BREXIT - e adesso?

[Shiiva]

Can the United Kingdom government legally disregard a vote for Brexit?

Se lo fa' e dice che e' legale - sarebbe la piu' interessante decisione politica dopo la seconda guerra mondiale.

[Logomaco]

John Kerry Says Brexit Might Not Happen

• Nash Jenkins @pnashjenkins

3:20 AM ET


There are "a number of ways" the U.K. could reverse the decision, he said

After meeting with outgoing U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the U.K. might not ever leave the E.U., despite the outcome of last week’s referendum.
“This is a very complicated divorce,” Kerry said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Tuesday, according to Agence France-Presse, going on to note that “most of the people who voted to do it” neither know how to, nor seriously want to, execute the Brexit decision.
Cameron, who announced his resignation from the U.K.’s highest office shortly after the referendum results were announced last Friday, apparently told Kerry that he was reluctant to begin the withdrawal process. Kerry also said that there were “a number of ways” by which the U.K. could reverse the decision.
The Obama Administration — in which Kerry has served since 2012 — has made no secret of its opposition to the Brexit decision. However, in a conversation with National Public Radio, President Obama warned against the “hysteria” that has followed the referendum, describing Brexit as only a “pause button” pressed “on the project of full European integration.”
“I would not overstate it,” he told NPR. “There’s been a little bit of hysteria post–Brexit vote, as if somehow NATO’s gone, the trans-Atlantic alliance is dissolving, and every country is rushing off to its own corner. That’s not what’s happening.”


John Kerry Says Brexit Might Not Happen

[vostok]

John Kerry Says Brexit Might Not Happen

• Nash Jenkins @pnashjenkins

3:20 AM ET


There are "a number of ways" the U.K. could reverse the decision, he said



After meeting with outgoing U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the U.K. might not ever leave the E.U., despite the outcome of last week’s referendum.
“This is a very complicated divorce,” Kerry said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Tuesday, according to Agence France-Presse, going on to note that “most of the people who voted to do it” neither know how to, nor seriously want to, execute the Brexit decision.
Cameron, who announced his resignation from the U.K.’s highest office shortly after the referendum results were announced last Friday, apparently told Kerry that he was reluctant to begin the withdrawal process. Kerry also said that there were “a number of ways” by which the U.K. could reverse the decision.
The Obama Administration — in which Kerry has served since 2012 — has made no secret of its opposition to the Brexit decision. However, in a conversation with National Public Radio, President Obama warned against the “hysteria” that has followed the referendum, describing Brexit as only a “pause button” pressed “on the project of full European integration.”
“I would not overstate it,” he told NPR. “There’s been a little bit of hysteria post–Brexit vote, as if somehow NATO’s gone, the trans-Atlantic alliance is dissolving, and every country is rushing off to its own corner. That’s not what’s happening.”


John Kerry Says Brexit Might Not Happen

il padrone americano ha comandato, il servo esegue!

[Logomaco]

il padrone americano ha comandato, il servo esegue!

Del resto il calcio insegna che non basta vincere sul campo per evitare il fallimento di una squadra a fine stagione, e viceversa che si può perdere sul campo e poi essere comunque ripescati.

[Halberdier]

Del resto il calcio insegna che non basta vincere sul campo per evitare il fallimento di una squadra a fine stagione, e viceversa che si può perdere sul campo e poi essere comunque ripescati.

Un paragone più calzante sarebbe che non basta segnare più gol, se l'arbitro viene pagato per annullarli.

[Logomaco]

Un paragone più calzante sarebbe che non basta segnare più gol, se l'arbitro viene pagato per annullarli.

Intendevo dire che una squadra se non ha buoni fondamentali societari può anche vincere sul campo per poi fallire comunque, mentre una squadra che li ha può anche perdere sul campo e retrocedere ma poi essere ripescata, cioè contano anche altri fattori oltre al risultato sportivo

[Halberdier]

Intendevo dire che una squadra se non ha buoni fondamentali societari può anche vincere sul campo per poi fallire comunque, mentre una squadra che li ha può anche perdere sul campo e retrocedere ma poi essere ripescata, cioè contano anche altri fattori oltre al risultato sportivo

Quelo che ho detto anch'io. Se l'arbitro è un venduto è ovvio che per quanti gol tu faccia ti farà perdere.

[Logomaco]

The path to no Brexit

Emad Mostaque

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.439216)]CEO Ananas. Strategist Ecstrat.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.43921568627451)]4 hrs ago[/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Following on from my view there will be no Brexit (https://governmentsandmarkets.com/wh...n-ce8261bd50fc) some thoughts on the likely path to Bremain/Brewind/Breverse/Bremorse:[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]1. An Article 50 declaration is needed to start the process, giving 2 years for negotiation of the terms that should be "in good faith"[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]2. It is the UK government's prerogative when this Article 50 declaration is given[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]3. Investment, consumption and hiring has been put on pause due to the uncertainty of the potential path to purported Brexit[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]4. Most of this uncertainty can only be ameliorated once an Article 50 declaration is given and negotiations start[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]5. The resignation of David Cameron as Prime Minster has squarely put the onus on the new leadership of the Conservative party (current front-runners Boris Johnson and Theresa May), to be decided by the 2nd September, to deliver the declaration and negotiate the outcome[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]6. Today in his Prime Minister's Questions session PM Cameron emphasised that the process would be that the new government would evaluate the risk/reward of several potential templates, from the Norway +- options to EEA and choose one, likely taking a few months. This would be a target that government would want to reach before sending an Article 50 declaration, creating a catch-22 situation and non-optimal negotiating position[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]7. The PM stressed the chosen plan would have be defended in front of parliament, presupposing a vote on this. As a non-binding referendum parliament could legally block it at this point as it is sovereign from UK precedence and parliamentary acts (there is no constitution in the UK). There are legal arguments for and against a parliamentary vote being required (I believe it is legally required), but practically and politically it will happen as the Leave leaders are not UKIP ideologues. The response to this would depend on the level of economic malaise before this occurs, but when the Leave camp discussed taking back sovereignty, this is what legally they were talking about..[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]8. Any challenge to this could also go up to the un-elected upper House of Lords, which is unlikely to support any unrealistic exit plan[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]9. At this point depending on the makeup of the new leadership there could be a new general election called to renew the parliamentary majority mandate or even put forward a second referendum (something the current government will not do, but a new leadership may). This second referendum on the specific plan versus a general ‘leave’ stance can be made legally binding for parliament versus advisory.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]10. A renewed representative democratic mandate or the new leadership going back to the EU with a lack of parliamentary backing should firm up the range of future outcomes predicted by analysts, although there is a window for a shift in the negotiating power of the UK for the better immediately before[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]11. We should expect to see more legal analysis of Brexit post-September and as the parliament reacts that should show the inevitable outcome that the UK is not a majoritarian, direct democracy, but a representative democracy with parliamentary sovereignty[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]It is highly likely that the uncertainty and delays in economic activity will tip the UK into a recession, although the structure of the CPI and economy means that the inflationary impact of devaluation of sterling should be minimal and gilts/borrowing capability unaffected despite a two level downgrade.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As noted in my previous comments a recovery in sterling and housing in particular would be the only way I don't see the above pathway being followed, but we are likely to have a volatile few months regardless.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Update: some have asked me if this is ‘undemocratic’ as it ignores the will of the people. In reality this is the essence of representative democracy with checks and balances in place.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]It makes no political or game theory sense to issue article 50 before a parliamentary vote on the proposed plan for negotiations should it be issued.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]If that vote fails then there is no harm in putting that specific plan vs a general ‘let’s Brexit somehow’ to the people to over-ride Parliaments sovereignty, although that would set an odd precedent. Alternately a GE could called to give a proper democratic mandate to pass through Parliament in a second vote that specific plan.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]If anyone disagrees this is how representative democracy works or the logic I would be very interested in hearing your views.[/COLOR]


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]https://governmentsandmarkets.com/the-path-to-no-brexit-69d6df00d00a#.f41g7juai[/COLOR]

Emad Mostaque[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Follow[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.439216)]CEO Ananas. Strategist Ecstrat.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.439216)]4 hrs ago[/COLOR]


https://governmentsandmarkets.com/th...00a#.f41g7juai

[Logomaco]

Markets| Thu Jun 30, 2016 39am EDTRelated: COMMENTARY, HOUSING MARKET

Commentary: UK leaders scramble to stop Brexit being Brexit after all

BY JOHN LLOYD


Britain’s political leaders are now in the melancholy position of watching their power drain away, even as they must continue to wield it till their enemies take charge. Prime Minister David Cameron and his friend Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne belong to the segment of the British establishment that never lost its wealth, social privileges and access to political preference.
Born into wealth (both); elite private schools – Eton (Cameron) and St. Paul’s (Osborne); Oxford (both); the Bullingdon upper-class drinking club (both); short spells in the media (both); Conservative Research Department (both); married upper-middle-class, distantly aristocratic women of Conservative family (both); and rapid advancement in politics since becoming members of Parliament in 2001 (both).
Their privilege is lightly worn so as not to grate on any but those determined to feel patronized. Their sense of duty to the nation is clearly strong. Yet the confidence which birth, upbringing and early success brought them probably contributed to the gamble they took in asking the nation whether or not it wanted to remain a member of the European Union – a question to which they sought, with growing urgency, to receive a positive answer.
Faced with a negative in the Brexit vote last week — a vote springing mainly from the older parts of the less privileged classes — they have intoned the humble response that “the people have spoken,” and what they have said must be respected and acted upon.
But will it? Will this these new-old establishment figures, born to rule and to accept the consequences of rule, roll over? Or, like the 20th century’s Best Brit Winston Churchill, will they proclaim “We will never surrender!” (Even to our own people).
The will of that people will only be served if the establishment allows it. That establishment is virtually all the institutions in Britain -- the heads of banks, corporations, businesses; the leaders of (most) trade unions; the chancellors of universities, plus political and financial leaders around the world. The future acts of this drama may contain not just constitutional upheaval, EU turbulence and economic decline, but a battle between a global elite and a narrow majority of British voters.
The economic decline is evident enough. Markets suffered their worst falls in many years. Many global equities dropped up to 10 percent and investors scurried for Treasury bonds and gold. The dollar strengthened from 1.5 against the pound, to near 1.3, with sterling hitting a 31-year low.
Osborne called for calm earlier this week, but that didn’t stop a continuing slide in the FTSEindex. Britain lost its AAA credit rating. The contagion spreads: Italy’s fragile banking sector saw its shares plunge on the Milan exchange.
“When Britain sneezes,” said Lorenzo Codogno, a former director-general of the Italian treasury, “Italy catches a cold. It is the weakest link in the European chain.”
It isn’t possible to know if it will get worse, or better. Or at what level the British economy will settle. It’s unlikely to cause a global financial panic, and it won’t have much, if any, effect on many of the world’s largest political problems. But the consequences are likely bad enough for Britain, and possibly even worse for the European Union, for the establishments to seek ways out. That means one thing above all: Defying the will of the British people.
It can be done. Only a day after the popular will was said to be paramount, British Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt hinted at a way for the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Union – even as he prefaced his comments with “the people have spoken – and Parliament must listen.”
“We did not vote on the terms of our departure,” said Hunt. “It is now imperative we are clear-headed about what deal we need as a country and what our plan is to get there.”
Hunt’s plan, now being discussed in various forms within the shell-shocked, warring LabourParty as well as the triumphantly pro-EU Scottish National Party, rests on the view that the people cannot be said to have properly spoken until they know what the deal with the EU will be.
The first indications are that it will be tough. The core of the argument is the insistence that if Britain wants continued access to the single EU market, with no tariff barriers, it must accept Europeans freely moving to Britain – the main reason the majority voted to leave.
That sounds like a circle impossible to square. Cameron, speaking on a rough day for himin Brussels on Tuesday, said that the European Union must relax rigid rules laying down that the populations of all member states have an absolute right to move, work and receive benefits everywhere.
That’s where a deal may be done, and where Britain may find allies, particularly as the Brexit example starts to look more attractive to rising sections of the electorate in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and even Germany.
If a deal on free movement can be done – probably along the lines of giving the receiving countries some ability to limit it, and to limit welfare payments – then Brexit may be avoided. Another referendum on the terms of the deal may be possible. This time, the establishments would expect the people to vote “Remain.”
This will be the underlying dynamic of the next weeks and months. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, EU dealmaker and breaker-in-chief, talks tough but will play the exit process long enough to allow a possible agreement to emerge. Then, either Britain will remain formally outside of the European Union – as Norway – but in the single market and with most of the duties and advantages. Or a second referendum, with the right answer, allows it to sail back in.
Will the establishments have the nerve to confront the masses? Will the masses be frightened enough to let them? Like much else that has happened since the referendum, we just don’t know.
(John Lloyd co-founded the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, where he is Senior Research Fellow. Lloyd has written several books, including "What the Media Are Doing to Our Politics" (2004). He is also a contributing editor at the Financial Times and the founder of FT Magazine.)


Commentary: UK leaders scramble to stop Brexit being Brexit after all | Reuters

[Logomaco]

How to avoid Brexit

Jun 29th 2016, 23:26 BY D.F.


IN A referendum on June 23rd, Britons were asked: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” By a margin of 52% to 48%, they voted to leave. But that answer raises two new questions. First, what will be the terms of the divorce? As it becomes clear that the separation will be costly, a second question about Brexit will come to the fore: might there still be a way to avoid it?
The referendum was advisory, not binding. To set Brexit in motion, the British government has to invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon treaty, which lays out the process for a member to leave the club. Once it has fired that starting gun, Britain and its EU partners have two years to come to a divorce deal (the deadline can be extended only if all 27 other EU members agree). The trouble is that the deal on offer is likely to fall well short of that promised by Leave campaigners, who suggested Britain could continue to enjoy access to the giant European single market while at the same time paying less into the EU budget and restricting the free movement of people from the EU. Disgruntlement could grow, especially if the British economy plunges into recession, as business confidence and investment collapses. Calls for a rethink could grow louder. A threatened Scottish veto is unlikely to scupper Brexit. Simply holding a second referendum to undo the outcome of the first (the traditional expedient, when countries such as Ireland and Denmark voted to block EU treaty changes) looks politically impossible, despite the millions of signatures on a petition calling for one. But a combination of time, events and Parliament could—just possibly—turn Brexit into Bremain.
Already the British government is stalling for time: the outgoing prime minister, David Cameron, has left the decision of when to trigger Article 50 to his successor, who won’t be in place until September. The longer the decision is delayed, the more chance there is for alternatives to Brexit to gain ground. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, and others might come to see a tweak to free movement—such as temporary protection against surges in immigration—worth considering, to avoid further rumbles within the club. Elections loom next year in Germany, France and the Netherlands, which could put pressure on those countries’ leaders. In Britain, meanwhile, where politics is in turmoil, a possible early general election could even provide a mandate to a government that argues that the referendum result was a mistake. The way could then be clear for Parliament to back a new deal to approve Britain’s continued EU membership. Even if a Brexit deal is negotiated, it would in theory be possible for Britain’s Parliament to reject it and for the other EU members, pleased to see the British change of heart, to agree not to enforce it.
What are the chances of such Bremain scenarios? Not great; the likelihood is that Britain is indeed heading for the exit. Either way, the country faces a long and painful period of uncertainty, during which its economy will suffer and its internal divisions will widen.


The Economist explains: How to avoid Brexit | The Economist