BREXIT - e adesso?

[Logomaco]

Judy asks: is Brexit reversible?


Posted by: JUDY DEMPSEY
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 2016


A selection of experts answer a new question from Judy Dempsey on the foreign and security policy challenges shaping Europe’s role in the world.

Cornelius Adebahr Associate in Carnegie’s Europe Program

Brexit hasn’t even happened yet, so it cannot be reversed. What is more, it doesn’t have to take place. What has shocked Europe and much of the financial world is the majority expression by the British people of their intent to leave the European Union for good. Yet today just as much as before the June 23 referendum, the UK is (still) an EU member.
Those who argue that the vote should be blindly accepted fall into the trap set by populists pitting so-called ordinary people against the elites. For good reasons, the will of the people is not the only ingredient of a well-functioning, representative democracy based on the rule of law. The referendum was consultative in nature, called by a prime minister eager to secure his party base and hijacked by opponents for political opportunity, with a campaign filled with hyperbole, hubris, and hysteria.
Certainly, in a referendum intended to be about regaining sovereignty, the British parliament should rule supreme. Its members, most of whom are against Brexit, were democratically elected, and the members of the UK government have pledged to serve the country’s interest. Time for both to act accordingly and call for an early general election. Only the next parliament, brought about through an election campaign fought over the real meaning of Brexit, can legitimately decide whether the UK should remain a member of the European Union.


Rosa Balfour Senior fellow in the Europe Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States

It may be wishful thinking, but the British vote to leave the EU can be reversed. The fact that the June 23 referendum was not legally binding is less important than the political commitment made during the campaign to respond to the outcome. But if the political context changes as dramatically as it appears, this may influence the decision. Citizens are mobilizing in large numbers, and the UK and Scottish parliaments may manage to block the result. With leadership changes in both the governing Conservative Party and potentially the opposition Labour Party and a possible early general election, there is growing space to change the outcome.
The rest of the EU is worried that the current limbo could unleash further destabilizing forces on an enfeebled EU and is frustrated at having to deal with such an awkward partner. But it is in the interests of all to avoid a rupture and facilitate a British rethink by being patient about the timeframe to activate Article 50 of the EU treaty, which sets out the procedure for leaving the bloc. British Prime Minister David Cameron’s timeframe of three months should be seen as reasonable.
Equally important will be what lessons European political and institutional leaders will draw from this. Three such lessons stand out. One: referenda such as this are not about democratic politics but about a dictatorship of slim majorities through black-and-white questions on complex issues. As a tool, referenda should be fundamentally rethought. Two: political leaders across Europe need to address the causes of Euroskepticism. Three: the EU will need to think about its own democratic reform and devise policies that are closer to the citizens.


Carl Bildt Former foreign minister of Sweden

In theory yes, but in the practical world of politics, it is very hard to see how theBritish vote to exit the EU can be reversed.
It’s of course up to the UK political system. But I fail to see that it can deliver a U-turn of such massive magnitude in any reasonable timeframe. I fear the governing Conservative Party will now lock itself on a clear Brexit course, and the opposition Labour Party will be another mess for some time to come. There is no Churchill in sight.
In a more distant post-Brexit future, the UK could of course reapply for membership in whatever union might then exist. But that’s a question for another day, I fear.


Federiga Bindi Senior fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and director of the Foreign Policy Initiative at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research

I hope so. The Brits have chosen to leave, and the worst thing the EU could do would be to offer the UK yet another negotiation to keep it in the EU. That would really be the end of the EU.
Europeans have to start by asking themselves a fundamental question: Had the Remain camp prevailed, would people be asking for a new vote? Clearly not. Should the Brexit vote be discarded, Europe would embark on a dangerous path. The Western world has engaged in (useless) wars in the last fifteen years in the name of democracy, and yet the EU is not able to make it work at home.
Brexit can teach Europe a few lessons. First, if you play with fire you get burned. British Prime Minister David Cameron made it into the history books as the man who threw away a nation to win a second electoral term. Other politicians will now hopefully think again before doing something that stupid.
Second, so much for rational voting behavior. U.S. Democrats be advised.
Third, history and self-determination cannot be stopped. Should Scotland and Northern Ireland decide to exit the UK and rejoin the EU, it would be the effective end of British colonialism. Europe should not be sad.


Fraser Cameron Director of the EU-Russia Centre

On the basis of past experience—think referendum reruns in Ireland—Brexit is reversible. It is not even clear whether all Leave leaders actually want a British exit from the EU, as opposed to using the referendum to further their egos and pave a path to Number 10.
There are many possible scenarios, from Scotland blocking Brexit to the UK government putting a mildly changed relationship to a second referendum. After all, Nigel Farage of the Euroskeptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) was keen to have a second referendum if the Leave campaign lost!
But more important is why reverse the decision now? Why not let those who campaigned for Brexit take responsibility and see how far they get in negotiating a new nirvana for the UK?
The anti-EU poison that infects the British political bloodstream has to be drained away, and that can be done only with a new generation of British politicians. A lengthy time-out might be the only way to ensure that the Brits come to their senses.


Uri Dadush Senior associate in Carnegie’s International Economics Program

Yes, there are many scenarios in which a reversal of the Brexit vote is possible, and though each is unlikely, one or more could materialize. After it formally notifies its decision to exit the EU under Article 50 of the EU treaty, which will not occur before a new prime minister is appointed in September or October, Britain has two years to complete its separation, or longer if all other EU members agree. That is a long time in politics.
Reversal could occur either if a new referendum overturns Brexit or if a new government is elected on a Remain platform. If the Conservatives are unable to agree on a new leader or if the new leader concludes that he or she does not have sufficient parliamentary support to exit the EU, an early election could be called. A new referendum could be called a year or two from now if negotiations with the EU reach a dead end, or if Scotland is on the way to seceding, or in the unlikely event that the EU decides to place new restrictions on the movement of people, or, even more unlikely, EU negotiators are ready to grant the UK an exception on immigration rules.
The most likely outcome by far is a deal in which the UK exits but maintains a level of access to the single market that closely resembles free trade. Britain would also have to conform to a large number of other conditions, such as continued contributions to the Common Agricultural Policy and liberal (but not unlimited) immigration of EU nationals. Though a referendum on EU membership requires a yes or no answer, the reality is that the link between the UK and the EU is a relationship that entails many shades of gray.


Marta Dassù Senior director for European affairs at the Aspen Institute and editor in chief of Aspenia

Brexit is not exactly reversible, but almost. Before the June 23 referendum, the UK was half in the EU. Now it’s going to be half out. The situation will be different—and yet only up to a point.
The referendum was dominated by gut feelings, but in the aftermath of the Brexit vote it’s the two sides’ interests that are going to prevail. The British people’s interest is to remain pegged to the EU, crucially with preferential access to the single market. Continental Europeans, with Germany heading the list, have an interest in maintaining close ties with one of Europe’s leading economies. The key issue in future negotiations isn’t going to be around the technicalities of a British recess. What really matters is the British relationship with the EU in place thereafter. European governments must be prepared to negotiate a Norway-like or Norway lite option—which is conditional on the UK accepting free movement of people. Britain, in its own interest, will have no choice but to jettison some of the Brexiteers’ crazier pledges.
At the same time, it’s in the EU’s political interest to avoid contagion. It isn’t going to be easy to strike a proper balance between the economic goal of keeping the UK anchored to the single market and the political goal of placing the English patient in an isolation ward.
For the EU, then, granting the UK a special status again—this time as a half-out country—will be difficult, while the new British government will try to secure some concessions on the movement of people. This is the essence of future negotiations.
In a best-case scenario, the UK will take up a place in an external ring of the European space. And the EU of the remaining 27 member states is going to reform—something it should’ve done anyway, but the English lesson has now made it impossible for the union to procrastinate any further.


Thomas de Waal Senior associate at Carnegie Europe

The Leave leaders did not have a plan for the day after the June 23 referendum and are recklessly irresponsible. But more than 17 million people voted for a British exit from the EU, and their votes cannot be simply discounted.
Using a constitutional device to block Brexit could provoke a dangerous backlash.Nigel Farage, the leader of the Euroskeptic UK Independence Party (UKIP), implicitly threatened violence when he uttered the ominous phrase on June 24 that Brexit had been achieved “without a single bullet being fired.”
There appear to be two narrow democratic paths back from the brink.
One stems from the very different stance Leave supporter Boris Johnson took in theDaily Telegraph on June 27, when he walked back from the rhetoric he had used in the campaign. Johnson’s change of tack is outrageous but leaves open a small chance that if the more merciful approach favored by German Chancellor Angela Merkel prevails, some kind of special status deal for the UK in the EU could be pulled out of the fire.
The other possibility comes if the opposition Labour Party manages to eject Jeremy Corbyn and choose a new leader who is electable and actually believes in the European project. If that leader were to win a general election, he or she could call a new referendum with a more precisely worded question about what kind of European model is on offer and give British voters a chance to express Bremorse.
Neither of these scenarios looks very likely. To work out, they need a lot of good luck, goodwill, and statesmanship that is in short supply. But I cannot see any other routes out of this madness at the moment.


Michael Emerson Associate senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies

I would like to think so. With the huge turmoil in British politics now, maybe anything could happen.
How might Brexit unravel? British Prime Minister David Cameron in his resignation speech on June 24 said that the British people had made “a very clear decision” to leave the EU. Corrigendum: there was no clear decision, only a narrow majority in which the British people were deeply and bitterly divided like never before, between the English and the Scots, between London and the English provinces, and between young and old. Since then, over 4 million British citizens have petitioned for a second referendum.
The House of Commons has a large majority of members of parliament (MPs) who favor Remain. What about the sovereignty of parliamentary democracy, some now say, after an advisory referendum that has no legal force? A large majority of MPs was reported in early June to be wanting to insist that the UK remain at least in the single market, without which they would bring the government down.
Leave campaigner Boris Johnson says he is in no hurry to trigger Article 50 of the EU treaty, which sets out the procedure for leaving the union. So much the better. Brexit was sold on a false prospectus, a dreadful mistake; let this become clear. A fresh election, a sound new leader of the opposition Labour Party, and so on into the second referendum.


Peter Ludlow Chairman of the European Strategy Forum and historian of the European Council

The answer must surely be “No, not yet.” The British people were consulted, and a majority of them said Leave. To plead now that the British parliament can, let alone should, ignore the popular vote is simply not credible. Both activists and voters did what they did before and on June 23 on the assumption that the outcome would be binding.
It is equally unrealistic to imagine that the UK will be offered another deal that can be voted on in a second referendum. This has happened in the past when Denmark and Ireland voted no to EU treaties. But the starting point was totally different in each case. The UK, which already has a larger number of exemptions from its treaty obligations than any other member state, has only just concluded a renegotiation, the results of which were meager precisely because there was so little that its partners could offer without emptying membership of all meaning. The cupboard is bare.
The only development that might transform the outlook is therefore the election of a new, pro-EU government in the UK. Given the post-Brexit turmoil in British politics, a realignment is not impossible. However, the new party is unlikely to win an election unless and until Brexit has been consummated and the electorate has had an opportunity to see just what a shabby option it is.

[Logomaco]

John Peet Europe editor of the Economist

The short answer is yes, but it would be very hard.
Previous referendum reversals have been about EU treaties that can be tweaked slightly and put to another vote, and they have happened only in small countries. It would be much harder to do this for Brexit unless other countries were suddenly to agree to stop the free movement of people, which seems highly unlikely.
By contrast, the negotiations triggered by Article 50 of the EU treaty, which sets out the procedure for leaving the bloc, may lead only to a Norway-like option for Britain that keeps most of the things British voters wanted to reject: free movement, budget contributions, the acceptance of EU red tape. In that case, Brits just might feel buyer’s remorse and prefer full membership instead. But it remains a highly unlikely outcome.


Marc Pierini Visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe

The issue of reversing the British vote to leave the EU is probably seen in perfectly symmetrical terms in the UK and in the rest of the European Union.
The Brexit gamble and the fallacies of the Leave campaigners’ narrative left many British citizens in shock on June 24, wondering what they had done. This is probably valid not only for urban, educated, young voters, who were massively on the Remain side, but also for many of those who favored Brexit. Whether via a popular petition or a veto from Scotland, there are several ways to dream of a reversal of the vote. The worst of all possible options would be that the government of British Prime Minister David Cameron decided to ignore the referendum results in the supreme interest of the UK. Such a decision would only feed more resentment against the EU and the dismantlement of the European architecture.
Among the other 27 EU member countries, the majority is now leaning toward a quick start of Brexit negotiations, to avoid uncertainty setting in and further damaging the EU (and Britain too). Tensions may rapidly increase as British domestic politics may lead to serious procrastination, at least until September or October, when a new British prime minister is due to be in place. Suspicions may also arise of London trying to achieve more British exceptionalism through negotiations that would achieve what the Leave camp wanted while simultaneously keeping the UK in the EU.
Overall, in the short term, there may now be a clash between British domestic politics and the EU’s collective interest. This is a dangerous trend. Populist and extreme right-wing forces would be the only winners of either prolonged uncertainty or a denial of the referendum results.


Jeremy Shapiro Research director at the European Council on Foreign Relations

It is impossible to reverse Brexit. The idea of overturning such a clearly and legitimately expressed will of the people would gut many of the most cherished principles of British democracy. Perhaps worse, at a moment of deep divide between the governed and the governing, for the political class to nullify the people’s choice would only lead to a deeper political crisis in the future.
It is also, however, impossible to move forward with Brexit. It has become clear just in the few days since the June 23 referendum that the process of separating the UK from the EU is too laced with economic complications and geopolitical uncertainties to proceed. In a time of multiple international crises, Europe simply cannot afford such an extended period of divisive navel-gazing. Going ahead would amount not so much to a divorce as to a suicide pact.
So, the unstoppable political force of the people’s will has crashed into the bureaucratically immovable object of EU membership. Something impossible will have to happen.


Simon Tilford Deputy director of the Centre for European Reform

Maybe, but it might happen only via a sojourn in the European Economic Area(EEA).
Britain’s pro-Europeans are placing their hopes of continued EU membership on an early general election producing a government with a mandate to hold a second referendum. But the obstacles are formidable. A two-thirds majority of members of parliament (MPs) is needed to dissolve the legislature, and this is almost certainly out of reach. Moreover, it is far from clear how the opposition Labour Party would campaign in such an election: many Labour politicians believe the party must take a tougher line on immigration to win back alienated working-class voters.
The most likely way of making Brexit reversible is for Britain to join the EEA through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Although this would be far worse than EU membership, a majority of MPs may decide that it is the least bad option. Strictly speaking, they would be respecting the will of the people, as the June 23 referendum was on EU membership, not the free movement of workers. And if net immigration falls sharply over the next couple of years as the British economy struggles, they may calculate they can back EEA membership without risking a populist backlash. After a few years in the EEA abiding by EU rules but having no say over them, the British may start to find EU membership very attractive.


Ben Tonra Head of the School of Politics and International Relations at University College Dublin

No, the Brexit decision is irreversible, but the very worst of the consequences can be ameliorated. The somewhat arcane conversations surrounding parliamentary sovereignty and the constitutionally advisory nature of any referendum in a UK constitutional context cannot reasonably guide political thinking. For the Mother of Parliaments so egregiously to ignore the (possibly) considered and clearly declared view of its electorate would be unconscionable.
At the same time, it is the parliament’s duty to act—and that of individual members of parliament to govern—in the best interests of the people. To that end, it may well be possible, even advisable, for the UK’s negotiators in their eventual talks with EU interlocutors to take a more considered view than the electorate. Should that entail the UK’s desire for continued membership of the single market, encompassing free movement and the rule of law, then the very worst adverse consequences may indeed be avoided. Whether that might require a second referendum or general election to ratify would be a critical political judgment. In the absence of such an outcome, Brexit may in fact be reduced to Engxit.


Pierre Vimont Senior associate at Carnegie Europe

Brexit can be reversed, but it all depends on British political leaders and, more importantly, on the British people. Only they can decide to reverse the course set by the outcome of the June 23 referendum. The EU cannot be immune from any democratic process, and supporters of European integration, however honorable their cause may be, must learn to accept the verdicts of voters.
Any reversal on Brexit will have to be the result of a long process of reflection and discussion among British society on the political and economic consequences of the divorce with the EU and on the possible alternatives to a definitive departure. Even then, one must be aware that such alternatives are scarce. With Britain already the beneficiary of many opt-outs, there is not much room for further concessions short of a straight exit, as seen in the difficult negotiations concluded by British Prime Minister David Cameron in February on the free movement of people. Once again, the myth of a plan B is coming back to haunt discussions on the European Union with little hope of being transformed into any serious reality.
The sudden doubts, hesitations, and even contradictions observed in the Brexit camp since June 23 are reminiscent of the tensions that followed similar negative referendum results in Denmark, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands, which brought about compromises and U-turns. Each one of these consultations had to face the complexity and shortcomings of the difficult relationship between the European integration project and national democracies, not to mention the democratic deficit of the EU system itself.
In its own way, the Brexit referendum is presenting the same experience but with a force and a speed not seen previously. Maybe another illustration of British exceptionalism?


Judy Asks: Is Brexit Reversible? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

[Halberdier]

Ma... articoli in italiano no, eh?

[Logomaco]

Boris Johnson Quits Tory Leadership Race


by Stephen Lendman


On June 30, former London mayor Boris Johnson, Tory frontrunner to succeed David Cameron, dropped out of the race, the latest surprise in the ongoing Brexit saga.


Was it voluntary or was he pushed, pressured by US and EU power brokers, wanting an anti-Brexiteer or weak-kneed supporter - easily swayed to go the other way once becoming Tory leader?


Media gathered to hear what was expected to be a leadership campaign launching address were surprised, Johnson saying “having consulted colleagues and in view of the circumstances in parliament, I have concluded that (the new prime minister) cannot be me.”


“My role will be to give every possible support to the next Conservative administration to make sure that we properly fulfill the mandate of the people that was delivered at the referendum and to champion the agenda that I believe in, to stick up for the forgotten people of this country.”


“And, if we do so, if we invest in our children and improve their life chances, if we continue to fuel the engines of social mobility, if we build on the great reforming legacy of David Cameron, if we invest in our infrastructure and we follow a sensible, one nation Conservative approach that is simultaneously tax-cutting and pro-enterprise, then I believe that this country can win and be better and more wonderful and, yes, greater than ever before.”


Johnson supports neoliberal harshness. So will Cameron’s successor. After saying he backed Johnson’s bid, MP Michael Gove entered the race, saying London’s former mayor lacks leadership skills, promising “a new approach to running this country.”


Isn’t that what they all say, lofty rhetoric forgotten straightaway once entering office. On Friday, Home Secretary Theresa May announced her candidacy to succeed Cameron.


“Our country needs strong proven leadership to steer us through this period of political and economic uncertainty,” she said. “We need leadership that can unite our party and our country.”


She ruled out a second referendum. So did Cameron. “Brexit means Brexit,” she added. “The campaign was fought. The vote was held. Turnout was high, and the public gave their verdict.”


Instead of supporting it straightaway, she equivocated, a clear red flag, saying Lisbon Treaty Article 50, beginning separation proceedings legally, “should not be invoked before the end of the year.”


Six months is a lifetime. A new US president-elect will be known. Lots of time between now and then can be used for shenanigans, manipulating public sentiment - diverting attention from separation, creating a fictitious threat, enlisting support for unity to confront it.


Confrontation with Russia or China would serve the same purpose. So would manufactured economic and financial turmoil - roiling markets, creating angst, convincing people unity is the way to smooth things.


It remains to be seen who’ll become new Tory prime minister. It’ll be a candidate US and EU monied interests support, someone against Brexit, regardless of what’s said publicly - able to enlist majority voter support for unity, not separation.


Watch for something like this to unfold ahead. The key point is power brokers on both sides of the Atlantic won’t let Brexit happen. They’ll find a way to assure it and get most Brits to go along.


Ignore political rhetoric at all times. Follow events as they unfold.


https://sjlendman.blogspot.it/

[Logomaco]

Brexit: EU referendum was a 2-2 'draw' and UK exit will not happen, LSE professor says


Constitutional expert says England and Wales voting against Scotland and Ireland


The way the EU referendum result was split across the UK should be considered a draw, an expert on European and constitutional law has claimed.
London School of Economics' Dr Jo Murkens pointed out Scotland and Northern Ireland voted clearly to remain in the EU, while voters in England and Wales opted to leave.
He said Brexit could be therefore be avoided with willing leadership - while warning Britain's withdrawal from the EU could have devastating consequences for the country's unity.


He said he could "see no way" any Prime Minister would go through with it.
“There would be no country left if we leave the EU,” Dr Murkens told the Evening Standard. “I see no way in which the UK can leave the EU and survive.”
Brexit going ahead would therefore fragment the Union, the scholar said, which has been in existence since 1707.
He added: “There’s no political will in Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in the UK if it leaves the EU.”


“I can see no Prime Minister who would want to preside over the break-up of the United Kingdom.”
The political will in Scotland to detach from England and become independent has been strong for a number of years.
After defeat in the 2014 Scottish referendum, the Brexit vote - which altered the political status quo and galvanised support - gave nationalists a renewed opportunity to push for independence.
Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, announced plans for another independence referendum on the same day as the EU referendum results were announced.


In Northern Ireland – a region which has achieved peace after years of bitter conflict – there were also immediate calls for reunification. Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, of Sinn Fein, demanded a border poll on a united Ireland.
"The people of the north of Ireland have made it clear at the polls that they wish to remain in the EU,” said Mr McGuinness.
"This decision to drag us out of the European Union against our democratically expressed wishes has nothing to do with issues around the European institutions and everything to do with the civil war within the British Tory party.”
National leadership has also been thrown into doubt since the referendum, which sparked a leadership contest in both main parties.
Some commentators have suggested Boris Johnson also came to the same conclusion as Dr Murkens, which would provide a possible explanation for his surprise withdrawal from the Conservative leadership race on Thursday.



Brexit: EU referendum was a 2-2 'draw' and UK exit will not happen, LSE professor says | UK Politics | News | The Independent

[Logomaco]

Ryanair CEO Says Actual Brexit Will Never Happen

But a recession may.


Here’s a daring prediction of what from one of Europe’s top CEOs: Brexit, despite all you had heard, is not actually going to happen, ever.
Michael O’Leary, the CEO of Ryanair, says Britain will suffer a steep recession. A new government will be forced to raise taxes and slash spending. But, O’Leary says, the damage will be so devastating that the new Conservative government may totally reverse course by either calling a new referendum or championing a vote in Parliament to reject the Brexit vote. In a year or two, Britain will make a big, expensive, nerve-racking U-turn, and end up back where it started, as a full member of the European Community. In the end, Bremain prevails.




Michael O’Leary is as good an expert on what will happen to Europe as anyone. As chief of Ireland’s ultra-no-frills carrier for more than two decades, O’Leary, 55, has built Ryanair into Europe’s leading airline in both market cap ($19 billion) and yearly passengers flow (over 100 million), and ranks as Ireland’s most successful business leader. He’s almost as famous for his outrageous antics and pronouncements as his entrepreneurship, having donned Papal-style robes to promote Ryanair’s new route from Dublin to Rome, lauded a company calendar featuring the flight-attendants-of-the-month clad in bikinis, and flirted with the concept of charging passengers to go to the potty.
It was the creation of a unified, barrier-free market for aviation in Europe that allowed carriers to fly from London to Warsaw and Lisbon to Paris, and opened the skies to budget carriers, led by Ryanair and Britain’s easyJet. Virtually no other business leader has benefited more from the single market than O’Leary. So you might want to take his views with a pinch of skepticism, particularly about how Brexit threatens Europe’s future prosperity. Indeed, O’Leary sees one of the EU’s historic accomplishments is to have delivered affordable airfares to hundreds of millions of travelers.
Nonetheless, O’Leary is certainly worth listening to. In a 40-minute phone interview on June 29th, one of the few he has given since the Brexit vote, O’Leary, as usual, didn’t hold back. He began by acknowledging that his predictions on the Brexit vote were all wrong. “I caution about all my predictions, because I forecasted that ‘remain’ would win with 54% of the vote, and we campaigned hard for remain,” he declared. “I’m not legendary for my good predictions.”
Still, that wrong call isn’t stopping O’Leary from a new set of predictions, expressed with characteristic confidence. “The ‘leave’ people said we were fear-mongering, and now we’re already in crisis, and the UK hasn’t even left yet. This is why the leave side is dangerous. They didn’t think it would happen, they never confronted these issue. All their promises are completely bull. They have no idea what to do next.”
O’Leary’s best guess is that the new leaders pull what he calls a “Tsipras” He’s referring to the gambit orchestrated by Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who essentially ignored a referendum where voters rejected austerity measures, then imposed them anyway. “The pro-Brexit people won on the basis of leave, and then once in power, they will reverse all the promises of leave.”
What O’Leary does see as a possibility is an sort of EU-lite, where Britain exits the EU, but still follows nearly all of the regulations on labor and environmental issues, and pays dearly for rights to free trade. He says that may prevent an economic meltdown in the UK, but emphasizes that it will also inflict heavy costs, and that Britain would get a lot more in return simply by reversing course and remaining a full EU member.
“This is the ‘Norway solution,'” he says, “where Norway gets free movement of goods and accepts free movement of labor. But the UK would need to obey 90% of the EU’s regulations, and have no ability to reject those regulations.” He’s also run plenty of numbers on what the EU may charge Britain for trading privileges. “Britain pays in 19 billion pounds today and gets back half, so the net outflow is 9.5 billion pounds. The EU will make Britain pay at least the full 19 billion to access the common market, and it will get nothing back, plus it will need to pay its 5 billion pounds in farm subsidies now paid by the EU on its own.”
“The EU won’t do this out of spite. It’s a political calculation. It’s much more important to the EU to prevent contagion to other countries that may be getting in the queue to leave the EU, such as France and the Netherlands than to give Britain a good deal. And the UK isn’t even in the euro! They won’t make it easy for the UK to leave.”
Why is the UK limited to those two choices, a reversal to “remain,” or EU-lite? According to O’Leary, it’s because taking a hard-line, anti-immigration stance that would banish Britain from the common market would be so disastrous that even hard-liners would relent. “They can’t go rebel,” says O’Leary. Top example: airlines.
“European airlines can fly anywhere in the EU,” he says. “But a European airline with those rights has to be at least 50.1% owned by EU [or EEA] shareholders. A large part of Ryanair’s shares are owned by UK investors, so if the UK leaves the EU and doesn’t join the EEA, we’d have less than 50% European shareholders. We’d no longer be a European airline with rights to fly anywhere. The same problem would apply to IAG, owner of British Airways and Aer Lingus. It would be forced to sell over half its shares to European investors to remain a European airline. EasyJet is flagged in the UK. To fly all over Europe, it would have to reflag in another country with over 50% EU shareholders.”
The U.K., he predicts, would retaliate by applying similar rules for carriers seeking free access to its airports. “We’d need to set up a Ryanair UK with more than 50% UK ownership,” says O’Leary. “Britain would say, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,’ and apply the same ownership rules that the EU imposes on them. If Britain doesn’t at least remain in the EEA, it will chaos in the airline industry.”
The Brexit vote has already severely undermined investor confidence in airlines. Since the June 23 vote, Europe’s five largest carriers, Ryanair, IAG, Lufthansa, easyJet, and Air France-KLM have lost $14 billion, or 27%, of their market value, with Ryanair down 17%. Even now, O’Leary is reducing his investment plans for the U.K. “We’ll receive 50 new aircraft from Boeing over the next 12 months, and we were going to put 10 of them in the U.K.,” he says. “Now none of them will go to the U.K.”
What’s the outlook for Ryanair? “From our point of view, there will be a downturn in the EU. Traffic will rise but people will be a lot more price-sensitive. Our fares will probably decline, but we’ll gain market share with our price and cost advantage. In the short term it’s very challenging. IAG just issued a profit warning. But in the medium and long-term, it’s good.”
O’Leary had the right position on Brexit, though he missed the outcome by a big margin. This time, I’d bet that is forecast is right on. For Europe to skirt disaster, it better be.


Ryanair CEO Says Actual Brexit Will Never Happen - Fortune

[Logomaco]

JUNE 30, 2016
Why a Brexit May Not Happen

BY ANDERS ÅSLUND


British support for taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union came as a tremendous shock to the world. Global financial markets were roiled for two days after the June 23 referendum. A few days later, however, questions have been raised about whether the UK would actually leave the European Union. It now appears increasingly likely that a so-called Brexit will not happen.

To begin with, the results of the British referendum are advisory and nonbinding. The UK is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament alone adopts all legislation.

Moreover, the margin in the vote was tiny at 51.9 percent for Leave to 48.1 percent for Remain. As Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff has argued, major national decisions should not be made based on such a small majority.

Only the British government can start the procedures for a Brexit in accordance with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. British Prime Minister David Cameron had initially stated that he would do so immediately after the referendum result was announced, but he has since changed his mind.

Before the vote, Brexit proponents had insisted that the financial markets would not react negatively to a vote for Brexit. Instead, the vote caused havoc on the global financial markets and the rating agencies quickly downgraded the UK. The long-term economic consequences of a Brexit can be severe. A Brexit could also lead to a breakup of the UK.

The big open question was how Brexit proponents would proceed after the vote. Curiously, they have not revealed their plans. Nigel Farage, a Brexit supporter and leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), went to the European Parliament to insult everybody, but he refrained from stating his goals.

Article 50 has become a poisoned chalice after Cameron sensibly decided not to initiate a Brexit. Whomever invokes it will, in all probability, be a political corpse. Therefore, nobody is likely to do so. A plausible chronology of events is becoming clear.

A new Conservative Party leader has to be chosen. On June 30, five candidateshad entered the race. Three were in favor of a Brexit and two against. Regardless of who wins, after a combative leadership battle the UK usually holds an early parliamentary election, and then the elections themselves will be an excuse not to invoke Article 50.

The outcome of the elections is likely to be another reason not to initiate a Brexit.

Following the referendum, the Labor Party is in tatters, while the small pro-European Liberal Democrat Party is united. We might see a new Tory government or a new Lib Dem-Tory coalition government. These are turbulent times, but the new Parliament would presumably be two-thirds pro-Europe much like the current one.

By November, a new British government, which is more likely than not to be pro-European, may be in place. Such a government would have no reason to invoke Article 50, so the Brexit game could be over.

At that stage, the negative economic and political effects of the Brexit referendum would presumably have mobilized a large majority of Brits against a Brexit in the opinion polls.

A new referendum could be held, reflecting the new insights of the British people, if needed to settle question of the UK’s EU membership. Hopefully, the conclusion will be that this unfortunate habit of organizing referenda on EU matters in representative democracies is contained.

Regardless, the political and economic damage caused by this unfortunate British referendum will remain great.


Why a Brexit May Not Happen

[Noumeno]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRQ9zcOUjzY

[SMALLVILLE]

Logomaco mi stai logo...rando con tutti quegli articoli in inglese... Siamo sempre su un forum italiano ricorda.... Non fare l´Amati dela politica europea,suvvia...

[Amati75]

Logomaco mi stai logo...rando con tutti quegli articoli in inglese... Siamo sempre su un forum italiano ricorda.... Non fare l´Amati dela politica europea,suvvia...

Esistono ottimi traduttori online.

Essere su un forum Italiano quindi dovrebbe limitare le risorse disponibili perche' NON in Italiano?