Continuing Brexit Coverage

Published 7.6.2016
Continuing to collect and consider information related to Brexit, because the only way to increase your knowledge about something is to read all you can from all sides. The intent will be to collect links and present notes once a week, though that will change as warranted.

Casualties

Boris Johnson's career is likely over. He lead the "Leave" campaign, damaged the Tory party, destabilized the country, and then quit without attempting to fix any of it. Though many don’t think he could fix it— he doesn’t have the skills. The author compares him to Bill Clinton in terms of political skill— but Clinton wasn’t lazy, whatever else you want to say about him. Johnson frankly sounds more like Trump— in fact, he's also a TV celebrity.

The Economist (which back Remain) sees a country adrift; the campaign was supposed to “take back control” but instead the country is “off the rails.” The pound has stabilized, but is still down about 30%, but the markets (which, as J.P. Morgan famously said, tend to fluctuate) have returned to pre-Brexit levels.

There is some buyer remorse, but It doesn’t matter that 4 million people signed a petition for another vote— 17 million voted “Leave” Come back when you hit 18 million for a re-do. The hope seems to be for a Norwegian arrangement, which would make it less likely that Scotland would secede.

Northern Ireland and the border is going to be a headache too. Brexit breaks the Good Friday Agreement of 1998— which was underpinned by the EU. Peace for 20 years at risk just like that. In Northern Ireland, the vote split along religious lines. Protestants votes leave, Catholics voted remain.

The Economist thinks the Tories should choose a Brexiteer and allow him/her to explain to the 17 million why it was a pack of lies. It also thinks Britain should delay for as long as possible invoking article 50. They are hoping that as the cost of Brexit sinks into the national consciousness that more people will support a “fudge” — meaning the UK would “leave” but not really. That’s what Cameron tried to negotiate prior to the vote, but the EU basically said “forget that” after the vote.

Because the vote was close, the Norwegian route might be more popular— but the Norwegians have to follow the EU rules when it comes to products and freedom of movement. Stemming the freedom of movement was a big part of why Brexit won.

Another on bites the dust

You can't make this stuff up. Cameron quit because he lost, BoJo got stabbed in teh back because in the end his buffoonery and unpreparedness became too apparent, and Farage quit because… he’s a coward who knows he shat in the soup and now doesn’t want to try and make it edible again. He said it’s because he accomplished his goal— and he’ll stay in the Euro Parliament to continue to irritate folks there.

Other people are still stepping forward to take on the mess (amongst the Tories) but the thinking here is that the next PM is probably Theresa May— worth every penny you paid to read it. Andrea Leadsom joined to be the “next Thatcher.” Lawsuits against Brexit (and there are stirrings there) are probably futile. Seventeen million votes can’t be wished away.

This is another take on Farage's flight. “Not a nation of quitters” apparently doesn’t apply to the political class. Allegedly Farage won’t make any more public statements about Brexit. In other words, a first-class twit. Corbyn is the only party leader who hasn’t quit— and most of Labor’s leaders would still like him to do so.

Andrea Leadsom has no problem flip flopping on Brexit, but worse, contemplates putting Farage into the government. Farage threatens to return in any event if there’s no Brexit by 2020. Of course, tt’s the third time Farage has resigned, so there’s no certainty that this time he will actually stay out of it. He does’t want Ukip to run candidates against Euroskeptic Tories— which is why Leadsom would consider putting him in government as part of a coalition.

Done deal, one way or another

Brexit will happen. This Financial Times columnist favors the Norwegian option because it would give Britain unhindered access to the single market (the reason the EU and its predecessors were created.) But this option requires that Britain follow the EU rules. Theresa May and Michael Gove (the two leading Tory PM candidates) have ruled this out.

Option number two is bilateral trade agreements— which is what Canada is trying to arrange. But this means that London loses its passporting rights and loses its financial center status. The thesis here is that the UK shouldn’t trigger Article 50 until after the French election. Marine Le Pen wants to take France out, Hollande wants to punish the UK for leaving. May has said not before the end of the year, no politician is going to say they are waiting on the French.

Were the polls wrong?

This has potential implications in the US election because it turned out that people were far more willing to admit that they favored Brexit in online polls than in telephone or face to face polling. Donald Trump poll numbers are better when the surveys are conducted online than when they are done over teh phone. The hypothesis is that online polling feels more anonymous, so people feel safe to vote their true feelings. Telling a pollster that you're going to pull the lever for a candidate despite his racist and anti-semitic statements or tweets is apparently a step fewer are willing to take. (And yes the bias against Trump is obvious there. While I am no Clinton fan, Trump is unqualified in every way for the office he seeks.)

So online polls were more accurate than traditional polling, but the suggestion is that overall pollsters got it wrong. Did they? The view here is not really. The trend was towards Brexit for a few months. The polls do seem to have overstated the effect of the Jo Cox murder, which caused both sides to tone down their rhetoric. It is true that the YouGov poll that predicted a 52-48% margin for Remain just before the election was wrong. I tis reasonable to state the the punditry thought that Remain would win, but it's not correct to say that the polls didn't show a strong trend towards Brexit before the event.

China's reaction

According to Christopher Bolding in Bloomberg, Brexit vote will likely do nothing to promote democratic voting in China. The Chinese government already fears giving its citizens the right to express there true politics desires. All Brexit will do is confirm to them that letting the people have their say is a bad idea. Maybe, but where is the evidence that the Chinese regime was moving toward any such democratic display? Certainly Brexit provides no comfort to governments working against public opinion. The effect for that though is likely to be higher in Europe than in China.

Disclaimer

Related LWRAS analysis:

Search this site: