece is not unique in the EU. The EU "leadership" (sic) during last years immigration crisis was a complete bad joke. It's failure has resonated throughout Europe.

I disagree that the rush to force a triggering of the Art 50 provisions is strong EU leadership. It is far better to have a considered and measured approach to the UK leaving the EU to avoid a political crisis becoming an economic one by rushing things. If the UK economy fails, that will impact severely on the rest of the member states, particularly as we a currently a major net contributor to EU funds, and we operate a trade deficit in favour of the EU. To encourage the UK to fail will be disastrous for the long term survival of the EU, as it will put even more intense pressure on member state economies.

I see the EU leader's stance as panic, that unless they get the UK out of the way quickly - and hopefully in a hurried exit resulting in an economic recession - they may stave of the demand for exits in their own countries, as they will say "look what happens if you leave the EU". If the EU wants to show strong leadership they will seek to get an endorsement from the citizens of the member states, and cooperate with any states that express the view that they see their destiny outside of the EU. That will entrench the sense of unity within those member states who wish to stay, while maintaining good relations with those that leave. It's win, win with cooperation in the mutual interest. At the same time the underpinning pressure of euroscepticism is addressed by not forcing it to the extreme right for its expression.

Assume a worst case for the EU that the populations of the EU all decide to abandon it. There is ample evidence that it hasn't worked for a significant number of citizens, but not everything about the EU is bad. There are lessons to be learnt, but I'd rather see a looser European confederation of free, sovereign nations working together in their mutual interest, but maintaining their traditions and identities. It means decentralising democratic control, but it is an effective way of rejuvenating the decline of democracy in a way that is actually more representative of the concerns of ordinary people. I think the phoenix can rise from the ashes of the EU, and in many ways can offer a better way forward for all.

And yes, you are right that there will be large scale uncertainty, which is bad for all, not just if the UK leaves but if the EU collapses as well. An EU collapse will arise either directly from the possibility of exit referenda, or if refused by eventual internal collapse to the rise of the far right exploiting economic, and political issues, and coming to dominate in the government of member states, and then ultimately the EU itself.

FWIW, I think the EU was initially a fine concept, but it has lost its way. Given that some of its main political supporters like Hollande and Merkel have severely disaffected populations - not to mention countries like Hungary, and Poland, whose leaders, let alone their populations are disillusioned with the EU it is on very shaky ground for the future.

It's a sad illusion propagated by the pro-Brexit crowd that the UK would continue to get benefits from EU treaties as a non-members whilst being able to ignore political influence from Brussels. A country like Norway still accepts about 75% of EU regulations in order to comply with the numerous treaties and regulations that allow it its specific position in Europe.

Well the Norwegians aren't totally happy about that, but there are reasons they still accept some EU laws and pay tribute to have access to markets. But the Norwegian economy is not the basket case that was predicted. They are doing quite nicely, thank you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXX71EKDKiY
http://www.thelocal.no/20160627/iceland-president-brexit-is-good-news-for-norway

We operate a trade deficit with the EU. If the EU insisted on harsh terms to the UK, then the UK can equally reciprocate in kind. Who will be worse off? It doesn't take a genius to see that the EU member states (if not the EU institutions) have more to lose by trying to make an example of the UK. It is in no one's interest to be difficult. Moreover, there are markets outside of the EU who will see the opportunity and fill the void. It becomes a long term mistake for the EU  if they are not flexible.

As an aside, I didn't know you had to register to vote in the UK, and it was reported that the majority of the younger British citizens didn't vote or register on time, whilst they were amongst the most pro-EU groups. I've always found it surprising that you can be in favour or against a party or a political idea whilst not attaching political commitments to it through voting.

Voter registration has been in place for years. If it is actually the case that younger voters didn't vote or register in time then whose fault is that? Which is more important to them: Playstations or Politics? ;) Given that UK government, as well as the EU is usually deaf to the concerns of ordinary people, I'm not really surprised that many young people ask themselves what is the point of engaging with politics that is remote from the people. And then the political class wring their hands at the rise of the far right... not that their failure to engage has anything to do with it!

I hope the UK will economically and politically have a soft landing, but the initial signs are not good.

Thank you. :)

Anything new brings uncertainty, but I'm an optimist. I think reason will prevail and it will all work out in the end. I send my best wishes too for my friends in the Netherlands, that your future works out well too. O0 I doubt very much that the UK and the Netherlands will want to cease cooperating or be negative towards each other for very long. Where would be the point?