Comments 29

英国如何改变退欧思维

Jan 15, 2018 Anatole Kaletsky

伦敦—2018年会成为英国改变脱离欧盟思维的一年吗？传统智慧说，停止退欧是不可能的。但传统智慧对特朗普怎么说？马克龙呢？或者，一开始的退欧公投呢？在革命年代，事件可以从不可能跨越未必能，直接变成不可免。英国退欧就是一起这样的事件，它的逆转则有可能是另一起这样的事件。

问问尼格尔·法拉奇（Nigel Farage）。他是英国独立党（UK Independence Party）前领导人，他突然说，2016年6月的英国退欧公投可以推翻。“留欧阵营遥遥领先，”法拉奇在这个周末警告他的强硬退欧派同志们。“他们在议会中是大多数，除非我们自己也组织起来，否则我们将失去英国退欧这一历史性胜利。”

投票给英国退欧和特朗普，这样的现象在今天常常被描述为是不平等和全球化等深刻社会经济因素的不可避免的结果。从某些角度讲，这一描述是对的。2008年经济危机后，发生某些形式的政治剧变是意料中事，我多年来一直这样认为。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Anatole Kaletsky

Writing for PS since 1995
58 Commentaries

Anatole Kaletsky is Chief Economist and Co-Chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at the Times of London, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy, which anticipated many of the post-crisis transformations of the global economy. His 1985 book, Costs of Default, became an influential primer for Latin American and Asian governments negotiating debt defaults and restructurings with banks and the IMF.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 29 in all 29 Comments on this article

Margaret Bowker Jul 10, 2018

I thought it was established that the £40 billion was contingent on a satisfactory deal being achieved. Jacob Rees-Mogg is saying (in the Telegraph) that he has the ability to vote the Government's proposals down. Are the Brexiteers looking for a lever to adjust the details of the soft Brexit some what to avoid confrontation of various sorts?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Wallace Jul 9, 2018

Sigh. Time was people could remember the two great world wars, and why close economic unity, instead of hyper-competition, was the way forward. It's the glitter of promised gold that beckons anew, the appeal is to base instincts and fear. The result will be far worse for everyone than anyone thought. Europe is becoming ripe for definitive and long-lasting Russian hegemony, just a misstep away now.

Both in the US as among the European right, the Utopian Freedom Gospel rings. Not based on the equality of old that served as foundation for liberty and rights; rather, a naive call for total freedom of action (of white men), a dream of armed anarchy. Unfettered exercise of brutal advantage, by hook or by crook, is what will ensue, winner take all. See, gosh, Russia.

A plague on the fools who strut to gain a lollipop, only to lose their dignity and enslave their children.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Jan 22, 2018

The UK is not withdrawing from "Europe," as Europe does not exists other than as the Western fringe of the "Eurasian" Continent. The UK is leaving the EU, which is an undemocratic, bureaucratic political organization based on a regionally restrictive trade treaty and customs union. Many EU members, including the UK, had the good sense not to subsidize German exports by joining the Euro Zone. Now, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are showing up the EU to be a phony organization in the context of human rights.

An honest appraisal of the 2017 election is that having won, UKIP voters did not vote for UKIP. Another honest notion is that the vote on an exit deal should be a "free vote." Why? Because surveys show that where immigrants are located, in Greater London, in particular, there is less tolerance of same sex relationships and gender equality. Many issues, especially those that do not interest Kaletsky, transcend both parties: Labour voters in London were against Brexit, but also have less overall tolerance for certain other issues dear to the hearts of political liberals. Those outside London voted for Brexit, but also have greater tolerance for the above named human rights issues.

Instead of rattling on about Brexit, perhaps Kaletsky, et al, should consider reforming the EU - even to the point of "draining the swamp."
- Andrew Cousins Jul 10, 2018
  
  The only way the EU will reform is when another major crisis happens. Other than that, it will never reform.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
wotcha smith Jan 22, 2018

the one thing the more sophisticated Brexiters don't care about is addressing the grievances of these protest voters.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Doyle Jan 21, 2018

The EU has a basic flaw regarding economics that is going to destroy it. Brexiters are just the first in line to leave. For all the warm ideas about the idea of a united Europe the reality has been staggeringly different [compare Germany and Greece]
Economically the EU was founded based on Monetarism theory and has Austerity built in to its bedrock. This is a huge mistake and the EU will [is paying] dearly with high unemployment in many nations, for example. Governments can control employment [they go hand in hand] but since the member nations abrogated their monetary sovereignty in favour of a "foreign" currency [the Euro] they have no control over their money supply and by extension their employment levels. Britain avoided this hurdle by sticking with the Pound, although incompetence in government there hasn't shown the benefits.

So the only REAL option is to leave. Brexit was an accidental wise decision.
Professor Bill Mitchell says; " the Eurozone "House of Cards"to collapse-doomed from the start." See <Bilbo >posted on Wednesday October 26 2016. [I can't post the hyperlink]
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Adam F Jan 21, 2018

The author writes that 20% of voters treated the referendum as a protest vote.

Presumably a protest at a political and economic elite (people like Anatole) that got things so wrong in the run up to 2008, and in the resulting policy response. (Yes, that's the financial crash that Anatole didn't see coming, and the QE he favours which has driven massive inequality and created the house price crisis).

So now people like the author - and those favourites of the electorate Tony Blair and Nick Clegg - want to effectively reverse the referendum result. Hmmm. How do you reckon that'll go down, Anatole? Reckon there will be any protests?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jan 17, 2018

Anatole Kaletsky is bullish about reversing Brexit, saying we are living in "revolutionary times" in which "conventional wisdom" no longer applies. Contrary to general belief that Breixt is a fait accompli, events in the past two years - the 2016 EU referendum, Trump's and Macron's win etc - show that nothing is "impossible","improbable","inevitable"or "ineluctable."
The author points out how a "contingent outcome of small perturbations in voter behavior" had led to the victory of Brexiters and Trump in 2016. If "just 1.8% of Britons voted differently" or Hillary Clinton’s "popular majority of three million votes was distributed slightly differently among the states" the world would be quite different today.
In order to stop Brexit before 2019 the author recommends "four similarly modest shifts in behavior need to happen." First of all, "public opinion must shift slightly further against the Brexit decision, which is already viewed as 'wrong in hindsight' by a 4% point margin." Second, "politicians who privately detest Brexit must speak out publicly." Third, "reasoned opposition to government policies must be recognized again as a hallmark of democracy, not an act of treason." And last "the sense that Brexit is inevitable must be dispelled."
The problem is how to counter the powerful media, owned by wealthy individuals who are critical of the EU. They stoke English nationalism and call their opponents "enemy of the people." The vicious circle of interdependence is that "politicians will speak out only if they sense public opinion shifting; but public opinion will shift only with credible political leadership. Politicians are cowed into silence if all opposition is branded as anti-democratic. And if Brexit appears inevitable, why should voters bother to think again?"
Hard work lies ahead for the "Remain" camp, which should not focus on diehard Brexiters. They must woe the "20% of voters who cared little about Europe, but treated the referendum as a protest vote. Many of these low-conviction voters are now dismayed that Brexit has distracted attention from their real grievances about health, inequality, low wages, housing, and other issues."
The author says although many regret casting their "leave" votes, they want the "inevitable departure from Europe to happen as quickly as possible so that the country can get back to business as usual." But if they have reason to "believe that Brexit, far from being inevitable, might never happen," they could change their minds should a second referendum be held.
Now political leaders need to do some heavy lifting too. Labour should realise that "opposing Brexit" would be its "only possible route back to power." Jeremy Corbyn must admit that Labour’s "unexpected gains" in the 2017 election were "due almost entirely to affluent young voters whose motivation was the hope of derailing Brexit." He will have to take their concerns to heart, or else they will be disappointed.
The author says, opposition to Brexit must be treated as a "natural feature of democratic politics." Labour could start to "benefit from the government’s negotiating blunders," if only that "sense of Brexit’s inevitability would vanish." And if ever "Labour decided to fight Brexit, public opinion would rapidly shift," encouraging pro-EU Conservatives to stand up to May. "Tory MPs who put national interest ahead of party loyalty would find themselves praised for their mettle, not ridiculed for folly."
The recent "chain of events" in Parliament offers the "Remain" camp an opportunity to get its "cross-party campaign" together, because "any Brexit plan that arouses serious opposition, either from hardline nationalists or from pro-European Tories, could be used to trigger a new referendum." Much patience and persuasion are needed to convince "disillusioned" voters that Brexit is "not inevitable" and "whatever their problems, Brexit is not the answer." Labour politicians need to know that opposing Brexit is not suicidal, and pro-EU Tory rebels must earn recognition for their "rebellion" against hardliners.
The author can breathe a sigh of relief, European leaders have said that "Britain is legally entitled to change its mind about leaving" and the EU door is still open. He mentions David Davis, the pro-Brexit Tory serving as Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, who once said: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy.” As Britain is "still a democracy, and it can still change its mind."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jan 16, 2018

The latest bizarre offering from some UK worthies in this negotiation appears to be to suggest - If all we can have is a soft brexit or hard brexit we will want to stay in because we dont want to go Norwegian or get all shut out. At which point the opposition negotiator will say - Let me help you here, all you can have is a soft brexit or a hard brexit as we want your 15% contribution to our budget and we are already in the process of stripping some activity from you.

It will be illuminating to see how Marcon gets on with May over Calais. Macron wants the UK to take more illegal aliens to ease his self imposed catch, release, repeat, policy which runs concurrently with the give them a tent and take the tent away, give them another tent strategy. Macron also want more UK cash to fund his ineffective antics and the problem reported of alien repeat offenders hopping around the Schengen area with individuals that have repeated asylum applications rejected over a period of nearly a decade still making a beeline for Calais.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Remler Jan 16, 2018

You have missed the most important point on the road back from Brexit which is to acknowledge and then address that about which the Leave side was right. There is room for many opinions on that but not for the view they were right about nothing. Brussels over reach on endless petty matters and erosion of national ethnic identity in favor of elitist multiculturalism are two good candidates. I would recommend dropping Brexit in favor of few small acts of sovereign defiance. A consultation with Victor Orban might be a good place to start.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jan 15, 2018

Putting the genie back in the bottle tends to be problematic.

The key fact is freedom of movement was the catalyst for the Brexit vote.
The secondary fact is the EU is looking at a loss of 15% of budget.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jan 15, 2018

I have always had enormous respect for Anatole Kaletsky having avidly read his column in The Times from my early teens but for all his economic clarity it is clear he just doesn’t get politics at all, especially when operating on raw emotion. Brexit really has sent some establishment types round the bend; the author should know better than to pay much attention to Nigel Farage of all people.

“If just 1.8% of Britons voted differently, Brexit would now be a forgotten joke-word” –sadly experience suggests this is inaccurate, the whole affair will remain divisive for some years (Scottish independence was a 10% margin and that hasn’t gone away), 1.8% would leave all to play for.

Any government or want to be government will NOT put the same question to the same electorate, it shows utter contempt for democracy and voters. The only way back from Brexit is an ‘offer’ with the weight of the EU Council of Ministers behind it so that a different question can be posed. Essentially the offer would need to be the Cameron deal with some kind of fudge over freedom of movement. In these circumstances a reversal would be highly likely.

No amount of bleating by wealthy city economists or outraged doubters will make a majority of elected politicians show open contempt for their electorate –even our politicians are not that stupid or arrogant (believe it or not).
- Robert Coleman Jan 16, 2018
  
  The author was not specific about what question would be put to the voters. There are many ways in which Brexit can be reversed. One is as you describe, and I think that is most likely.
  
  I don't think it is contemptuous of the electorate to consult them. The original referendum was advisory and I don't think anyone at this point can validly say that the Government has not heeded the advice of the people. It has done so and we have consequently lost two prestigious EU regulatory bodies that will never return, and our currency has been devalued in direct response to the actions that the Government has taken. This is not to mention the loss of soft power internationally and the inhibition of racists and xenophobes here and elsewhere. Moreover, the Government has pulled the pin on the article 50 grenade lending a sense of urgency to the implementation of the people's directive.
  
  You are right that the issue of Brexit will long be divisive. The problem is: once we leave the Union there is no easy way back. Perhaps a majority of the country at this point does not believe that leaving is the right answer, and I suspect that viewpoint will grow in popularity this year.
  
  The population who voted to remain has been vilified and completely ignored up until now.
  
  The Labour Party is insisting that we must leave to respect "the will of the people." Yet, no one represents that half of the country that doesn't want this. After all, most of what Mr. Corbyn would like to implement in this country would not be possible with the economic disorder that will occur upon leaving the EU. And, the resultant political disorder will likely mean he will not be on the scene long thereafter anyway. Moreover, if there is one thing I have noticed in my time on the planet, it is that when countries shift to the left politically, the rest of the capitalist world moves rapidly to undermine them and protect capitalist interests. The best bet to retain some ability to provide a mixed economy for the UK is to remain in the EU. Hence Labour will have to change its stance as there isn't time for the usual British establishment fudge and hodge-podge that would normally occur.
  
  The author is likely right. Since Brexit was born of a referendum it will, in all probability, die by one. By the way, I'm not a bleating city economist or some other member of the elite. About as far from it as you can get - but I do vote.
  - Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jan 17, 2018
    
    I don’t disagree with your analysis but I do disagree with the reasoning that people are going to change their minds. That is the bit that so many politicians, media organisations and, especially, economists have got wrong and for a simple reason. The vote to leave was not motivated by economics (which is highly distrusted anyway) and the vote to remain cannot be won by economic arguments either.
    
    The trouble is the UK population doesn’t want to live in a country called Europe run by the self-appointed people that run the EU today and in this we are not alone, just more vocal about it.
    
    Polling data from the end of 2017 concludes:
    “Between them our two key findings point to an important lesson – it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process (of which there already seems to be plenty) will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.”
    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/voters-half-time-brexit-judgment-not-going-well-but-little-change-of-heart/
    
    PS. It wasn't consulting the electorate again that is contemptuous, it's asking the same thing twice after a different answer.
    - Robert Coleman Jan 17, 2018
      
      Thanks for your response. As far as I'm aware no one ever seriously proposed asking the same question again - not least because it was far too simplistic to be the subject of a referendum anyway; at least at the stage of European integration, we've already long-since reached. A vote on the deal, if there is one, is coming.
      
      As for self-appointed people who run the EU; please could you tell me who these self-appointed people are? I think you betray either an anti-EU bias or some considered ignorance of how the EU functions. Admittedly, Nigel Farage may be self-appointed in his role as a UK politician, having never won a seat in Parliament, despite standing for election SEVEN times. He is NOT however self-appointed in his role as a Member of the European Parliament; he is elected and has won four out of five elections for that office.
      
      It may be that there is a strong aversion to the EU in Britain. If there is, it is based largely on misconceptions and willful ignorance. That doesn't change the fact that it exists and we have benefitted in many ways from being involved in it as members, and that we will lose many of these benefits when, and if we leave. Britain has an ancient democracy, but it is not the most democratic state on the planet - and by a long shot. I believe another commentator on here pointed that out more eloquently than I could. The EU is in its infancy, by comparison, and it may require improvements in the way it functions to satisfy its constituent members. However, to smear its leaders as self-appointed is simply a sloppy or even a deliberate falsehood. Try Wikipedia - it's a good thing.
      - Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jan 18, 2018
        
        @Robert
        
        When I say the same question I mean in or out? How it is phrased is irrelevant; if it’s trying to simply cancel/ reverse Brexit in order to maintain the status quo then it’s a repeat and contemptuous, which was my central point at the beginning of this thread: To reverse Brexit via a referendum, which is probably essential for legitimacy, a new deal / offer needs to be the basis of the question.
        
        I was surprised Cameron called a referendum when he did and recognise a number of benefits to our membership but I also felt it was at some stage inevitable that, as a non-Euro member, the UK and other non-EZ countries would be unacceptably marginalised over time and exit or some sort of associate membership would be needed
        
        The political and institutional continuity of the EU is provided chiefly by the Commission and Parliament. The former are selected based purely on their favourability to friends in their home government and the latter are rarely high profile enough to be accountable and selected by party list. The pre-selection of Junker as a Spitzenkandidaten is an example of an appalling power grab by the EP with poor results enabled by a feeble set of national governments, mostly by the spineless Merkel and there are countless other examples.
        
        I became fascinated by economics around the time the UK crashed out of the ERM (aged 15) and I feel EMU (the Euro) has been the most widely damaging and undemocratic project in post-war European history. There is still much to play out before the EZ goes one way or the other.
        
        This why you are right, I am biased against the EU, it is a centralising and instinctively statist set of institutions, much like our own central government, with a great deal of power and not much scrutiny, many policy errors (diesel emissions, impoverishing trade and agricultural policies, bad energy and environmental policies [biomass, biofuels], confused copyright and patent law etc, etc) emanate directly from the EU, often the result of extensive and expensive corporate lobbying. Now we have voted to exit the machine I’m reconciled with it, I just hope the leadership of both the EU and UK can avoid causing great pain to their populaces for the sake of their (elite) own pride.
        
        There are many types of democracy and the UK’s is less than perfect but compared to the many I have seen with complex systems (e.g. France) or opaque PR (Italy, Germany, South Africa) it is generally very good at creating an accountable and usually strong government, which is the primary strategic purpose of an electoral system –a fact confused by many minority parties that think they should be allowed to choose a system that suits them.
        
        Finally, over the long-term there are few federal democracies that ever tend to work how they are originally intended, using the USA as an example, the centre always [ALWAYS] increases its own powers at the expense of its members. I have found it most eloquently put by Adam Tomkins MSP in this article, if you’re interested; https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/federal-flaw-federalism-constitution-europe
        
        Best wishes,
        Alisdair
        
        jagjeet sinha Jan 20, 2018
        
        @AHW
        'WAS SURPRISED WHEN CAMERON CALLED A REFERENDUM'
        Indeed.
        The Parliament will not be forgiven for having abdicated responsibility by agreeing without the need for Super Majority - given the enormity of economic consequences.
        Quebec and Catalonia cannot damage Canada and Spain - a simple majority is not enough. The Corporate World has super majority requirements for materially consequential decisions.
        The Referendum in fact should be deployed by The Parliament to block Brussels decisions that Britain disapproves - Uncontrolled Migration. Like Germany blocks Transfer Payments through its Judicial system.
        But all these permutations need to be worked out within the Single Market - never cut off your limbs in spite. India's provinces deploy blocking tactics when they disagree with decisions taken in Delhi. No province walks out - because the Single Market is the lifeline.
        The hope of course is that when Parties fail to find the Common good, The Parliament steps in to protect in a bipartisan manner.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        Robert Coleman Jan 19, 2018
        
        Dear Alisdair,
        
        Thank you for your response. I have a different perspective on Federalism. I was raised largely in the US and went to Law School there, but I am also equally English and live in the UK. I have some knowledge of how the American federal system works.
        
        It is true that Federal systems sometimes do seek to increase their power at the expense of the federated states. In the US. this has occurred through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, through the 14th Amendment, which provided that the law treat similarly situated people the same or be subjected to heightened scrutiny by the Supreme Court, and by means of various other provisions under the Constitution. However, the vast majority of these Federal interventions have been for the good and are rarely the subject of serious challenge.
        
        In fact, I can't remember any serious arguments being made against Federal control in any area, except the ones you are accustomed to hearing about; gun control; abortion; gay marriage, etc. Where very strong public opion comes into play. Other than that, there is no real reason to make such arguments. Environmental law must be or at least co-ordinated, in the main, at the national level to be effective, as rivers and the breeze don't respect state lines. Any challenges, therefore, often end up at the national level - it is simply logical. Following the same logic, environmental law is becoming international (see the Paris Accord.) It simply makes sense. Moreover, racial discrimination in public services like restaurants was tackled under the commerce clause under the theory that travellers moving from one state to another shouldn't be denied services on the basis of race. If it weren't for the Federal system, "Jim Crow" laws and "separate but equal" might still exist in some states (struck down under Equal Protection, if I remember correctly).
        
        The bottom line is this: do you want to develop in line with and towards a better future with the people who form the nations around you in a negotiated way, where rules on issues that affect us all can be developed for the common good? Or do you wish to set yourself apart from them, potentially causing political friction and interruptions in trade and the exchange of knowledge, just so that we can develop in a different way? If you choose the different way, ask yourself why.
        
        The EU is not the ogre that it is made out to be. I could make a huge list of advancements and improvements brought about by the EU that couldn't have happened without it. The recent directive against charging for credit card usage is a good example. That would not have happened in Westminster. It seems to me that the only reason to come out of the EU is if we decide we want complete freedom to act in whatever way we want to.
        
        That simply will not happen, however. Those around us are too big and too powerful as a group to allow us to set up a financial system which undermines their interest or to lower environmental standards for profit to the point that it affects them. That is why Brexiteers are praying for the collapse of the Eurozone and the EU itself. For that reason, the "rip-off Britain" tendency that Brits complain of so often, will be focused on the inhabitants of the British Isles and to any other country unsophisticated enough to fall for it. It will not be good for Brits and it isn't a winning strategy anymore. We can no longer divide an conquer abroad and draw boundary lines for states the way we have in the past.
        
        Yes, the EU has problems, it is evolving. So is the US. We have now in Europe an integrated, multi-lingual civilization that is the envy of the world. Instead of helping to strengthen what we helped to create, we've decided to decouple from and seek now to destroy, if it suits our perceived nationalist interest. We are not really in a position now to rely on the goodwill of Mr Trump either, a supporter of Brexit. Friendless and disconnected from our neighbours is where we are headed. Hence the attempt to assuage the French over the costs of the Le Touquet arrangement. We will need to take such actions on a massive scale with all of our former European friends when issues come up on a bilateral basis. You may think this was inevitable. I don't.
        
        I hope, that given the chance, the people of the UK will reconsider and come to a different conclusion. I am not overly optimistic and if Brexit is confirmed, life will not end. We can only make these decisions using our own knowledge and experience, but I have yet to hear anything that convinces me that for Britain to come out of the EU would be beneficial to anyone in the long run. As for the Euro, there have been endless predictions about its demise and its terrible effect on southern Europe. Southern Europe was poorer than Northern Europe long before the Euro came into being, but Southern Europe has made great strides since. The way I see it, we have decided to change places with Greece. I can't really explain why that is, logically. Living in England I can get a feel for it, but I can't explain it. Political freedoms have multiplied all over Europe, since the creation of the EU and that will continue. I don't want to turn the clock back to war and repression, and I want to keep my citizenship in the EU and all 28 of its member states; anything else will always be a tragic loss.
        
        Bring on the Union!
        
        Best Regards,
        
        Robert
        
        Barry Rosenfeld Jan 22, 2018
        
        Robert, does the concept of subsidiarity have no resonance for centralizers? Federalism has the virtue of enabling innovation to take place in constituent jurisdictions and, if successful, to be used as a model for the national government or for other constituent states. The Obamacare model, e.g., was initiated by the state of Massachusetts, then adapted for a national program, one that has important state variations. The provision of health care in Canada is a provincial responsibility, one fully recognized by the Canada Health Act, which sets parameters as the health needs and care priorities vary between provinces.
        
        The federal system enables citizens the right of choice, a feature of federalism that seems to irritate centralizers. Where there are spillover effects, there is good reason for centralizing; however, the diversity of large countries needs to be maintained and only a federal system can do this (Spain never learned this lesson, but Bismarck knew it well, as did the drafters of the US Constitution).
        
        One size fits all is a prescription for central political control, not for federalism. You might value your EU passport, but it doesn't make you a citizen of "Europe," not anymore than residence in New York enables you to vote in New Jersey.
        
        Robert Coleman Jan 23, 2018
        
        Hello Barry,
        
        I understand and agree with your first two paragraphs. I take it from your last paragraph that you are against the EU until such time as it becomes a federation of states?
        
        I can't see how that will happen if it is disbanded at this stage. Do you think we should rejoin when and if that happens?
        
        As for resident New Yorkers not being allowed to vote in New Jersey, I think you are right. However, as a citizen of the United States, you have the complete freedom to move to New Jersey, establish residency and register to vote. It is somewhat similar in the EU in that you can move to another European country, as long as you meet the requirements, and in some cases, you will be allowed to vote in certain elections. If you want to, in all states you can apply for citizenship, although that might mean giving up your original one. As I said before, the EU is evolving; it is not the United States and maybe never will be.
        
        Who are these awful centralizers of whom you speak imposing unspeakable horrors on us? What were those horrors again? I, perhaps naively, failed to notice any.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jan 16, 2018
    
    I don’t disagree with your analysis but I do disagree with the reasoning that people are going to change their minds. That is the bit that so many politicians, media organisations and, especially, economists have got wrong and for a simple reason. The vote to leave was not motivated by economics (which is highly distrusted anyway) and the vote to remain cannot be won by economic arguments either.
    
    The trouble is the UK population doesn’t want to live in a country called Europe run by the self-appointed people that run the EU today and in this we are not alone, just more vocal about it.
    
    Polling data from the end of 2017 concludes:
    “Between them our two key findings point to an important lesson – it should not be presumed that growing disappointment and discontent with the Brexit process (of which there already seems to be plenty) will necessarily persuade voters to change their minds about the kind of Brexit the UK should be seeking, or their view about the wisdom of leaving the EU in the first place.”
    https://whatukthinks.org/eu/voters-half-time-brexit-judgment-not-going-well-but-little-change-of-heart/
    
    PS. It wasn't consulting the electorate again that is contemptuous, it's asking the same thing twice after a different answer.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- jagjeet sinha Jan 16, 2018
  
  @AHW
  Sounds as if Yes/No to Europe ought to be offered every 5 years - with Elections.
  Europe will not accept Britain's democratic demands - controlled migration.
  Europe will accept Germany's democratic demands - no Transfer Union.
  Because, "without Germany there is no European Union".
  Not sure if the answer needed is for just one question - or multiple questions ?
  The latter requires General Elections not One Question Referendum.
  - Steve Hurst Jan 16, 2018
    
    Jagjeet
    
    The power of veto, or the problem with all members having to agree major reform.
    
    There is no EZ transfer union. So any of the 19 in the EZ can block adopting one, the EZ has nothing to do with the UK.
    
    There is no cap on freedom of movement so any one of 28 members can block an attempt to stop it. There are emergency measures but they are designed to be temporary, and apparently reluctance to allow in case temporary become an attempt at permanent.
    
    Freedom of movement has only become an issue with the enlargement of the EU and unfortunately the UK under the Blair administration has not helped the matter because they waived discretionary restrictions which Germany did not. Consequently a disproportionate number headed to the UK aided and abetted by firms strenuously recruiting in those countries for cheap labour.
    
    It has been suggested Blair and co were actively seeking migrants as they would vote Labour strengthening the party base. Labour at the time were happy with both migrants and bankers, very happy. The tax on bankers bonuses alone for example was the revenue that paid for the school refurbishment programme. Bankers were seen as Labours best chums, only beaten by migrants without whom a property speculation could not occur. Bearing in mind that vast unprecedented flows of chinese money was entering the country via routes such as Iceland giving a boom and had to be exploited by Blair and co to give political advantage - debt gives economic uplift, gives happy voters, gives reelection.
    
    Much of this mess in the UK is self inflicted and on the other side of the fence on the continental mainland many will be saying all I am doing is utilising the rules and blocking reform. You will note that not once in the UK Brexit referendum campaign did the thoroughly useless Cameron say the financial sector is 20% of activity and that there was an ongoing fight with the EU to maintain the City as a key euro FX centre which would be more difficult with Brexit and that revenues and therefore welfare and benefits may be at risk.
    
    The key driver for the UK for decades has been property speculation which is a misallocation of resource and socially divisive but linked to banks and government strategy or lack of it.
    
    The UK has had a string of poor, if not truly abysmal, leaders and poor strategy; Germany has made a better fist of their situation, that is hardly Germany's fault. Of course it all went wrong for Germany with the golden hellos for illegal migrants but both the EU and US had a hand in uncorking the bottleneck which was N Africa by removing Gaddafi. Blair surfaces again in that matter.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jan 16, 2018
    
    @Jagjeet,
    
    I agree with you that there is a glaring case in the EU between what matters to Germany what matters to the rest.
    
    At the rotten heart of the matter is the Euro and a broken banking system that has already been heavily bailed out but under the dubious pretence that it was a bailout of Greece.
    
    This kind of fudge and smoke and mirrors is how the EU has survived this far. If Blair, Adonis, Clegg, etc were serious they'd be working their way round the capitals of Europe trying to help mix some Euro-fudge. The fact they aren't only shows a level of contemp for the electorate (assuming their words alone should be enough) and their impotence.
    
    I can't see Brexit being reversed and I listen to Nigel Farage's tea leaves based predictions.
    - jagjeet sinha Jan 16, 2018
      
      @AHW & Steve
      In the absence of a deal good for Britain, The Parliament will step in.
      Agree with Alisdair that Europe should be offering solutions.
      Brussels seems to be baying - for Economic marginalization of UK.
      The hapless Prime Minister - May Cameron or Corbyn - can't win.
      The Parliament in such a predicament, has to confront Brussels.
      To find a solution - because any set of solutions by UK is a "nein".
      In fact, Westminster SHOULD be VOTING on BRUSSELS SOLUTIONS.
      The Public is unlikely to opt for terminal decline of prosperity.
      The Parliament will have to step in resolve.
      Can't see Britain just walking off a cliff.
      - Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jan 17, 2018
        
        I can genuinely see the possibility of no/minimal deal Brexit.
        
        Everything from the sequencing (bad faith) to the desire to not break cover with any kind of vision or alternative smell like AJP Taylor's WWI train timetable; everyone is locked into a plan but likely outcomes are blurred or confused.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      - Steve Hurst Jan 16, 2018
        
        Jagjeet - If the UK reverses out of the mud there will be damage - it wont be a reset; if we leave there will be damage economically; and if we stay there will be damage as the UK will remain in the European swingers club that is the EU. Just different damage in each case. The worst damage which will occur whatever will between UK guvnt and UK public with an American like growth in distrust of establishment and polarised voters. May is not looking good at the moment
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Merrifield Jan 15, 2018

A hope that their university fees would be cut was no small incentive!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Merrifield Jan 15, 2018

If you want a soft Brexit then persuade your european friends of the benefits of a two speed europe where partial membership is looked on as a positive. Something that makes us all stronger.

At the moment the US is withdrawing its defence from a Europe that won't pay for it and the UK is withdrawing because it doesn't like the loss of sovereignty implied by 'ever closer union'. It wants control.

Hardly a ringing endorsement for 'the project'...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.