BREXIT - e adesso?

[Logomaco]

Brexit; Unintended Consequences




[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Summary: Expect further volatility from UK leadership changes, although we may be oversold. The worse markets get, the less likely Brexit becomes. The end result of Brexit may well be the UK adopting a Governance Regime closer to that of the EU and moving from austerity to redistribution.[/COLOR]
The unintended consequences of the libertarian coup

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In this piece we take a considered stance on the likelihood of Brexit actually proceeding in the wake of June’s referendum and examine some of the strategic implications for equity investors in terms of the potential shifts in sovereign and corporate governance.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Following Emad’s thoughts written in the immediate aftermath of the referendum we still believe that a disorderly Brexit scenario is unlikely, unless the successful candidate in the Tory leadership election commits to an early Brexit and specifically an Article 50 notification without a parliamentary vote.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]We anticipate that investors’ shifting perceptions of the leadership contest and its aftermath will drive further market volatility, but that over the short term sterling is beginning to look oversold against the dollar.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Taking a longer term perspective, the result of what is effectively a libertarian coup will be the opposite to what its backers intended, namely to make the UK more like Europe by tilting resources from capital to labour.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Last week, global markets bounced with the conspicuous exception of sterling, as commentators and investors began to speculate that no sane British politician will be brave or rather foolhardy enough to activate Article 50 in the absence of any pre-negotiations, which EU representatives have said that they will refuse to enter into.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In the meantime, a growing number of British workers, savers, consumers and beneficiaries of Brussels largesse should begin to realize that Brexit will have adverse consequences on their standards of living.[/COLOR]
The poisoned chalice

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]There is, however, now a major problem with the line of reasoning that Brexit will not proceed, namely that the decision whether to activate Article 50 has now effectively been passed into the hands of the 140,000 or so ‘blue rinse and blazers’ members of the Conservative Party, who voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU and who are now likely to select a candidate who will serve their wishes regardless of the broader impact on the UK economy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The one potential candidate who would probably have been able to sell a volte face to the membership of the constituency parties was of course Boris Johnson walking in the (metaphorical) footsteps of Nixon in China, whilst his nemesis Michael Gove has also displayed sufficient flexibility to most likely adopt a pragmatic stance towards Brexit.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Now Johnson has left the stage and Gove may not proceed to the second round of voting, the task of going against the wishes of the majority of the Tory electorate will be much harder, particularly for a low profile Remainer such as front-runner Theresa May.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This boosts the prospects of Andrea Leadsom who is backed by a coterie of Tory politicians and grandees, who appear prepared to sacrifice the future economic welfare of the UK for the untested libertarian dream of ‘taking back control’.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In effect both they and the mainly privately educated hedge fund managers and other mini-oligarchs who backed the Leave campaign, are seeking to impose a libertarian experiment masquerading as a coup against the political and metropolitan establishment, on the working class Leave voters, many of whom will pay through rising prices, the loss of manufacturing jobs and further contractions in public services.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Of course there is still a very high chance that the Tories will opt for Theresa May’s more cautious approach, so that the Mexican stand-off between the UK and the EU continues for some time.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]In the past the Conservative Party has been renowned for its pragmatism and deference to the interests of business, so we would normally expect any future leader to find a way to thwart the wishes of the majority of party members to leave the EU.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]One key test will be if MPs engage in tactical voting to put the seemingly less electable Gove on the ballot paper instead of Leadsom, but that still leaves open the possibility of a conviction-driven Leave advocate winning the members ballot. In the meantime, May could be forced to adopt a more publically aggressive stance which might become a hostage to fortune for any potential negotiation with the EU.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The Brexit-induced volatility in financial markets is therefore unlikely to be over yet.[/COLOR]
The reflexivity of rioting markets

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As I pointed out in recent comments to John Authers from the Financial Times, there is a strong reflexivity between the perceptions of financial markets and the probability that Brexit will actually be carried out.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]When the markets riot, the likely support for the future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 is likely to diminish.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Conversely if the markets are calm, the proponents of leaving the EU can point to the apparent stability as an indication that the UK can cope perfectly well outside the EU.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]At present the plunge in the value of sterling and the gating of a number of commercial property funds serves the purposes of so-called ‘Project Fear’ amidst signs of buyers’ remorse among some Leave voters.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]However, the battle for the leadership of the Conservative Party has obviously now become the critical factor and the membership is less likely to be swayed by economic or financial concerns than broader public opinion.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]As the Conservatives pick a new leader and the Corbyn insurgency consolidates the electoral irrelevance of the Labour Party, the time and grind factor for the public will increase — as this drags on and the economy slows it will augment the more visible bouts of market pain.[/COLOR]
Aftershocks to hit EU shores

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The markets are also likely to be heavily influenced by the possibility of further turbulence within the rest of the EU.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]There are some signs in recent opinion polls that the pitiful state of post-referendum UK politics is having a salutary effect elsewhere in Europe, while Podemos was defeated in the recent Spanish election, but the Brexit vote is unlikely to mark peak populism in Europe, given continuing downward pressure on living standards for much of the population.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The EU is also still riven by conflicting objectives among the remaining 27 ‘committed’ EU members, across a myriad of issues, most notably migration, foreign policy, the speed and extent of political and fiscal integration and attitudes towards the ECB.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The difference in opinion between the German and Italian governments regarding the recapitalization of the Italian banking sector ahead of October’s constitutional referendum in Italy, appears to be the most likely source of a serious potential conflict.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The European banking sector is potentially far more vulnerable to any threat to the integrity of the Eurozone than to any narrow Brexit scenario.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]It is not inconceivable that events in another member state, or a major policy breach between states, has a bearing on the UK’s situation between now and the installation of a new Prime Minister, though it is unlikely that there will be any compromise on the free movement of people to give the new UK leader some wiggle room.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The most promising avenue for negotiation to avoid Brexit might lie in the possibility of a move by Germany and a group of East European and Scandinavian countries to take back some powers from the Commission to the individual nation states.[/COLOR]
How Brexit may make the UK more like the EU

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]If the UK does proceed to leave the EU without securing any meaningful concessions on trade and financial services, the impact on the Governance Regime for UK listed companies is likely to be profound, but in a different way to most current expectations.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The UK equity market has operated against the backdrop of a relatively Liberal Governance Regime since Mrs Thatcher’s first term in office (1979–1983), but the perverse consequence of the Leave vote, which was championed by self-professed libertarians, is that the UK is likely to move towards a more continental European type of Coordinated Governance Regime, if the next Tory leader and hence Prime Minister implements Brexit.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]There have been a couple of seismic shifts in the UK’s Governance Regime for listed companies since the Second World War, as documented in Brian Cheffins seminal work ‘Corporate Ownership and Control: British Business Transformed’.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The first was the subordination of business to the corporate state during the 1950s and 1960s as higher taxes and nationalization transformed company ownership from concentrated private hands to the state and the big insurance and pension funds.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]There was an especially big decline in family controlled large and medium sized firms during this period. Then, starting in 1979 and gathering pace from the City of London’s ‘Big Bang’ liberalization in 1986, business became more international and company managements gained more autonomy as part of the rise of financial capitalism.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The professed determination of Chancellor George Osborne and his Brexit opponents to put the interests of UK business at the centre of government policy is however unlikely to survive long after any implementation of Brexit, in our view.[/COLOR]
From austerity to redistribution

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]This is because fiscal policy will almost inevitably have to become more redistributive due to both concern for those ‘left behind’ voters who backed Brexit and also the likely contraction in the growth potential of the UK economy if the referendum vote is translated into policy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Whilst the falling pound may reduce the level of the current account deficit, the likely collapse in inward investment will compound pressure on the fiscal balances further down the road.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The notion that the UK can replace EU trade and overseas investment predicated on access to the single market with free trade deals with emerging economies, which are generally by some distance more protectionist than their EU peers, is the stuff of fantasy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The Coordinated Governance Regimes, which define the relationship between the listed corporate sector and society and the state across much of Continental Europe, prioritise broader social objectives and the interests of stakeholders other than shareholders, to a much greater extent than the UK’s current more liberal regime.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Over time, a move towards a more coordinated model would most likely reduce equity returns, although some observers would argue that this would be offset by a better balanced and less volatile economy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Some political scientists believe that there is a strong correlation between ‘majoritarian’ political systems and the presence of more liberal Governance Regimes as opposed to the coalition type governments which tend to dominate Continental Europe, where markets generally play a more subordinate role.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The result of the Tory Party’s lost reputation for competence and the visible disintegration of the parliamentary Labour Party, is likely to be increased support for the Liberal Party and UKIP, along with the possible formation of a new more credible party of the centre ground; these developments may well increase the likelihood of coalition governments in the future.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]A similar process appears to be well under way in another country with a Liberal Governance Regime, namely Australia, where fringe parties have performed extremely well in the recent election.[/COLOR]
Conclusion: Turbulence ahead but we may be oversold here

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]To sum up, the contest for the leadership of the UK’s Conservative Party will continue to export volatility to global financial markets; any indications that pragmatism and compromise will triumph over democracy or libertarian dogma (take your pick but they are not necessarily mutually exclusive) will lead to rallies in risk assets in general and sterling in particular and vice versa.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Our central case remains that the political establishment will find a way out that doesn’t endanger the long term financial and and economic future of the UK, but then the writer of this piece believed that the Conservatives were a competent party of government until the night of June 23.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]What of UK assets?[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]The post-referendum consensus call has been to expect sterling to trade down through $1.30 against the dollar and to switch the domestic oriented FTSE 250 index for the more internationally exposed FTSE 100.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]We were among those commentators, who preferred to hold dollars against Sterling before the vote because the fundamentals of the US economy looked superior to us.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]At around $1.30 though the situation is a mirror image of the one immediately prior to the referendum, namely the short term upside potential outweighs the downside if we take the view that the odds of avoiding a disorderly Brexit scenario are 50% or even a little higher.



https://governmentsandmarkets.com/br...a83#.x5rebkoks

[SMALLVILLE]

Posta quanto vuoi che non te li legge nessuno i tuoi copia e incolla...

[Logomaco]

The 'Brexit' crisis from the ground up: Will Britain really leave the EU — and should it?


Michael Hiltzik Contact Reporter


Nearly two weeks after a majority of Britons voted to split from the European Union, some consequences of “Brexit” are becoming clear.Clear as mud.
All that has come into focus since the June 23 referendum are the issues that must be resolved, now that the people ostensibly have spoken. These boil down to two questions: Will Britain leave the European Union? And should it?
No one knows the answer to the first question. Don’t believe anyone who says he does. Not even the British know what will happen.

Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy but ochlocracy.— British philosopher A.C. Grayling

The one thing about Brexit that does seem irrefutable is that, even assuming it’s in Britain’s interest to leave the EU, the referendum was the wrong way to do it. The vote was designed by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron to silence the anti-EU wing of his party by showing that the public remained foursquare behind the arrangement. Cameron was so confident of a “Remain” vote that he provided no relief valves.
The referendum was a straight majority vote on the all-encompassing question of stay or leave. In retrospect, a wiser course would have been to require a supermajority vote to leave, with additional requirements that voters in Britain’s component nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all agree. In that case, the Leave side would have lost, as only 52% of all voters opted to leave and majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay.
The aftermath has been even more devastating politically than economically. The leaderships of both major parties are in shambles. The day after the vote, Cameron, who supported staying in the EU, announced his intention to resign. Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is hanging on to his job by a thread following a no-confidence vote by his Parliamentary colleagues angered by his lackluster support for the EU during the referendum campaign. Scottish nationalists are agitating for a referendum on Scottish independence, after losing by 55-45 in 2014. With Scotland irate over Brexit and determined to staying in the EU, this time they may win – spelling the end of the United Kingdom.


The formal process of divorce from the EU will begin with Britain’s invocation of Article 50 of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty. At the moment, no one in government can say when or if that will happen, for the simple reason that there is no functioning government. The ruling Conservative Party is locked in a leadership contest set off the day after the vote when Cameron, who backed remaining in the union, announced his plans to resign.
The increasingly acrid race to succeed Cameron as Conservative leader, and therefore Prime Minister, won’t end until the first week of September. Both of the leading candidates — Justice Secretary Michael Gove, a leader of the Leave campaign, and Home Secretary Theresa May, a “Remain” backer — have said that Article 50 is unlikely to be invoked until early next year.
In other words, no one has the will, or even the authority, to implement a Brexit just now. The longer Britain waits to pull the trigger, the more fraught that moment will be. That’s the point at which Britain’s divorce from the EU becomes irreversible. Last week’s financial market turmoil, much of which reversed itself by the end of the week, was only a foretaste of what will happen when it becomes crystal clear that the split will happen.
In the meantime, Britons will be debating the true meaning of the June 23 vote. They’ll be contemplating the political chaos that followed the referendum, and feeling the first pinches of the economic uncertainty that ensues. In the days since the vote, much of the country seemed to be stuck in suspended animation, as if hoping that clocks would run backward to the period before the vote, or that lightning would strike to make the results go away.


The leaders of both the Leave and Remain camps seemed unprepared to deal with the results, as though they expected the public to voice strong discontent about the nation’s relationship with the EU, but not actually vote to leave. Certainly none had a plan in place to execute the people’s will by launching exit negotiations. The offshoot: an eruption of pure contempt for members of the governing class.
Sarah Gordon, business editor of the Financial Times, put it in British journalism’s bluntly retrograde terms: “Many could be uncharitably described as, frankly, girlie. Prime Minister David Cameron nearly cried as he resigned; George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, hid; and Out campaigners Michael Gove and Boris Johnson looked shamefaced at their ‘victory’ press conference.”
The final punchline came Monday, when Nigel Farage, the noxious right-wing politician whose campaign style lent the Leave movement a racist tone, resigned as leader of the UK Independence Party, or UKIP. With the referendum, he declared, “my political ambition has been achieved.” It seemed a curious claim, given that UKIP has one seat in Parliament.
Even though a formal Brexit won’t begin until 2017 at the earliest, and the ultimate split might not occur until 2020 (following at least two years of exit negotiations with the EU), the British public might begin feeling the pinch very soon. The pound sterling lost 11% in value against the U.S. dollar and 9% against the euro in the week after the referendum and hasn’t recovered. That means higher prices for imports, such as gasoline and consumer products including clothing and widescreen televisions.



Economists and bankers foresee an immediate slowdown in the economy as investment goes into hibernation, awaiting a resolution of divorce terms. “That pause you hear is the sound of people waiting before they make irreversible investment plans,” Toby Nangle, a portfolio manager at Columbia Threadneedle Investments, said at a financial conference last week.

An economic downturn will intensify the political debate over whether the country should honor the referendum result by actually leaving the EU. The referendum was only advisory, and Parliament — which remains heavily pro-EU — still has the last word. Gripes are widespread among Remainers about how the Leave campaign was conducted and whether the voters really understood what they were voting for.
“There was a great deal of misinformation, distortion, and false promises, much of it quickly revealed in the immediate aftermath of the vote,” declared philosopher A.C. Grayling, one of Britain’s leading public intellectuals, in an open letter to Parliament last week. For example, the prospect of stemming the flow of immigration by EU nationals, a centerpiece of the Leave platform, looks more like chimera every day. Theresa May, the current front-runner for Conservative Party leader— a Remain supporter but a hawk on cutting immigration, has said that even with a full Brexit, cutting EU immigration will “take time.”
Britain does not normally legislate by referendum, Grayling added: “Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy. That is exactly why we have representative democracy.” (Leave it to a British don to revert to the classics: “Ochlocracy” is from the Greek for “mob rule.”)
The real question that needs to be settled is whether a split from the EU truly is in Britain’s economic interest.


Economists and bankers foresee an immediate slowdown in the economy as investment goes into hibernation, awaiting a resolution of divorce terms. “That pause you hear is the sound of people waiting before they make irreversible investment plans,” Toby Nangle, a portfolio manager at Columbia Threadneedle Investments, said at a financial conference last week.

An economic downturn will intensify the political debate over whether the country should honor the referendum result by actually leaving the EU. The referendum was only advisory, and Parliament — which remains heavily pro-EU — still has the last word. Gripes are widespread among Remainers about how the Leave campaign was conducted and whether the voters really understood what they were voting for.
“There was a great deal of misinformation, distortion, and false promises, much of it quickly revealed in the immediate aftermath of the vote,” declared philosopher A.C. Grayling, one of Britain’s leading public intellectuals, in an open letter to Parliament last week. For example, the prospect of stemming the flow of immigration by EU nationals, a centerpiece of the Leave platform, looks more like chimera every day. Theresa May, the current front-runner for Conservative Party leader— a Remain supporter but a hawk on cutting immigration, has said that even with a full Brexit, cutting EU immigration will “take time.”
Britain does not normally legislate by referendum, Grayling added: “Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy. That is exactly why we have representative democracy.” (Leave it to a British don to revert to the classics: “Ochlocracy” is from the Greek for “mob rule.”)
The real question that needs to be settled is whether a split from the EU truly is in Britain’s economic interest.


One aspect of Brexit that may come as a surprise to those whose image of the Leave campaign derives from its supporters’ misrepresentations and Farage’s appeals to xenophobia and racism: Discontent with the EU runs deep, even among economists, business executives and intellectuals who are otherwise fully alive to the virtues of membership.
Those virtues are real. About 41% of Britain’s exports go to EU countries, and an additional 10% or so to countries that are part of the European single market but not the EU; more than half of Britain’s imports come from those same European sources. British traders and Euroskeptics talk bravely of making up the loss of tariff-free trading by looking outward to markets in Asia and North America. Boris Johnson declared over the weekend, for instance, that “we can do free-trade deals with economies round the world, many of which are already applying.”
That might be easier said than done, even with a cheaper pound. Less than 8% of Britain’s exports go to Hong Kong and mainland China, and less than 13% to the U.S. and Canada. Britain ranks seventh in exports to the U.S., well behind China, Canada, Mexico, Japan and Britain’s EU partner (for now) Germany, as well as South Korea.
Critics of the EU point to its bureaucratic rules and regulations, which they say affect more than business standards. “The EU system, because it’s top-down, has become anti-innovative,” said Matt Ridley, a businessman and science writer who sits in Parliament as a Conservative member of the House of Lords. “Where are the European companies to rival Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook?”
Some EU initiatives on technology have drawn particular fire, including a 2001 directive on clinical trials that was designed to standardize drug development rules and ensure informed consent from patients. Some researchers complain that it dried up funding for research and development.
It’s not always easy to determine whether the culprit in such cases is the EU, or member countries following its directives haphazardly. EU supporters note, for instance, that the British government implemented the clinical trials directive stringently, while Italy, Spain and others allowed researchers more latitude. The result is that pharmaceutical R&D didn’t disappear from the EU so much as move to the more liberal states.
The difficulty facing British Europhiles and Euroskeptics is that addressing the shortcomings of the EU, though difficult under any circumstance, is bound to be easier from the inside than as a nonmember. “The U.K. was part of the team in designing academic standards and research policy,” said Michael Galsworthy, a leader of the Remain campaign in the scientific community. “If we pull out, we’re pulling out our voice, and that’s a major tragedy."


The 'Brexit' crisis from the ground up: Will Britain really leave the EU ? and should it? - LA Times

[joseph]

E adesso?
Intanto si porrà anche la seguente questione: "L'anglais perdra le statut de langue officielle de l'UE après le Brexit"?

Infine: quale partito italiano si prenderà cura di vietare d'ora in poi nella legislazione italiana termini inglesi che testimoniano la nostra servitù culturale?
il M5S?,la Lega?

[Logomaco]

Finance insiders: The UK won’t really go

Britain scored ‘an astonishingly avoidable own goal.’
By
VINCE CHADWICK and LAWRENCE WAKEFIELD7/7/16, 50 AM CET





Finance industry insiders still don’t think a full Brexit will actually happen.
Only 37 percent of participants in POLITICO’s Economic Caucus, which surveyed an elite group of 63 business and economic leaders, said that Britain will exit the European Union following the June 23 referendum. An overwhelming majority said the U.K. won’t cut its ties altogether — a finding that reflects the finance community’s optimism, delusion or a little of both.



Britain will suffer much more than the rest of the Continent and will fall into recession following the referendum, said the caucus, which includes EU ambassadors, European Commission Vice President Kristalina Georgieva, former Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti, and OECD and European Central Bank economists.
More than three-quarters of those surveyed said the U.K. should brace itself for a major economic slowdown as uncertainty hits “confidence, consumer spending and investment,” whereas they predicted the wider European economy will fare much better.
Britain scored “an astonishingly avoidable own goal,” said one member of the caucus, all of whom spoke on condition their remarks not be individually attributed.
“The uncertainty [while exit negotiations take place] will particularly hit the British services market, which is the strong point of the U.K. economy at the moment,” said one caucus member, adding that “anti-foreigner sentiment, if not kept in check, might persuade many skilled workers to leave the U.K.” Reports of hate crime in London are up by more than 50 percent since Britons voted by a margin of 52-48 percent to leave the EU, police figures show.
Another caucus member said their organization was now in a holding pattern, waiting to see what arrangement Britain forges with the EU before changing their operations.



“If [it’s] not an EEA relationship, then we will look to increase investment elsewhere in Europe,” they said, referring to membership in the European Economic Area, similar to that of Norway, which enjoys the free flow of EU goods, services and labor but must also adopt many EU laws without an official say in how these are made.
“Germany as the economic heart of Europe will stabilize more and more the EU,” said one participant, who was among the 83 percent who said the bloc as a whole would avoid recession in the wake of Brexit.
“The single market is strong enough to avoid a substantial negative shock,” said one.
“If EU enters a recession it will primarily be due to financial trouble in south of Europe rather than Brexit,” another said.
London calling

Despite dire predictions for the U.K. economy, 56 percent of those polled said that, two years from now, London will still be the world’s financial capital.
“That isn’t to say its strength as a financial center won’t diminish,” said one participant. “It simply means that two years probably won’t be enough for London to lose top position.”
“In 10 years time, I expect the balance to have tipped toward Frankfurt or possibly Paris,” said one.



Another predicted fragmentation: “Euro trading to Frankfurt, back and mid offices to Central and Eastern Europe, hedge funds to Dublin or Paris (or Madrid), etc. We will have less concentration in one city.”
Caucus participants were pessimistic about the U.K.’s ability to secure so-called passporting rights that allow banks to operate across the single market from London. Sixty-five percent predicted the U.K. would lose these rights as part of Brexit negotiations.



“I think this will be top priority for the U.K., and they can achieve it,” said one in the minority. “But only if they soften the rhetoric and lower expectations on free movement restrictions.”
One caucus member also argued the City could use its regulatory distance from the EU to its advantage.
“The EU is important but so is the rest of the world,” they cautioned. “The EU keeps trying to restrict and place obstacles in the way. London will remain attractive.”
The best argument to stay

Asked whether they thought Brexit would mean that the EU would disintegrate — as former UKIP leader Nigel Farage and others have predicted — almost 90 percent of caucus members disagreed, saying the EU would stay much the same or get stronger.



“Brexit will scare the remaining 27 enough to stick together,” said one. And as another put it, “the aftermath of the Brexit vote is the best argument to stay in and to reform the EU.”
Many were hopeful that the fallout from Britain’s EU referendum would push remaining countries to evolve the union rather than sticking with the status quo.
“Europe is at a crossroads. Muddling through is over. That’s the positive thing about Brexit,” said one, as others signaled opportunity now for reforms in foreign policy, defense and border patrols to win over disenchanted citizens.
The stakes are high. “If one more nation leaves, the EU is likely over,” said another.



But the U.K. hasn’t left yet. Austrian Finance Minister Hans Jörg Schellingpredicted in an interview earlier this week that five years from now the U.K. would still be in the EU.
“When you look at all of those [companies] who want to move to the EU, it’s a wake-up call for Britain not to leave in the end,” he told German newspaper Handelsblatt.
Only just over a third of caucus members think the U.K. will leave the EU completely, while 25 percent said Scotland would stay in the bloc but the rest of the U.K. would leave.
“I am personally devastated by the result of the referendum,” wrote one. “But whatever my personal views, I think that any future U.K. government will not be able to go against the ‘will of the people.’”
Another said Brexit is irreversible because “there are no clear pro-EU political forces to halt this process.”
However, 27 percent thought Britain would agree to some kind of associate membership with the bloc and 11 percent thought Brexit simply would not happen.
“The new British prime minister will have to trigger Article 50 after receiving some sort of authorization from the parliament,” said one participant. “The British Parliament will not authorize such a decision because I do not think that they will not be able to undertake the risk involved for their country. Just remember that convulsions of irrationality are not privy only of Greek Left and Right governments.”



Internal Conservative Party politics is key. “If a good special deal is not forthcoming the U.K. may stay,” said another, “though the Tory leadership contest may force pledges.”
Many in Brussels have never forgiven David Cameron’s 2013 promise to hold the EU referendum in the first place.
“The costs of exit are too high, and as time goes by the people will realize that fact,” said one.
Another, who believes the U.K. will ultimately stay, said: “It will take time, the body politic will have to change its mercurial mind.”
Associate membership is the “most rational course of action,” one caucus member said. “Leave and remain at the same time.” Though that participant said such an outcome would be “possible only if emotions are brought under control and both the U.K. and the EU focus on making the best out of a very bad situation.”
“Seems that things have to get worse before they can get better,” said one who offered a view of the U.K. as a to a sacrificial lamb that saves the European Union. “Only a Brexit with severe negative effects on the U.K. economy could trigger a stronger EU. However, given that the negotiations will take a long while, these negative effects might show up too late to avoid disintegration.”



Finance insiders: The UK won?t really go ? POLITICO

[Logomaco]

Government can't enforce Brexit without a parliament vote, their own lawyers say

Legal advice says Article 50 can be invoked without parliamentary approval but MPs would have to vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972

• Samuel Osborne
• @SamuelOsborne93
• Wednesday 6 July 2016

Britain cannot leave the European Union without a vote in parliament, Government lawyers have said.
Although the prime minister could trigger the two-year process of negotiating the UK's withdrawal without a formal Act of Parliament, MPs would have to vote to repeal legislation relating to the EU.
Oliver Letwin, the Cabinet minister in charge of leaving the EU, has said the legal advice is that Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty can be invoked without parliamentary approval under the royal prerogative, The Guardian reports.
Once triggered, Article 50 will begin the process of Britain leaving the EU.
However, MPs would have to vote to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 through an Act of Parliament.

According to The Guardian, leading constitutional lawyers say the French government legal service has told the French government that the UK would be entitled to rescind its notice to withdraw even after it invoked Article 50.


This suggests the UK could reverse its decision to withdraw through a vote in parliament or a second referendum.
A second EU referendum would be possible if it becomes clear public opinion has shifted strongly against Brexit, the former attorney general has said.
Dominic Grieve, a Conservative MP who was the Government’s chief legal advisor until 2014, said the result of the first referendum had to be “treated with respect” but that it was not necessarily set in stone.


Mr Letwin has also defended the Government's policy of doing absolutely no contingency planning for Brexit ahead of the referendum.
The Cabinet minister told the Foreign Affairs committee on Tuesday it would not have been possible to do significant planning before the vote took place.
Britain voted to leave the European Union by 52 per cent to 48 per cent, prompting David Cameron to announce his resignation.
The Prime Minister said it would be for his successor - chosen by the Conservative Party - to deal with the specifics of how Britain would leave the bloc.


Government can't enforce Brexit without a parliament vote, their own lawyers say | UK Politics | News | The Independent

[Logomaco]

Brexit postmortem: New British prime minister will have two logical choices

She can seek to reverse a potentially catastrophic referendum result or make the best of a bad lot

about 23 hours ago
Gavin Barrett



Britain’s next prime minister - whenever she emerges from the Conservative leadership contest - will face a pressing question: how should an elected government react when its own electorate votes in a referendum to walk off a political and economic cliff? June 23rd involved exactly that.
The intervening days have seen sterling plummet to a 31-year low - experiencing the biggest two-day drop since the post-second World War Bretton Woods arrangements disintegrated in 1971. Share values worldwide plummeted a stunning $3 trillion on the Friday and Monday after the vote: Friday’s $2.1 trillion losses were the heaviest ever suffered in a single market day, wiping colossal sums off savings, income and pensions. The UK has seen its credit rating downgraded, making it more expensive for it to borrow. Recession threatens (notwithstanding the efforts of the Bank of England’s Mark Carney), and the British property market is in trouble.
Instead of the ‘Brexit bonus’ promised by Brexiters, an austerity budget has been promised. Until the lengthy negotiation period finishes, an investment-freezing fog of uncertainty will grip the UK.
Nor are Brexit negotiations themselves guaranteed to end well. They threaten to be long and difficult. The UK cannot possibly emerge from them in a situation equivalent to or better than membership. At best, it will end up likeNorway, with access to the Single European Market retained, but Britain’s influence destroyed, a shocking, if economically survivable outcome for a state previously one of the EU’s three most influential regarding single market laws.

Locked out

At worst the UK will end up locked out of the Single Market (and given the probable need for an agreement on the UK’s future relationship with the UK to be ratified and approved by parliaments in all 27 other states, it remains to be seen whether this fate can be avoided). In a worst-case scenario, the City of London’s future as Europe’s financial centre would come under threat from cities like Frankfurt and Paris.
Faced with all of this, what should Britain do? Like any government in such a position, it has two logical choices. One is to do what Denmark, Ireland(twice), France and Holland have all done, and that is to seek to reverse a potentially catastrophic referendum result. The other is to make the best of a bad lot, and seek to maximise UK access to the Single European Market, with its 500 million consumers.
To be democratically acceptable, reversing the referendum would require either (a) the election of a government on a ‘Bremain’ platform or (b) a further referendum. Post-referendum elections in France and Holland played a key role in allowing their respective governments to ratify the Lisbon Treaty after their electorates rejected the Constitutional Treaty in plebiscites in 2004 and 2005.
An early UK general election, however, seems unlikely (and Conservative leadership candidates have been asked by anxious Tory MPs to ensure it remains so). Even if one occurs, Labour is in disarray and the Conservatives split over Brexit. The election of a pro-Bremain regime before Article 50 exit negotiations end is improbable. A pro-Bremain government before Britain’s permanent new relationship with Europe is negotiated (a process expected to take ten years) on the other hand, seems quite likely. But by then it may be too late, since the exit date may have passed.

Irish approach

What about a second referendum then (the Danish-Irish approach)? Notwithstanding the wishes of four million online signatories seeking a second poll, one cannot simply re-hold a referendum that one has lost without any justification for doing so. A new bespoke deal - which is what Ireland got in 2009 (with reassurances on e.g., corporate taxation and the promise to retain a commissioner from each state) and Denmark in 1993 has previously provided justification for EU member states to hold second referendums. However, the UK obtained a special deal last February, before its referendum and still voted for Brexit. That bolt has thus probably been shot.
The only possible prospect of a second referendum seems therefore to be a poll on the ultimate deal obtained by the UK in Brexit negotiations (an option suggested by health secretary Jeremy Hunt). That deal is guaranteed to be worse than what the UK has now. It would confront the UK electorate with what it really voted for on June 23rd, rather than what can now be seen to have been the ‘pie in the sky’ promised to voters by Brexit campaigners. But even this option would require both the other member states (and, possibly, the Court of Justice too) to take the view that the Article 50 process can be stopped once it commences. It should be explored as an option however, as it may well offer the only prospect of protecting the interests of the British people at the current level.
Whether or not it avails of such an option, the UK Government must now negotiate the Brexit terms and its future relationship with the EU - which, absent future votes,will become permanent arrangements. The top priority in such negotiations has to be the retention of access to the Single European Market, thereby safeguarding the UK industrial base and its services industry (particularly London’s crucial financial services industry). Going by (a) the precedents of Norway and Switzerland, (b) the explicit statements of France’s President Hollande, Germany’s Chancellor Merkel and several eastern EU member state governments, the UK will have to sacrifice its desire for the imposition of migration restrictions in order to obtain full Market access.
Worryingly, the remaining Conservative leadership candidates are threatening to make migration reform a red line. This position, if maintained, will probably see Britain pay with reduced Single Market access. It is a deeply unwise stance - but very far from the first time the UK’s strategic needs at European level will have been sacrificed for purely domestic reasons.



Brexit postmortem: New British prime minister will have two logical choices

[Undertaker]

La richiesta di rifare il referendum è stata respinta...Come lo saranno quelle scozzesi e irlandesi...Mettiti il cuore in pace...

[SMALLVILLE]

La richiesta di rifare il referendum è stata respinta...Come lo saranno quelle scozzesi e irlandesi...Mettiti il cuore in pace...

Quello e´ un troll,anzi un trollolo.....Vorrei sapere di cosa si ubriaca oltre al suo idealismo...

[Logomaco]

La richiesta di rifare il referendum è stata respinta...Come lo saranno quelle scozzesi e irlandesi...Mettiti il cuore in pace...

Gli americani non vogliono il Brexit eh