kaletsky25_Christopher Furlong_Getty Images_ballot

Politics

عكس مسار بريكست

Jul 27, 2016 Anatole Kaletsky

لندن - كيف ينبغي أن يستجيب الاٍتحاد الأوروبي لقرار الناخب البريطاني القاضي بالخروج من الاتحاد؟ فالقادة الأوروبيين يركزون الآن تحديدا على كيفية منع دول أخرى من مغادرة الاٍتحاد الأوروبي أو اليورو. أهم دولة يجب بقاؤها في المجموعة هي إيطاليا، والتي ستواجه استفتاء في أكتوبر/ تشرين الأول والذي سوف يمهد الطريق لحركة خمسة نجوم المناهضة لليورو للاٍستيلاء على السلطة.

اٍن خوف أوروبا من العدوى مسألة منطقية، لأن نتائج استفتاء بريكست قد حولت سياسة الاٍتحاد الأوروبي. من قبل، صُنف مؤيدو مغادرة الاٍتحاد الأوروبي أو اليورو بالخياليين أو الفاشيين (أو اليساريين المتطرفين). لكن هذا لم يعد ممكنا.

فقد حولت بريكست "مغادرة" (سواء الاٍتحاد الأوروبي أو اليورو) اٍلى خيار واقعي في كل بلد أوروبي. وغداة اٍعطاء بريطانيا إشعارا رسميا للاٍتحاد (عن طريق تطبيق أحكام المادة 50 من معاهدة لشبونة)، سيدخل هذا الخيار في صلب النقاش السياسي في كل مكان. وقد كشفت الأبحاث من قبل المجلس الأوروبي للعلاقات الخارجية 34 مطلب استفتاء معادي للاٍتحاد الأوروبي في 18 دولة أخرى. وحتى إذا كانت كل من هذه التحديات ليس لديها سوى فرصة 5٪ من النجاح، فاٍن احتمال نجاح استفتاء واحد على الأقل هو 83٪.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 38 Comments on this article

Enrique Woll Battistini Sep 1, 2016

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT AND REQUIRED: "It is time for Europe’s politicians to overrule the bureaucrats and re-create a flexible, democratic EU capable of responding to its citizens and adapting to a changing world. Most British voters would be happy to remain in that kind of Europe."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paolo BRERA Aug 22, 2016

Professor Kaletsky only thinks of reactions in the UK public. The EU public is important too. The EU will negotiate with the UK from the starting point of EU interest; if it requires furthering the UK's interest, so much the better; if it doesnì't, so much the worse for the UK. We Continental Europeans set up the EU with a view to "ever closer union" – and BTW, since it was written clearly in the preamble to the treaty the UK signed and ratified with a referendum, we take exception at those in the UK who present it as some sort of scam, as though poor gullible Brits were told they were entering a free trade area but made to sign for a union by deceitful Europeans. Free movement of citizens cannot be ended without renouncing "ever closer union", because it would be an obvious step back away from union.
Britain was never a good member for the EU in the first place. It negotiated lots of opt-outs and much special treatment for itself, and it burdened every communautaire step forward with unnecessary negotiations, checks and hurdles. To suggest we CE’s might or should accomodate the UK more than we have already tried to is nonsense. It was stated clearly in February: what the UK was offered was a final offer, to be taken or left. The UK electorate did not take the offer. Leave is Leave.
Contrary to what many UK commentators have assumed, Brexit has not caused any sympathetic “out of the EU” movement in member countries. Quite the opposite. Polls show more people are pro-EU now than before the referendum. It is not necessary to give in to fanciful UK demands to assuage CE Eurosceptics.
Nor is it nccessary for the EU to be especially punitive towards the UK. Even with a lot of goodwill in the negotiations, the UK is about to pay a high price for Brexit. There’s no way to avert it and there’s no need to make it worse on purpose. The only thing that’s needed is to explain the EU is not trying to harm the UK, but will merely negotiate in its own interest. No plot, no hostility: just two sovereign areas negotiating, each with its own array of interests, and the need to give quid (or euro) pro quo as it’s dead normal in a negotiation. Give less, get less in change. It’s really that simple.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
michael moorhouse Aug 3, 2016

Michael.....can the genie ever be put back in its bottle....? Michael.
P.S. looking forward to seeing you both here....the French climate has re-established normality once again .
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Angel Aug 2, 2016

" Imagine if the EU offered constructive immigration reforms – for example, restoring national control over welfare payments to non-citizens and allowing for an “emergency brake” on sudden population movements – to all members". (From AK,s article)
The trouble with this proposal is that, on both counts, it concedes most of the argument to those who are hostile to immigration. A much better idea, that could be pursued by both national governments and the EU, would be to "follow" concentrations of immigrant families with community-wide grants to schools and other services experiencing overload.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Nowakowski Aug 2, 2016

Dreaming about an imaginary EU that does not and will not exist is a waste of time. How interesting that AK compared the institution to the USSR and 16th Century Rome. Such honesty is welcome, I guess.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Taylor Aug 1, 2016

The will of the people must be implemented. I would like to see a much looser European confederation, but Europe is too far down the road to a superstate to loosen its grip. The Euro in particular is doomed to collapse, because without fiscal union, monetary union is unsustainable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jonathan Story Aug 1, 2016

It may well be that the UK ends up where AK proposes it does. But it is worth remembering that this is one scenario along a spectrum stretching to simple repeal of the 1972 Act, not involving any reference to Article 50.
Two further points. Prime Minister May's work mlethods must give Remain a very high probability. Her method is to ask what the constraints on choice are; ask interested parties; then trundle down the narrow passage allowed.
The other is the fundamental contradiction in this article: AK proposes that the EU hang tough with the UK, then upbraids the UK for being rigid.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ian Kiddle Aug 1, 2016

"It is time for Europe’s politicians to overrule the bureaucrats and re-create a flexible, democratic EU capable of responding to its citizens and adapting to a changing world. Most British voters would be happy to remain in that kind of Europe."
Yes and pigs might fly.
Fortunately the British voters are a little more realistic in their outlook.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
S Sam Jul 31, 2016

Your article of Feb 20, 2016 predicting that British voters will decide to remain in the EU was wrong. Also your last sentence in this article that "Once Britain’s political, business, and media leaders start drawing attention to these hard facts of life after Brexit, we can be confident that voters will decide to stay in the EU." You are arrogant to think that people will listen to "elite" and you were wrong.

As I commented few days ago it is a shame losers (and remain voters) like you don't understand democracy.

I am pleased voters ignored the great economists like you who seem to try and impose their biased thinking instead of being able to predict what is happening in the world economics.
You guys need to go back to the drawing board and see what is going wrong with your ability to correctly predict future economics.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Krishnan Madathil Jul 31, 2016

If I were the EU, I'd focus on learning a few key lessons from Brexit, and get a move on. If they left, they left. That's it. The EU has made the lives of so many millions better through the four freedoms, and it has set the standard for many countries in several key areas of legislation. It is a beacon of diversity in the conduct of its affairs (all its parliamentary documents translated in nearly 30 languages). It is indeed a higher level of statehood, and almost forever banishes the idea of war in Europe. If people with no sense of history wish to leave this, then let them leave and suffer the consequences. I'd much rather be ruled by bureaucrats than by demagogues and ideologues, provided there is full transparency and adequate communication between the state and citizen.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Higgo Jul 31, 2016

if 18 or even 34 referenda each have a 5% chance of voting to LEAVE, then the chance of any one vote being LEAVE remains 5%. Each referendum is independent.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Hullevad Jul 31, 2016

Mr. Kaletsky very well written, but it is a pipedream.
"The fossils of Brussels" are not going to make ANY changes.
The treaties are written in stone like the 10 commandments.
It is also a fact that a breakup of the EU is unstoppable.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
tim williams Jul 31, 2016

This with respect is never going to happen. Remainers are like the guy who lost his leg but still thinks he can feel his toes. The first task of a democrat is to accept the decision of the British people not to look for ways of subverting it. It is the very undemocratic nature of the European union which we rejected not some of its policies on the free movement of workers. Why are you all so Euro-fanatical? It failed to manage the migration crisis. It failed to tackle the global financial crisis. It destroyed Greece when the real problem is Germany. It has no democratic basis and will never acquire one. What's to like? The question is not about why the Brits voted to leave but why the political class wanted to stay. The vote may have been close but overall a clear majority wants out. Despite the sneering of the political elite many of those working class people who voted in huge numbers to leave the EU could see that it has failed them utterly and that more importantly it is not constructed so as to listen to them ever. No US citizen would ever have joined such a union nor would their elites be respected for wanting to be part of one. I repeat :it's not Euroscepticism and Brexit which need explaining let alone reversing.It's Euro-fanaticism.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux Jul 31, 2016

There are very powerful political forces - because of position mainly within the Conservative Party - who have no interest even in an absolute capitulation of the EU to the UK (which of course isn't going to happen). AS probably do you, I find this position wildly irrational and counterproductive to the entire EU - some 508 million people. But it isn't susceptible to any argument from economics or anything else, because these arguments are rational; compromise should be fairly easy to arrive at. But it won't be. My belief (unsupported by nothing more than 73 continuous years of observing the human condition) is that May got the premiership by giving tacit, or actual, commitment to the Conservative little Englanders, that she would indeed 'Brexit.' And be damned to the consequences, for anyone, or anything.

No, it's going to be as 'interesting 'a time for the EU as would be a Trump presidency in the US.

Rationality, even economic rationality, cannot defeat invincible ignorance and stupidity. And that's what ultimately drives this situation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
MARCO TEAMNEURS Jul 31, 2016

Congratulations! You nailed it dear Anatole Kaletsky.

I wonder if one scenario could be:
1) Speed up CETA+TTIP so it would be an equivalent of 1957 Roman Treaty
Then
2) In 20/30 years the political union with north Atlantic would have an equivalent to Lisbon Treaty of 2007.
3) The political union of north Atlantic would be something of Arctic Union where USA, CANADA, EUROPE and (YES) Russia would be included. All under the steering USA.
Please, comment.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Merrifield Jul 31, 2016

There must come a point where even intellectuals like you realise that the EU project is headed by people who have devoted their lived to the vision and are not about to compromise.

The lunatics actually do run the asylum.

Just like at the IMF...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vicky Lavendel Jul 30, 2016

Kaletsky is the typical proponent of the global financial elite, whose goal is to maintain and even expand the status of the financial elte at the cost of the average citizen. Thus, the word "democracy" from his mouth his an empty word just used to obscure his real agenda. The same counts for his divide and rule tactics trying to play different countries off against each other, so that the financial elte can be the smiling third at the end again.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alfred Duschberger Jul 28, 2016

An excellent example of the flawed view on the "EU bureaucracy". That the French president or leaders of eastern EU members refuse to limit freedom of movement, isn't "bureaucratic", it is the expression of their interests as democratic leaders. I'm so tired of that bs that always claims that only certain interests, represented by certain groups, are "democratic".

That concessions don't prevent countries from tending to leave the union can best shown by the example of ... the UK.
Or do you know any other EU member that got more concessions since the 80s? And did this ever make the Brits being more open minded or interested in being part of the EU?
Nope. If anything at all, it achieved the opposite. Concessions result in "Us vs Them". "We are different/special".

And lastly: It is hilarious to think that granting concessions to everyone, would make the EU more united. Or would the UK be willed to share the debts and financial burdens of the South, being it for banks or national, just because they'd get their regulation on immigration?
Would the UK be willed to renounce their special rebate and pay even more into a restructured bugdet, that benefits Eastern Europe?

Or do you simply propose that "EU bureaucracy" is that evil force, holding back "democracy" and without them there'd be unity and no controversy, because obviously every EU member has to have the same interests as the UK?
Sorry, this is an half-assed piece and it has nothing to do with the reality.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Simon Barnard Jul 28, 2016

Here we have it.
The reason many of us voted for Brexit is that we were voting not against immigration, not against trade regulations, but against the bureaucracy and the institution that creates it.
We voted against an institution that is certainly not democratic. We voted against the EU which is definitely not efficient.
So how could you win us back? Well I think that it would require almost a complete dissolving of the current structure and then it being rebuilt to be: democratic, to help create a more equal society across the whole continent, and to allow member countries enough autonomy to be able to deal with the rest of the world.
I think this is beyond the wit of the current administration - so lets have a pleasant divorce. Even if the rest of the family break up, it is not impossible that we couldn't reconcile in the future under better circumstances.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
S Sam Jul 28, 2016

It is a shame losers (and remain voters) like you do not understand democracy.
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jul 28, 2016
  
  @ S Sam
  There is nothing undemocratic about reaching a new settlement as a result of a referendum. That is kind of how normal democracy (non-binary referenda) works, especially in a representative parliamentary one.
  
  In this case it would be difficult because the main reason cited for voters to vote leave was 'decisions about the UK should be made in the UK' . That is a much bigger barrier than immigration which, despite all the bluster from EU leaders, will probably be more controlled across the continent within a few years anyway.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Reid Jul 27, 2016

It would certainly be in the best interests of the people of the UK to remain within the EU, but I don't believe that this is their understanding. They continue to blame the EU for their plight, rather than acknowledge that the problems they see with immigration are essentially the result of successive British government's policies, which encourage the importation of cheap labour to force down incomes (and in effect subsidise business). Elsewhere in the EU there is a minimum wage in place which everyone must be paid, so migrants don't force higher paid locals out of jobs because they must all be paid at least the same. What the UK really needs to address is its own inequality, but I wouldn't count on that happening any time soon.
- Steve Hurst Jul 28, 2016
  
  @Jagjeet
  
  Just to make it clear - I dont have a problem with Poles, they are acting entire rationally in the enviroment they are in, what I have a problem with is unsustainable dogma based systems : )
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- jagjeet sinha Jul 28, 2016
  
  + + + 1
  Thou speaketh the truth, Steve.
  And Truth always triumphs, in the end.
  Gratefulness in Poland - perhaps to Brussels, not Britain.
  Despite the facts that you have reiterated.
  Credit delayed, Credit denied.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 28, 2016
  
  @John
  
  'Elsewhere in the EU there is a minimum wage in place which everyone must be paid, so migrants don't force higher paid locals out of jobs because they must all be paid at least the same.'
  
  I suggest you look up the minimum wages in EU member states. You will find the minimum wage in the countries that EU migrants come from is a fraction of the UK which is why they come from there to the UK. They are not stupid and many are highly qualified working in low grade jobs because the figures say they are better off doing that
  
  I also suggest you look up the number of UK manufacturing activities that have moved from the UK to low minimum wage EU members to utilise those low wages
  
  Finally I suggest you look up EU members net contributions to find those same low wage locations are net negative contributors to the EU
  
  For these reasons you will find for example that Poland has been in reciept of 100 billion euros since joining the EU and its economy has expanded 3x and concurrently some locstions are now ghost towns there due to the exodus to the UK
  
  How anybody can suggest this is the UKs fault is beyond me
  
  How can anybody suggest this is a sustainable model?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 27, 2016

Anatole Kaletsky believes there is a way to reverse Brexit. But it requires our politicians "to overrule the bureaucrats and re-create a flexible, democratic EU capable of responding to its citizens and adapting to a changing world." He says "most British voters would be happy to remain in that kind of Europe."
The author maintains that EU leaders are having their plate full, and that they "are now focusing, rightly, on how to prevent other countries from leaving the EU or the euro." He says in the old days, such "fear of contagion" would have been ridiculed, today it is real. Now their immediate concern is to keep Italy - "which faces a referendum in October that could pave the way for the anti-euro Five Star Movement to take power" - in the bloc.
Brexit has no doubt laid bare the "politics of EU fragmentation," allowing every EU member to view “Leave” - the EU or the euro - as "a realistic option." According to a research, there are currently "34 anti-EU referendum demands in 18 other countries. Even if each of these challenges has only a 5% chance of success, the probability of at least one succeeding is 83%."
Although Britain had voted to leave the EU, the author sees an opportunity to return to status quo ante, before Britain invokes Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which would create a ripple effect, that "a breakup of the Union may well prove unstoppable." What works to the EU's advantage is that "Britain has not yet invoked Article 50. The bottle could still be sealed before the genie escapes."
The author rebukes the EU for using "the wrong threats and incentives" and rushing Britain into acting swiftly. France is "demanding" for a quick Brexit. Germany is playing nice, "by offering access to the single market, but only in exchange for immigration rules that Britain will not accept. These are exactly the wrong sticks and carrots."
According to the author, EU leaders "should be trying to avert it, by persuading British voters to change their minds. The aim should not be to negotiate the terms of departure, but to negotiate the terms on which most British voters would want to remain." As immigration control is Britons' "over-riding priority," it will take much goodwill from Britain and the EU to reach a compromise.
At the same time much courage is needed from the EU to reform the bloc, and to address the complaints and criticisms, by showing "genuine respect for democracy" and "responding to public dissatisfaction with policies and ideas" of voters. The autor says, if EU leaders "tried the same approach with Britain, they might be surprised by the favorable response.
Many Leave voters "are already having second thoughts." Besides they have misgivings about Theresa May’s "uncompromising negotiating position." and they "now face a much more extreme version of Brexit than they were promised by the Leave campaign." Her government may fail "to maintain the parliamentary discipline needed to deliver Brexit."
But the "real obstacle to a strategy of persuading Britain to remain in the EU is the EU bureaucracy." The author says the European Commission, once the EU’s source of visionary creativity, has become a fanatical defender of existing rules and regulations, however irrational and destructive, on the grounds that any concessions will beget more demands." So it is up to EU leaders to act now so that it can survive the challenges in the years and decades to come.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Daniel Esmond Jul 27, 2016

Really interesting points, albeit somewhat optimistic. A reform of the free movement of people would be necessary, but seems unlikely. I don’t think the impediment is the EU Commission, but the member states. More than a third of EU members are now from the former Communist block whose citizens value enormously the freedom of movement across Europe, so it is unlikely that any such country’s government will be able to accept significant limitations on it. Also, the argument that if one fundamental pillar of the EU is renegotiated, it endangers the rest should not be underestimated: imagine what would somebody like Viktor Orban ask in return for accepting any changes to the current treaties. The four Visegrad countries are demanding repatriation to national level of significant powers, although it is not all that clear what particular competences they want besides the obvious one on limiting the number of Muslim migrants and refugees (Orban called today migration ‘a poison’). Treaty changes are unlikely in this climate, as it was repeated ad nauseam. And probably more importantly, Germany in its current frame of mind is sticking rigidly to the current framework and seems unable/unwilling to envisage any changes or alterations to anything. So however desirable, any significant change to the freedom of movement is unlikely to be on the agenda, Brexit or no Brexit.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jul 27, 2016

It is a good article from Anatole, although one cannot see how the current mind set in the EU commission can change. One needs sanity among the political elite and their advisors which is lacking at the moment. May has embarked on a very dangerous path with her SS mind set and hoping to build cheap industries at the expense of the financial services sector. Very agressive and not well thought through agenda, especially with the caliber of her current cabinet. Anyway, a Brexit currently seems very distant, may be in the next millennium.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Walter Gingery Jul 27, 2016

To paraphrase Freud: What do Britons want?

Is it, in fact, Brexit? There are reasons to be doubtful. For one thing, the referendum presented to the voters was so badly framed: Remain vs. an undefined 'Leave'. For another, many voters apparently used the vote as an opportunity to express their opposition to immigration. The real wishes of voters therefore remain (pun intended) to a significant degree undetermined.

Then, too, people are free to change their minds as new information becomes available and the situation is clarified.

Therefore, before triggering Article 50, a further consultation of Britons' sentiments seems in order, whether in the form of an election, Parliamentary vote, or something else.

Whether Brussels can summon the requisite flexibility, only time will tell. It will be good for newspaper sales, at any rate.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jul 27, 2016

FLEXIBLE DEMOCRATIC EUROPEAN UNION

Dissolution of Sovereignty is not required in any Economic architecture.
Dissolution of Sovereignty is not required in any Security architecture.
Dissolution of Sovereignty is required only in a Political architecture - The USSR and The Catholic Church both tried in vain.
Unless the political union allows balanced investment flows so that Inequality between Regions disappears, Regions become Nations.
The manner in which European Union has developed does not suggest any attempt to dissipate Inequality between Regions.
Hence it perhaps is best to permit flexible geometry that does not threaten One Political Union.
The Latin Monetray Union was abandoned several times over two centuries.
Those who do wish to pursue this goal - cannot penalize the others.
Membership of the Club - cannot be the sole proprietorship of One bloc within.
NATO is a Club where Dissolution of Sovereignty is not required.
Rules within the European Union have to be created with flexible geometry at its core.
Those in vanguard position unchallenged, are not willing - because their objectives were megalomania, like the USSR.
The EUSSR fortunately has been nipped - Brexit is a watershed moment - not to tread the EUSSR path.
Only one more step is needed - Trump plans for NATO - to ensure the abandonment of the EUSSR megalomania.
Until then, despite wishful thinking by the author, Brussels will not BUDGE - Versailles buckled when Woodrow Wilson walked away.
Brexit May be the moment Europe mended its mission.....But we need to watch the next steps from Brussels.
- jagjeet sinha Jul 28, 2016
  
  @Steve
  
  Perhaps wishful thinking, like the author....
  Megalomania without Limits .... can only end by meltdowns, then.
  MADness guaranteed.
  
  JS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 27, 2016
  
  @jagjeet
  
  Good try Jagjeet but why do you think reason will work
  
  FLEXIBLE DEMOCRATIC UNION
  
  This cannot happen whilst members are not flexible, name a flexible EU member.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Gottwald Jul 27, 2016

I very much agree with the idea to negotiate terms which would accommodate British concerns to allow the country to remain.
However to offer e real choice such terms should be designed in parallel to terms for a Brexit.

It would then be possible to ask the UK electorate to decide on the basis of two worked out alternatives.
As neither will be covering all wishes of all concerned such a choice seems the fairest way to present and decide the issue.

I realise that it will require major statecraFT TO TO GET THE EU AND THE UK Government to embark on such a course
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jul 28, 2016
  
  @Peter Gottwald
  I agree with your logic but the incentives become a little perverse and open to manipulation without a great deal of transparency on both sides. Incidentally, this was an early argument of the Leave campaign at the start of the year -that there would need to be two referenda.
  
  Sadly something all these articles tend to ignore is polling data; the largest single reason for people to vote leave was 'decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK' -I believe the immigration issue could be managed but institutional overreach? I doubt it.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Jul 27, 2016

The problem is that it will require another referendum to overturn the first one.

Say the PM calls another one with the proviso Brexit or Remain if we increase minimum wage to GBP 20 000 per annum. Then imagine the Remain wins with 51%. You still have 49% who previous got what they wanted and now have been robbed of it by a sleight of hand in the democracy process.

If what you suggest is the way forward what will have to be offered to those who consider themselves disenfranchised will have to be genuine and substantial. I am talking:

-Minimum wage
-Import duty
-Immigration solutions
-Major tax reform
-Major banking reform

Quite clearly none of this is going to happen so I think the political impasse is going to grow rather than end in compromise. But I guess we will see.
- Steve Hurst Jul 27, 2016
  
  @Micheal
  
  It would be a neat trick to make 100% of the population unhappy and I suspect that is where it is heading. 'Remain' will remain Un'Remain'ed as far as thye are concerned and 'Leave' will find they are partially 'Remain'ed on immigration. It depends what remains on the table. Cameron undoubtedly is the worst PM ever, a feat I could not imagine happening after Brown
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 27, 2016

Europe does not have a fear of contagion, it's fear is far worse, it's fear is of reality. Central to that is the risk of the financial system collapsing. As that is existential all possible denial will be deployed until the books are cooked into pulp fiction. Along the way EU rules can be and will be suspended but only if they impinge on financial security, eg PIGS events in the pipeline, Portugal (Novo Banco, Caixa Geral de Depósitos). Italy (Banca Monte dei Paschi), Germany (Deutsche Bank), Spain (Banco (Un)Popular). Those banks dont have a financial crisis they have a Norovirus called the Euro. Brexit is a secondary issue to the EU. The EU appears to regard the Visegard 4 as more important in policy terms than Brexit despite the fact they overall recieve money rather than contribute
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/R2c6azYar

عكس مسار بريكست

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

عكس مسار بريكست

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification