International BREXIT: Leave/Remain Referendum on June 23 Will Change Europe, No Matter the Outcome.

[Fedorable]

Make Britain great again?

 

[Arkain2K]

‘Brexit’ Vote Will Change Europe, No Matter the Outcome
Britain’s EU referendum calls into question march toward closer ties; resistance over ‘total integration’
By Laurence Norman and Stephen Fidler
June 21, 2016

Whether or not the U.K. votes to leave the European Union in Thursday’s referendum, change is coming​

BRUSSELS—If the U.K. decides in Thursday’s referendum to leave the European Union, it would shake the continent to its political foundations. Even if it stays, the bloc may never be the same.

A decision to leave, which would be a first by a member nation, would deepen the crisis facing a continent already struggling with economic weakness, debt problems, large-scale migration and growing geopolitical instability to its south and east.

At a minimum, politicians and officials say, a British exit would transform the bloc’s balance of power. Negotiations over a new relationship would consume the EU’s energy at a time when European institutions are struggling to respond to the other problems. A U.K. exit also could disrupt financial markets and fire up anti-EU forces in other countries.

Whether or not the U.K. leaves, change is coming. In February, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron struck a deal with the rest of the EU to restrict migrant benefits and detach Britain from the bloc’s push for an “ever closer union.” Mr. Cameron’s effort to claw back power from Brussels, coupled with the referendum at home, is an approach that other European politicians are promising to follow, potentially fragmenting the bloc further.

The referendum, at a minimum, has delivered a shock to Europe’s political classes, calling into question what some had once regarded as an inevitable march toward a federal EU.

“Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm,” European Council President Donald Tusk observed in a speech in late May. “The specter of a breakup is haunting Europe, and a vision of a federation doesn’t seem to me like the best answer to it.”

Some see the U.K. referendum, no matter the outcome, as an opportunity to move toward a new EU treaty with a two-tier structure—core countries that are more integrated and peripheral counties that aren’t. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is seeking a return to office in next year’s presidential elections, advocates reinforcing the eurozone with a finance minister and a European monetary fund. At the same time, he wants to maintain a broader EU, at 28 nations, which focuses on a few areas such as research, energy and agriculture.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has accused the EU at times of behaving like his nation’s former Soviet masters, has welcomed Britain’s push to win concessions from the EU on issues such as migration and has called a referendum on the EU’s migration policy for September. He is pressing for Britain to remain.

A British vote to leave would likely bring far more dramatic change, along with many uncertainties: questions about the timing and length of negotiations, the impact on the U.K. government and the kind of relationship a departed U.K. would want with the bloc.

Fredrik Reinfeldt, Sweden prime minister from 2006 to 2014, said an exit vote “weakens us and it drifts toward a more unbalanced European Union.” Economies on both sides of the English Channel, he predicted, would be damaged.

David Owen, a former British foreign secretary who supports leaving, said a decision to exit could end with an “amicable divorce,” in which the U.K. steps calmly away from an EU he believes is headed in a federalist direction.

“We take our time and we make clear to Europe that we’re very open to discussion as to how this should be handled,” he said. “We have no interest in the unraveling of the EU, and we need to be ready to help as much as we can.”

A big unknown is how many other countries would attempt to follow suit. A Pew Research Center survey published this month showed levels of disapproval of the EU in many countries as high as or higher than in the U.K. In the Netherlands, 46% had an unfavorable view of the EU; in Germany and the U.K., 48%; in Spain, 49%; and in France, 61%.

Michael Gove, the British justice secretary who is campaigning to leave the EU, said a British departure would spark “a democratic liberation of a whole continent.”

Both France and the Netherlands hold elections by next spring. Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France and Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands are performing strongly. Both politicians have talked about holding membership referendums. Mr. Wilders said this month that a British exit vote would create “a patriotic spring” that would end the EU.

Such views aren’t widely shared on the Continent among politicians from traditional parties, even those seeking a broad redesign of the way the bloc functions. In their view, a return to a Europe of nation states increases the risk of the kind of catastrophic conflicts seen in the 20th century.

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, a fierce critic of Brussels and Berlin, who once battled against what he saw as unjustified austerity forced on his country, has campaigned for the U.K. to stay.

Governments in newer member states such as Hungary, Slovakia and Poland, as well as in founding nations such as Italy, have become more hostile to demands from Brussels. A British exit vote likely wouldstiffenresistance to EU efforts to uphold key principles such as support for judicial independence. Brussels is trying to stop the new Polish government’s bid to reconstitute its top court.

Guntram Wolff, director of Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, said even among EU-hostile Central and Eastern European countries, there are powerful financial, economic and security incentives to staying. For those in the eurozone, the costs of exit and abandoning the single currency could dwarf whatever price the U.K. pays.

“Of course, you have political forces in France, Netherlands, Austria and Italy trying to focus on [doing] the same,” said Wolfgang Schüssel, Austria’s chancellor from 2000 to 2007. ”I think the debate will be stronger, but it will wake up other forces, hopefully, where politicians will stand up to defend” the EU.

Mr. Schüssel said other nations would be dissuaded from leaving by the economic shock he predicts the U.K. would suffer. “As an economist, I’m convinced that Brexit would have in the short-run and maybe in the mid-run very negative consequences,” he said.

Senior European diplomats said that any post-Brexit arrangement with the U.K. must ensure that it doesn’t gain from walking out—that it doesn’t draw the benefits of membership without paying the price.

“When you are out, you are out,“ said Volker Rühe, Germany’s former defense minister. “You can’t negotiate something in between.”

He acknowledged the bloc would suffer and become more inward looking. A British exit would deprive Germany of a big contributor to the EU budget and a powerful pro-market ally in EU deliberations.

Without the U.K., which alongside France dwarfs the military capacities of other member states, the EU’s defense, security and diplomatic capabilities would be hit. Only Britain and France have sizable expeditionary forces, nuclear weapons and United Nations Security Council vetoes.

“There is at least one place in Europe where a possible British exit from the EU would be applauded, and that’s the Kremlin,” said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Danish prime minister from 2001 to 2009. “The Russians would see the British exit as a weakening not only of the EU, but of the entire Western community.”

In the past, a U.K. departure might have triggered a concerted effort by France and Germany to deepen integration in the EU. All the bloc’s political leaps, from the founding of the steel and coal community in the 1950s to the drive to monetary union, have emerged from Franco-German agreement.

Yet there is no sign of a broad new plan from Paris or Berlin. Top officials say a range of responses to a potential U.K. exit are under discussion. They include tighter joint EU work on security threats, aspirations for greater defense cooperation and a renewed push to forge an EU-wide telecommunications market and common copyright rules.

With French and German elections next year, any efforts to deepen the eurozone’s fiscal and monetary union by pooling resources and drawing up stricter common economic rules are off the table, according to senior diplomats and officials.

A move to deepen the monetary union would expose another consequence of an exit by the EU’s second-largest economy: a major shift in the balance of power within the EU between the 19 countries in the eurozone and those outside.

Deepening economic ties between the countries that use the euro could present the countries that don’t with a politically awkward choice between jumping on board or being permanently squeezed out of influence.

“I think it’s a fundamental problem,” said Mr. Wolff, the Brussels think-tank director. “Once the U.K., leaves, the non-euro-area countries represent 15% of EU [gross domestic product]. And that basically means the eurozone is very, very dominant.”

“That’s what we worry about,” said Mr. Reinfeldt, the former Swedish prime minister, whose country would be the biggest non-eurozone economy if Britain left.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-vote-will-change-europe-no-matter-the-outcome-1466528395

 

[Goonerview]

If the UK leaves the north and scotland will seperate. You won't be the UK anymore.

I hope Scotland do separate

 

[danny23]

Remain will win.
It's better if they do.

 

[in the]

 

[in the]

 

[DespicablePeep]

I didn't watch the clip.
There would be lots of negative consequences, many would only come apparent after a decade or so.
For example you are a car manufacturer or any other large manufacturer thinking about opening a new plant or invest in one of your existing one in Europe. Why would you consider to build it in the UK after an exit? You would have to pay higher import taxes to your main market the EU and you couldn't move your products the same way.
Your executives and other key employers/engineers couldn't just travel to the UK without a work Visa. You would have to deal with paperwork and delays getting parts they would also be more expensive if they have to be delivered to the UK from outside the EU.

Why would you open or invest more in the UK, when they are not part of your main market the EU? You would simply choose a country in the EU and just deal with selling your stuff in the UK rather than the opposite way.

I can understand if people in the UK say they don't want to be part of the EU. But to claim it wouldn't have negative consequences on the economy is wrong in my opinion, because the UK would not be part of the main regional market.

Solid points but UK could still make commercial agreements with the EU, no matter how things go I don´t see UK adopting the Euro by 2020.

 

[Thames]

Not an area I know a great deal about but I thought the EU was a trade arrangement? If the UK pulls out won't they still have to abide by the larger trade regulations in the EU member nations or will they have to negotiate completely new trade deals?

What EU rules they have to abide by going foward, depends on what path they take (should they leave).

If they go the Norway/Switzerland route, and become part of the EEA (European Economic Area), they still have to abide by most rules the EU makes (including being part of Schengen, which is what most nationalistic right wingers want to exit), but they just don't have any influence on the EU. They are however exempt from certain rules (like fishing quotas): http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features#5

Or they can go the route of making trade deals with each and every single european nation, like pre WW2. Which I guess is really the only realistic option, since Brexit supporters are primarily driven by anti-immigration sentiments (even though the EU doesn't have anything to do with immigration regarding non-EU citizens, but most Brexit supporters don't know that).

I also heard someone suggest that the U.K could make an alternative system to the EU. But I don't see the idea in that, considering most european nations are already part of the WTO, and that the EU is actually just the ambitious version of the WTO, with a much more effective court system.

 

[panamaican]

It is.
They obviously still have to abide by the trade regulations in the WTO. If they have to abide by EU rules going foward, depends on what course they take.

If they go the Norway/Switzerland route, and become part of the EEA (European Economic Area), they still have to abide by most rules the EU makes (including being part of Schengen, which is what most nationalistic right wingers want to exit), but they just don't have any influence on the EU. They are however exempt from certain rules (like fishing quotas): http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-features#5

Or they can go the route of making trade deals with each and every single european nation, like pre WW2. Which I guess is really the only realistic option, since Brexit supporters are primarily driven by anti-immigration sentiments (even though the EU doesn't have anything to do with immigration regarding non-EU citizens, but most Brexit supporters don't know that).

That was my general understanding but since it's Europe I thought I might be missing some pieces. If you watched the Oliver piece, was he right on the actual costs, the 350 million lbs for exiting vs. ~190 million for staying?

 

[Thames]

That was my general understanding but since it's Europe I thought I might be missing some pieces. If you watched the Oliver piece, was he right on the actual costs, the 350 million lbs for exiting vs. ~190 million for staying?

That's part of what I took issue with in his piece tbh.
It's not that you can't construct such numbers, but I think they are entirely meaningless.

Essentially what the Brexit campaign is referring to is simply the cost of staying (the EU takes a very small percentage (0,3%) of member states VAT income, and 0,7% of GDP, along with some income on import duties on non-EU goods), and how the EU budget is spread among member states (like subsidies for certain industries like agriculture, research funds, current loans to nations like Greece etc.), and how much the U.K receives: So essentially how much of what goes out of the U.K to the EU, comes back.
It wouldn't suprise me that the number the Brexit campaign used was false, like John Oliver reported.

But to me that is not even touching on how utterly irrelevant a measure it is.
The EU obviously brings about much more economic value, than just the money it spreads from its relatively small budget. What about the economic gains from being part of the inner market? You know, what the EU is primarily set out to establish. I don't want to write a wall of text about it, but this article covers it a bit: https://next.ft.com/content/1688d0e4-15ef-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e

And this paper highlights some important points (yes yes, I know, straight from the lizard people): http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publications/docs/20years/achievements-web_en.pdf

Just talking about what goes in and out of the EU budget, goes to show how intellectually dead the Brexit campaign is. I was kind of shocked that John Oliver didn't attack that aspect.
It's essentially like someone measuring the value of their taxes, by comparing the amount they pay in taxes to the amount the government directly pays them back, but without including the value they gain from having roads, law enforcement, courts etc.

 

[Arkain2K]

Not an area I know a great deal about but I thought the EU was a trade arrangement? If the UK pulls out won't they still have to abide by the larger trade regulations in the EU member nations or will they have to negotiate completely new trade deals?

Since you're new to the discussion, I highly recommend you to look at the Thread Index in the OP. I'm confident that at this point, the answers to all the basic Brexit questions can quickly be found there for those who needs to catch up, but don't have the time to read the entire thread.

The analysis posted back on June 17 about the Four Possible Outcome of post-Brexit Trade Deals is particularly helpful to your enquiry, for example. Why don't you give that a whirl first?

 

[panamaican]

That's part of what I took issue with in his piece tbh.
It's not that you can't construct such numbers, but I think they are entirely meaningless.

Essentially what the Brexit campaign is referring to is simply the cost of staying (the EU takes a very small percentage (0,3%) of member states VAT income, and 0,7% of GDP, along with some income on import duties on non-EU goods), and how the EU budget is spread among member states (like subsidies for certain industries like agriculture, research funds, current loans to nations like Greece etc.), and how much the U.K receives: So essentially how much of what goes out of the U.K to the EU, comes back.
It wouldn't suprise me that the number the Brexit campaign used was false, like John Oliver reported.

But to me that is not even touching on how utterly irrelevant a measure it is.
The EU obviously brings about much more economic value, than just the money it spreads from its relatively small budget. What about the economic gains from being part of the inner market? You know, what the EU is primarily set out to establish. I don't want to write a wall of text about it, but this article covers it a bit: https://next.ft.com/content/1688d0e4-15ef-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e

And this paper highlights some important points (yes yes, I know, straight from the lizard people): http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publications/docs/20years/achievements-web_en.pdf

Just talking about what goes in and out of the EU budget, goes to show how intellectually dead the Brexit campaign is. I was kind of shocked that John Oliver didn't attack that aspect.
It's essentially like someone measuring the value of their taxes, by comparing the amount they pay in taxes to the amount the government directly pays them back, but without including the value they gain from having roads, law enforcement, courts etc.

Thanks, I'll read the links.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Lets hope the liberal scum lose this one.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Are there Americans brought over to the UK to shit all over them? We've got Piers, Oliver and the south African douche bag for the Daily Show. They all come to America to shit on Americans. They can fuck off.

It is always awful that people skilled at their professions--whether that's engineering, scientific research, or entertainment--come to the US. They're the bane of our country.

 

[Arkain2K]

What the hell? How did we go from hard facts checked by real economists after an actual televised Brexit Debate to suddenly talking about financial/economic advices from an "expert" like John fucking Oliver anyway? Did this HBO talkshow host suddenly become a seasoned and well-respected Economist overnight or something??

Edit: The way the last few pages looks as if a shitty, TMZ-level thread about John fucking Oliver's life and career got merged into our comprehensive Brexit discussion.

This is depressing. I'm bumping this analysis, just to drown out the useless crap so this serious thread can regain some of its integrity, and hopefully gets back on topic:

The final EU referendum debate, fact checked
June 21, 2016

​

“Ask yourself just one question”, said Gisela Stuart in the very first sentence of Tuesday's EU referendum debate.

We were drowning in questions by the end of the two-hour show on BBC, as the claims flew thick and fast. What to make of accusations that these were “big fat lies” or “blatant untruths”?

Analysing the various claims on Tuesday were fact-checking organisation Full Fact.


Fact-checking Remain claims

• Fact check: 'Brexit would cause a reduction in UK wages'
• Fact check: '500,000 jobs in London dependent on EU'
• Fact check: 'Turkey is not set to join the EU'
• Fact check: 'EU immigrants must leave UK if they don't find work in six months'
• Fact check: 'Migrants contribute more to UK economy than they take from it'
• Fact check: 'Irish border controls would be imposed in case of Brexit'

Fact-checking Leave claims

• Fact check: 'Only Antarctica has a slower growth rate than the EU'
• Fact check: 'Only 6% of UK businesses export to EU'
• Fact check: 'UK governments already provided rights for workers'
• Fact check: '510 million people from EU have uncontrolled access to UK'
• Fact check: 'Brexit means additional £10 billion for public services'
• Fact check: 'European Court is supreme authority in UK'
• Fact check: 'EU bureaucrats do not account for themselves fiscally'

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-21/the-eu-referendum-debate-fact-checked/

 

[Valhoven]

(even though the EU doesn't have anything to do with immigration regarding non-EU citizens, but most Brexit supporters don't know that)..

Come again?

 

[JadeOwl]

Are there Americans brought over to the UK to shit all over them? We've got Piers, Oliver and the south African douche bag for the Daily Show. They all come to America to shit on Americans. They can fuck off.

Well, if you guys are so thin-skinned that you can't take criticism it's no wonder Trump got to where he is in the campaign.

 

[Thames]

Come again?

I fail too see how I could make that post any clearer. I'm afraid I don't speak finnish. 

 

[lifelessheap]

Well, if you guys are so thin-skinned that you can't take criticism it's no wonder Trump got to where he is in the campaign.

How many US citizens are on television in Peru telling you that you fucking suck? How man Americans are on your television telling you how to run your country and trying to take away your freedoms?

I bet it is zero. So kindly fuck off.

I'm tired of people moving to the US for a BETTER life and then complaining about it, especially 3rd world scum from South America and Mexico. I live in California and have witnessed thousand of illegal aliens take to the streets and wave Mexican flags and chant anti-american things. Why don't they go home if the US is such a shitty place? Why do they come to my country and complain about it? I'm tired of foreign dick bags invading my country and trying to turn my country into the place that they had to FLEE FROM because it sucked so bad.

So no, I don't want to live in Mexico, and I don't want a country that is run like the UK that is anti freedom of speech and where there are zero gun rights. So all the illegals and fuck tit Europeans go go fucking home and let my country continue to be the greatest place on Earth.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Valhoven]

I fail too see how I could make that post any clearer. I'm afraid I don't speak finnish. 

I'm afraid I don't speak Bruxelles, so a standstill we'll call it, but if you think the EU has piss all to do with non-EU emigrants inside Schengenområdet then you have been living under SF's skirt for too long.