BREXIT - e adesso?

[Leviathan]

[Logomaco]

Why Brexit will not happen


By Sorin Moisa
27 giu 2016 (updated: 27 giu 2016)



MEP Sorin Moisa argues that the “Big Lie” promoted by the Leave campaign will be exposed before Britain can actually leave the EU, and that a second referendum will reject Brexit.

Sorin Moisa (Partidul Social Democrat) is a Romanian MEP, Member of the S&D group.

The populist motives of Leave leaders will backfire on them. The ultimate revenge of reality will be to have a Prime Minister Johnson go back to London and read from the draft Exit Treaty the details of how he ‘recovered’ British sovereignty from the Brussels bureaucrats by actually giving them the power to dictate Britain’s regulations without any British input.The various components of the “Big Lie” will unfold and parade in slow motion before the eyes of the British people, as the economic and institutional consequences of their vote will become known in the months to come.Firstly, the effective strategic lies in the campaign, such as money being diverted back from Brussels straight into the NHS, or the possibility of stopping migration, both exploiting the anxieties of old and/or vulnerable people, are already being exposed.Secondly, the economic consequences of Brexit have begun to show, some immediately and abruptly, others will follow more slowly but surely. Divestment is likely by companies which want to continue having guaranteed access to the full EU market. The UK was a great home for them, but the EU market is their ultimate purpose.Thirdly, there is the obvious risk of breaking up the Union, with Scotland pushing for independence.Fourthly, and most importantly in terms of the Brexit campaign propaganda, how will the ‘independent UK’ be able to enjoy its new sovereign powers while remaining an open economy? Not even the Leave campaign has suggested that the non-EU UK could be prosperous by severing its economic ties with Europe: on the contrary, they would be maintained, but on sovereign British terms. How then does newly independent Britain actually ‘take back control’ from Brussels? There is no logical way around this: if the UK wants to continue having access to the EU’s internal market, it will have to accept the rules of that market, designed by EU-27, aka as… ‘Brussels’.This is separate from the idea of preferential market access: it is about the rules that UK products and services have to respect in order to be sold in Europe. These rules, and the institutional arrangements put in place to guarantee that there’s no cheating about them, form the bulk of EU legislation: this was the very enemy of the Leave campaign. In other words, the Brussels devil is back with a vengeance, imposing itself on the UK as a pure outside force, once the UK is out of its inner workings. The UK will learn the hard way what Norway – among others – know all too well: that in the EU, it was part of decision-making, while outside it will be forced to operate on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis for decisions taken fully and exclusively by its former partners. Gone is the possibility to systematically influence, shape or veto Brussels legislation.The core debate about free trade nowadays is essentially about who creates the rules of the future global economic system. New generation free trade agreements (FTAs) are more about rules than tariffs. This is one of the strongest arguments for the TTIP: will we have a more or less Western type of standards underlying the mega-trends of trade, or not? The size of your own market is a crucial factor in that game. By decoupling itself from the biggest market of the planet, the UK will have chosen to limit its own relevance, will have chosen to be a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker, in Europe and globally.Global regimes to manage globalisation cannot be created by small players: there is no such thing as ‘taking back control’ in an extremely interconnected world, by an open economy: denying that is denying gravity. The Leave campaign missed a simple point: as EU member, the UK has some sovereign powers over Germany, France, Poland and so on. It’s not ‘them and us’, it’s all pooled and projected globally by the ensuing top global player, i.e. the EU, for all its desperate imperfections. After Brexit the UK will no longer benefit from existing EU FTAs, but will have to negotiate new ones from scratch relying on much less leverage than the EU has.Finally, the EU will be forced to only accept exit arrangements that will reflect the new power and economic rapports between EU-27 and the UK. Even preferential treatment on its market is not guaranteed for sectors such as agriculture or services. This is not about being mean to the UK, which will forever be a privileged partner and key ally for Europe: but the EU is obliged by the laws of nature to show that membership of the club has its value. If the UK gets to leave without paying the right price, then the EU commits suicide: it states to the world and its own members that being in our out makes no difference, or worse, that you can have most of the advantages of being in from the outside, without paying the price for it, with the bonus of being able to bash the insiders for opportunistic political gain. This would amount to an open invitation for populist movements to slaughter the EU, and ask for further exits: the EU would be digging its own grave, creating a market for more big lies. The Exit Treaty is thus bound to be generous, but not preserve the status-quo in terms of full access to the single market.Many of these points have been made during the debate on Brexit. They were answered with emotional generalities. The big difference in the coming months is that the Utopia of recovered sovereignty will have to be translated into legal text and practical arrangements. This is when the Big Lie will unravel point by point, nuance by nuance. The pain of keeping most of that hated legislation, and the inevitable painful mental projections incorporated in the Exit Treaty describing how the UK will accept future legislation made in Brussels, are going to retroactively destroy the Leave campaign.Britain is an open society, hosting some of the best minds on this planet, and of course famously endowed with common sense, which always prevails in the end. With the heat and passion of the campaign gone, the facts, the practicality of real life will catch up with British public opinion. There’s sheer beauty in the fact that all of this will happen while Britain is still in the EU. The real terms of the choice will crystalise, comparing the practicalities of what it means to be outside and inside the EU.As public opinion will wake up to the truth about Brexit, dissolving the Big Lie and realising the incredible cynicism of its mainstream supporters, somebody like Theresa May from the Remain campaign within the Conservative Party itself, not to mention Labour, will be able to corner Mr Johnson, prime minister or not, possibly depose him, and force a new referendum.The new vote will be the real choice, relying on genuine social understanding of what is actually at stake, and chances are it will reject Brexit with a strong majority. Giving up negotiations for the Exit Treaty should then close the matter once and for all. A huge social learning exercise will have taken place for both the UK and Europe. It’s going to be a lesson for populists of all creeds.A few final contextual issues. This is not about ‘weak Britain’ and ‘strong EU’. Any EU member state would be similarly ‘weak’ in relative terms if it were to leave the EU. It is about the inescapable reality of an inter-dependent world. Nobody can defy gravity. Nor does this mean that the UK, or England, could not be great countries and successful economies outside the EU: of course they could. The non-EU UK would remain a large, interesting, innovative, economy on its own, and the City would not book its wholesale transfer to Frankfurt anytime soon. The point is whether or not the UK will be better off on its own, and whether it has been ambushed with a Big Lie on this occasion.Last but not least, a likely reversal of British public opinion on Brexit should not become a reason for complacency by the EU: ‘oh, look at this, we are not that bad after all’. The fact that one of the greatest countries on Earth, which has shaped humanity, has voted to leave, whatever the details of that vote, is the ultimate reason for a fundamental shake-up. Whether the UK actually leaves or not, the EU should see the Brexit vote as day one in a project to reinvent itself in order to regain the only currency that can guarantee its continued existence: trust, by its member states and its citizens alike. But chances are the UK will not leave us in the end.


https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...ll-not-happen/

[Logomaco]

Even though we voted for it, a Brexit won't happen in the end. Here's why

I voted Leave – but, looking at the reasons, it's undeniable that we'll stay in the European Union after all

Sean O'Grady
@_seanogrady



Even for an optimistic Brexiteer like me, the last few days have been difficult. Many people who voted out are already feeling a bit betrayed as certain fundamental truths sink in. The “uncertainty” is already affecting the real economy as we see. Project Fear probably understated some of the dangers, though overstated others absurdly, the latter as former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King has said (a calm voice in these frenetic times).
Before long this uncertainty will feed through even more concretely from the slightly abstract world of financial markets and exchange rates through to jobs, savings, and, above all, the value of people’s homes, which is where most people’s wealth is stored (especially some of the less well-off voters who opted for “Leave”). This is really why I suspect Brexit won’t, in the end, come to pass – because most voters can’t afford it in the short run, whatever the longer term advantages. Call it blackmail by the financiers or the Establishment if you wish, but it is a fairly nasty ransom note all the same. Here are the reasons, in some sort of logical order, why Brexit won’t happen:
Regret is high and numbers were low

The margin for Leave was pretty small, in reality, and so the mandate is weak. Most countries have a constitutional convention that big changes have to command a two-thirds vote in a legislature or referendum, and this was nowhere near it. In the early 1970s, when Ted Heath took us in (without a referendum), the phrase used by him was that he needed the “full-hearted consent” of the British people to take such a momentous decision. It probably wasn’t there in 1971-72, but it certainly isn’t there now. Some Brexiteers are suffering profound regret, and we may as well acknowledge that, such is the gravity of the situation. They do not want to wait the many years, perhaps decades it will take for Brexit to be the better option for them and their families (ironically it is the young who have time on their side to enjoy the post-Brexit future, but I won’t press that point).


Voters don't actually get to decide

We live in a democracy where Parliament is sovereign. That means that only Parliament can give effect to the will of the people. David Lammy's idea that Parliament can just ignore the referendum is going too far, but it is true that Parliament's job is to decide what to do next. So what shall we do next?
The EU has too much to lose

Whoever takes over from David Cameron will, as recent events show, be under intense pressure not to press the exit button and activate “Article 50”, which puts us more or less on the escalator out. He or she may well be tempted to go back to Brussels and ask for a better deal within the EU.
If they had any sense – and Angela Merkel does – the European leaders will see the danger of Brexit contagion and offer the British, and the wider Eurosceptic movement across Europe, something that recognises people’s concerns, meaning probably some brakes on migration. This, on top of what David Cameron managed to secure, could form the basis for a second referendum choice – Brexit or the “New Deal”. Of course the EU’s establishment should have given that to Mr Cameron in the first place, but, as they say, we are where we are. I notice this is basically the suggestion now being put about by Jeremy Hunt; it will gain a lot of support outside Ukip, I suspect.

Hardly any Tories want to leave - including Boris Johnson

It will be highly attractive for whoever does succeed David Cameron to be seen as the leader who at last settled the European issue to Britain's satisfaction for ever. Theresa May, after all, is a Remainer, albeit reluctant, so we see where her instincts lie. Boris Johnson, let us recall, also first advocated voting Leave as a way for Britain to go back and get a better deal in his earliest intervention in the campaign, just after he declared for Leave. I quote, then, from an article Boris wrote, published on 16 March (I’ve retained the stuff about the economy, which is also of interest: “There is only one way to get the change we need, and that is to vote to go, because all EU history shows that they only really listen to a population when it says No… It is time to seek a new relationship, in which we manage to extricate ourselves from most of the supranational elements.


“The people who run the various EU institutions – whom we like to ply with crass abuse – are, in my experience, principled and thoughtful officials… They just have a different view of the way Europe should be constructed. I would hope they would see a vote to leave as a challenge, not just to strike a new and harmonious relationship with Britain (in which those benefits could be retained) but to recover some of the competitiveness that the continent has lost in the last decades.”
Some of Boris’ Tory colleagues think he didn’t believe a word of what he was saying in the campaign, and that the whole thing was just a vehicle for his ambition. Hence, perhaps, his confused flip-flopping on whether he wants us in the Single Market. If so, then one can see him executing an almighty U-turn in about six months’ time and recommending a Remain vote with him leading the opposite campaign to the one just gone. He has the shamelessness, ambition and dexterity to do just that, in true Churchillian style.
A general election will change everything

If there is a general election and Labour get in (strange as it may be) maybe with SNP and Lib Dem support, they will not want to apply to leave the EU formally without going back to Brussels for a deal. Indeed they would be quite desperate to do so and would claim the general election result gave them a mandate for that. We’d almost certainly have a second referendum then, and probably a narrow Remain win.
We all know that if there was a referendum on holding a second referendum, the people would be in favour of having another vote. It is certainly the general view in Parliament, and of course we now have the Scottish and Irish dimensions to the problem now crystallising, as well as economic realities. People want to think again, and the politicians have a duty to let them.


Even though we voted for it, a Brexit won't happen in the end. Here's why | Voices | The Independent

[Alepk]

Se adesso buttano tutto in vacca con qualche scusa cade il mito della democrazia anglosassone.
Devono invocare l'art 50 al massimo in autunno.

[Logomaco]

There Is a Small but Real Possibility That Brexit Will Never Happen

By Joshua Keating

For all that Thursday night’s Brexit vote was a historic rebuke of the European Union, nothing is actually different today. Britain is still a member of the EU, and will be for some time. And while there’s probably too much political momentum to stop this process now that it’s rolling, there’s a small, but not trivial, chance that the Brexit might not happen at all.

The referendum wasn’t legally binding, just advisory. Technically, the British government doesn’t have to do anything, though it’s obviously under an enormous amount of political pressure to get things moving. The first concrete result of the vote will be theignominious resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron, who campaigned for the “Remain” side, in opposition to much of his own party, and lost. Cameron said today that he will leave 10 Downing Street before the Conservative Party conference in October, and will leave the task of beginning negotiations on withdrawal to his successor. (Cameronhad previously said that withdrawal would begin immediately after the vote if “Leave” won, but that seems to have been a bluff.)

How the Brexit will go down is a little unclear—after all, no country has ever tried to leave the EU before. (Yes, yes, Greenland. I see you. Not the same thing.) The mechanism by which countries leave the EU is Article 50 of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. Under Article 50, once a member state notifies the European Council of its intention to withdraw, it has two years to negotiate the terms of that withdrawal and hammer out a new relationship with the EU on issues like trade and immigration. Once the two years are up, the treaties between the EU and the country are severed, whether an agreement has been reached or not.

Could leaders in Brussels find a way to fudge this deadline? Sure, why the hell not. But once Article 50 is invoked, the process is irreversible. The U.K. can’t back out. The terms of Britain’s exit, though not the exit itself, will be subject to veto by all 27 of its very cranky EU counterparts.

EU leaders want Britain to invoke Article 50 as quickly as possible, to end political uncertainty and restore some confidence to financial markets. But leaders of the “Leave” campaign say there’s no rush and argue that there should be informal talks on withdrawal before the article is invoked and the clock starts ticking. Yes, that’s right. The people behind the Brexit are in no hurry to actually implement it. After all, even the leavers want to maintain an advantageous trade relationship with the EU, and two years is not a long time to negotiate one. The EU, on the other hand, will be in no mood to make this easy for the U.K., as it tries to prevent other member states from planning their own Nexits, Frexits, and Auxits.

There’s also a possibility that we could see a parliamentary vote on the Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. This could get interesting, as a majority of the 650 members of the House of Commons favor remaining in the EU. Whether they would overrule their own voters is another question. Members of the Scottish National Party are safe anti-Brexit votes, but pro-EU Conservatives would be afraid of losing more ground to the insurgent U.K. Independence Party. The Labour Party seems to be in complete disarray and in the course of ousting its own leader.

All this means that the process is likely to be long and aggravating, involving not just negotiations with Brussels but the tricky question of which of the EU’s regulations Britain will choose to maintain as British law and what’s going to happen to Scotland and Northern Ireland.

How and whether the Brexit proceeds will depend in large part on who the Conservative Party chooses as its next leader and prime minister. The betting markets currently favor Boris Johnson, the former London mayor and smooth-talking mop-topped goofball who took a major political gamble by becoming the public face of the “Leave” campaign in defiance of Cameron, and is now riding a surge of support. Theresa May, the current home secretary and a “Remain” supporter, is another possibility.

Given that, anecdotally, it seems that a number of pro-“Leave” voters are alreadyexperiencing buyer’s remorse, and the British economy will likely continue to take a beating, there’s at least a possibility that a pro-“Remain” government could just wait this out by indefinitely postponing Article 50 ratification. By the time the next general election rolls around in 2020, it’s possible Brexit-happy voters will have lost their nerve and this whole thing could just die on the vine.

Even if Johnson or another pro-“Leave” Tory takes over, that doesn’t necessarily mean Brexit is imminent. Johnson has said that the result won’t mean “pulling up the drawbridge” and that there’s “no need for haste” in severing the country’s EU ties. Could Johnson really use the Brexit debate to launch himself into the prime minister’s office and then not even follow through on his signature issue? Yes, he could definitely do that.


Brexit might not happen.

[Logomaco]

A Brexit conspiracy theory nails the no-win situation Boris Johnson now finds himself in

Former London mayor Boris Johnson should be on cloud nine. Having spearheaded the successful Brexit campaign, he’s emerging as the likely successor to Conservative prime minister David Cameron, who opposed the movement to leave the European Union.

On the steps of the prime minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street, Cameron announced immediately after the vote results that he will step down in October, and said that “fresh leadership” is needed. He also said he would leave it to the next prime minister to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would start the two-year process of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

But rather than portraying Cameron as the defeated and Johnson as the victor, a post in the Guardian’s comments section lays out a scenario in which Johnson’s predicament looks far worse.

“He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated,” the comment, by aprolific and anti-Brexit commenter identified as Teebs, says. “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.”


The commenter even goes so far as to say the Brexit campaigners themselves have no intention of carrying out the Article 50 process: “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.”

The theory seems to have convinced many with its interpretation of the two men’s demeanors and its theories about each’s endgame, and it is being shared widely online:


Here’s the full text of Teebs’ statement:

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 legistlation 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-maneouvered 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.


A Brexit conspiracy theory nails the no-win situation Boris Johnson now finds himself in ? Quartz

[Logomaco]

Why Brexit (Probably) Won’t Happen




Emad Mostaque[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43921568627451)]CEO Ananas. Strategist. Former HF manager.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.439216)]yesterday


[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Summary: the nature of western representative democracy and vested interests makes Brexit highly unlikely. The only way it is likely is if markets stage a large recovery.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The last few days have seen a maelstrom of opinions and recrimination after the shock referendum decision to leave the EU. The lack of a concrete plan of action for an exit has shocked markets, leaving even those who avoid politics worried about the future. However, looking at the structure of western democracy a departure from the EU is very unlikely.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]At Ecstrat our focus is on the intersection of politics, governance and markets to determine where the future may lie.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The general presumption of an inevitable progression of global society towards liberal democracies, or “getting to Denmark” as political scientist Francis Fukuyama termed it.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Similarly there has been a presumption that the path of “development” for global economies was toward liberal governance regimes.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The actions taken to drag the global economy out of the great financial crisis showed that these two concepts may not be a given as we are seeing the second order results today.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Submerging markets[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Our core argument for why so-called “emerging” economies would under-perform their developed peers in the last five years was that rather than stepping in to stabilise the system during the crisis and then stepping back, as the US notably did, governance regimes in these countries worsened, with increased interference making it difficult for private enterprise to thrive.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Rather than liberalizing their economies and undertaking much needed reform, the state took a larger role as the key driver of growth, allowing other undesirable factors such as nepotism and corruption to flourish.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The core structural instabilities in many of these nations has been covered by increased debt issuance and competitive devaluation of their currencies, kicking the can down the road on systemic instability that is not far from the surface. In particular the huge rise in Chinese indebtedness and decrease in nominal growth caused by the blurring of state and private sector has alarmed us as overcapacity in its industrial sector has exported deflation worldwide.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This has had a strong political impact in emerging countries, with a move toward increasingly autocratic regimes, with counter trends such as the Arab Spring snuffed out, and the rise of what Fareed Zakaraia termed “illiberal democracy”, a partial democracy where governments ignore the constitutional limits on their power and deprive citizens of basic rights and freedom in countries such as Poland, Russia or Turkey.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Demotic politic[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In developed nations the major steps taken to stabilize the markets were direct financial intervention to bail out a frozen banking sector and slashing rates to zero or even below.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Funded by debt, this was an effective wealth transfer to the banks and asset owners, particularly as in many areas low rates allowed property prices to stage a strong recovery, benefiting its owners who could extract literal rents from their assets.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]It did not advantage the retiring baby boomers, who saw the returns on their saving pots and annuities slashed, forcing them to work longer in job positions that could otherwise have opened for younger workers. While the assets they owned appreciated, most notably houses that they would have paid off during the great decline of interest rates in the past few decades, these were illiquid, leaving them asset-rich but cash poor.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]For blue-collar workers the period since the financial crisis has been difficult despite rising employment, leading to much analysis of the “squeezed middle”. Real household wages have barely moved and costs have risen more than headline numbers might have suggested, leading to widespread income insecurity even as austerity programs in many nations removed long-standing security nets.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This has come to the fore with the rise of newly populist and nationalistic political movements as the promise of social mobility based on earnings and education has been called into question.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This renewed form of politics appeals primarily to identity over reason, but this is a reactionary identity in many cases and is put in the simplest, but most powerful, emotional terms.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The result of these shifts is an increasing gap between the desires of a large section of the population and the politicians that purport to represent them.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Checks and balances[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This representative aspect of democracy has been one that has been put in focus by the Brexit referendum, as much of the discussion has centered around the potential process for an exit from the EU as this was not detailed by the Leave camp, taking the end point as a given.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]However, when looking at Western democracy we can see that there are significant checks and balances to ensure that the actions undertaking are not on the basis of majoritarian decisions, but by the representatives of the people based on what those representatives view as the best outcomes for the nation.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This is necessary to protect minorities in particular and is the reason that many legislatures are in multiple parts, such as the division championed by Alexander Hamilton in the US of the government into an executive branch, legislative congress and judicial branch to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful or subservient to the “tyranny of the majority”.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This division in the power of decision making is usually enshrined in a constitution, something that the UK notably lacks, and formalizes the process by which the government formulates law and policy in response to the demands of its electorate.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Elections are typically not proportionate in their representation and often gerrymandered and even referendums are often ignored, as we saw for example recently in Greece, when 61.8% of the population voted against a bailout, or in Ireland or Denmark over the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties respectively.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Some voices are louder than others[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Having established that our democracies are not majoritarian, but subject to the filter of our representatives, it should also be noted that this feature also has a significant bug.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Not all voices in representative democracies are equal and the power structures that underline the process are almost always co-opted by special interest groups, who have a far greater impact on policy than their size may dictate.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]A key example of this is in the leader of the democratic world, the USA, where the freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution has allowed the proliferation of the lobbying industry, where billions are spent to influence political decisions. This money is well spent and is most notable in the medical lobby, which spends over $300m a year to maintain their state-enabled monopolies.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As can be seen in the chart below, the end result of this is that the US has a comparable public expenditure on its healthcare than most OECD peers, including the UK. The private expenditure is an order of magnitude higher, driven by price opacity and healthcare monopolies, a cost of tens of billions to the US consumer aided by lobbying of a fraction of the cost, a sensible investment.

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Another way to look at this is that the President can be elected without the majority of votes thanks to the electoral college system, something that may come into play again this year.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Domestic disharmony[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In the UK you have a strong skew to remaining in the EU by the lawmakers, with 479 members of parliament polling for versus just 158 wanting to leave, likely supported by the un-elected House of Lords. Many of these would prefer a renegotiation of certain aspects versus a full departure. The key, non-elected influencers of policy in the United Kingdom are also firmly against leaving, a balance of power that is unlikely to change in the near term as significant political change only really occurs when blocs of power shift.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The British Prime Minister exemplified the apathy of the representative body for an exit by stepping aside after the result of the referendum and saying that triggering the process to leave would be left to his successor given his desire not to do so and the inordinate complexity of this as we have seen highlighted in the last few days.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The majority of law makers are not ideologically wed to an exit, including some of the leaders of the Leave faction, but rather wanted a renegotiation of the terms of the current compact.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As such, it appears that the referendum was less divorce proceedings being started, but more one side threatening divorce to the other.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The reflexivity of an exit[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Where we go from here is interesting and may be largely dependent on markets influence politics.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The common perception is that the EU will try to force the UK to give the “Article 50” notification as soon as possible, setting in process a two year period of consultation before a full exit.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]With the leadership election in the Conservative party and Chancellor Osborne’s assertion that only the UK can given this notification, this delays it until at least the end of the year, with the Conservatives only having four weeks to put forward candidates for leadership, likely to include front-runner former London Mayor Boris Johnson, who has notably dialed back his rhetoric since the result.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This sets an interesting period into year-end where perception of politics will be determined by the market reaction.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The uncertainty we see today will inevitably lead to a slowdown in the economy as companies and consumers defer spending decisions as they start to consider a future cut off from the EU with little to no guidance on when this might occur or what it will look like.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The markets have already taken a beating and the pound is expected to weaken to 1.2 to the dollar or even lower, which should add a couple of percentage points to inflation taking into account the likely demand slowdown. This doesn’t put it into the danger area for the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England, so one rare bright spot in British markets has been the rise of bond prices on gilts as the market anticipates rate cuts rather than rate hikes as the pound falls.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Indeed, the UK is in a curious scenario where rate hikes would exacerbate capital flight as nobody would want to be exposed to bond duration (as rate hikes increase yield, but decrease price, especially for long-dated bonds).[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]We are also more likely to see weakness in the domestic oriented FTSE 250 rather than the major FTSE 100 index, which has a higher exposure to foreign currency earnings, as could be seen by the reaction of the last few days.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]For the majority of the British population however, the key moves will be in the currency and house prices versus equities or bonds.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Those parties who are interested in preventing a Brexit would be best served in this situation if we saw significant continued weakness across British assets in this period of a leadership vacuum. The likely periodic announcements by key corporates of job cuts having frozen hiring and plans to relocate if Brexit occurred should support this.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]If markets fall sharply and rapidly and then stabilize lower or even start to rise in the remainder of the year, then the probability of a Brexit scenario starts to rise sharply from almost nothing to empowering the leave faction and reducing the objections of many in the Remain camp.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Ironically this may also occur if the market comes around to the view put forward in this piece that a Brexit is unlikely for structural reasons. JP is more concerned about this reflexivity than I am as I see this is unlikely given the political vacuum the UK will face over the next few months and the sheer range of possible outcomes from this scenario.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Into counseling[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]On the other side, the danger of contagion from a Brexit and the likely irreparable damage to the EU project it would entail mean that two of the most significant global powers, Germany and the USA, will be doing everything they can to maintain the union and minimize potential losses, especially as the spectre of potential trade wars loom ever closer, a topic we will return to in a future piece.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Practically this should be seen by an easing in rhetoric over the summer, starting perhaps with meetings later this week, even as certain parts of the EU take a more “put up or shut up” line against the UK. We have already seen some elements of this with statements of the recognition of the different levels of ambitions of member states when it comes to integration and potential regional devolution.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The exact mechanism that the UK will take to avert a Brexit are at this point uncertain, but the players involved have significant incentive to be creative to avert this while trying to retain as much political capital as possible given the referendum results.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]If all else fails the operative term that will be used is “tough decisions” as a result of economic weakness, the words a politician usually uses when they know they are alienating a reasonable section of their electorate, particularly if elections are near.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The future of Western democracy[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]While a Brexit is highly unlikely given the structure of our democracy, the incentives of the key influencers and law makers and likely market path over the coming months, this process and brought to light fissures in the social fabric of our societies.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The results of this are already being experienced in the UK by a reported increase in hate crimes against minorities and divisive and often factually incorrect but emotionally charged language being shown to be effective.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Recrimination is rising from all sides and the rhetoric has turned toxic with the Remain camp calling those who voted Leave all sorts of unpleasant names and questioning the legitimacy of their choice. Actions like petitioning for another referendum also show a lack of faith in the democratic institutions of the UK, calling instead for, ironically, a majoritarian approach.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The frustrations of the voters in England outside of London are real and must be acknowledged and addressed by the political class to try to stabilize the nation, whereas the shifts in voting habits of the affluent elderly may well change when confronted with impact of significant instability that the UK now faces on their consumption and asset values.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The markets are now the main weapon of “Project Fear”, with the irony being that the worse the outcome of the next few months of turmoil, the less likely a Brexit scenario is. Even the turmoil we have already seen should have been enough to put a nail in Brexit’s coffin.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]We should see the market and society start to realize this into next year, even if the mess it has created takes far longer to clear up, with [/COLOR]second order impacts potentially being far greater[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)].[/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]https://governmentsandmarkets.com/why-brexit-probably-wont-happen-ce8261bd50fc#.a3wp5e5ax[/COLOR]

Emad Mostaque[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Follow[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.439216)]CEO Ananas. Strategist. Former HF manager.[/COLOR]


https://governmentsandmarkets.com/wh...0fc#.a3wp5e5ax

[Milady Dewinter]

E come sai, tua opinione personale esclusa, chi è che sta dalla parte di politici demagoghi e disonesti e chi invece no?

Ovviamente IO SI'... e con una buona approssimazione... TU non lo so.... e potrei farti io la stessa domanda, volendo.

[Milady Dewinter]

Tu odi il tuo paese ?

Che cavolo di domanda sarebbe questa? E' solo una provocazione cretina come chi fa di questa domande, alle quali non mi degno di rispondere. perché la risposta è ovvia e non è quella che vorresti tu che fosse.

[Halberdier]

Ovviamente IO SI'... e con una buona approssimazione... TU non lo so.... e potrei farti io la stessa domanda, volendo.

Certo che puoi farmela. Ma non avendo io contestato una votazione popolare parlando di politici demagoghi e disonesti avrebbe poco senso.
Peraltro... quel IO SI significa che tu stai dalla parte dei demagoghi?