British government realises Brexit is a mistake, official says
Source: Irish Times
John Callinan claims London is aware that leaving the EU is an act of great self-harm
Ruadhán Mac Cormaic Foreign Affairs Correspondent
The British government is slowly realising Brexit is an act of great self-harm and that upcoming EU-UK negotiations must seek to limit the damage, the States top Brexit official has said.
The official, John Callinan, said on Thursday: I see signs in the contacts that were having, both at EU level and with the UK, of a gradual realisation that Brexit in many ways is an act of great self-harm, and that the focus now is on minimising that self-harm.
The remarks by Mr Callinan, the second secretary-general at the Department of the Taoiseach, were delivered at a Brexit seminar organised by the trade unions Impact and Siptu.
Mr Callinan also highlighted the existence of internal divisions on the British side just weeks out from the start of formal withdrawal negotiations with the EU, saying it was clear there was no single, settled position on Brexit in London. Even within the British government, there are very different views, he said.
Read more: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/british-government-realises-brexit-is-a-mistake-official-says-1.3048046
JHan
(10,173 posts)Smh.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)Lots of people, including many millennials among them, voted "to send a message against globalization", thinking that a No Exit result was a forgone conclusion. Many, especially the millennials, will suffer. What many, especially millennials, did not realize is that "globalization" included their ability to travel and work much more freely in Europe. They were thinking "globalization" was equivalent to "big bad ugly mega-corporations yuk!" which is very naive and simplistic, especially when tweeted on their globalized iPhones that they love so dearly.
Since it was a real live election/referendum no result was automatic or forgone.
Thus the vote does NOT reflect the true feelings of the electorate.
Thus there really should be a do-over.
progree
(10,908 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)progree
(10,908 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)I'm in that same group - early 20's - and I see the ploy by the Right to frame Globalization as a threat, thereby disrupting international corporation and lift up tribalism and provincialism to establish authoritarian governments in states. EDIT: Millennials also voted for remain, and turn out for millennials was twice what was originally thought. Many of my friends felt older brits screwed them over.
But it was too easy for the leavers to whip up nationalistic and tribalistic sentiments to sway voters. The problems with the E.U. partly created this fertile environment for demagogues to sow divisiveness and discord.
Take trade for example. In the 70's , joining the EU provided its members means to capitalize on their particular comparative advantages thus increase productivity by reducing trade barriers between EU member states. Since then Globalization opened trade wide globally and China, Latin America and India have joined the party, even catching up to the EU ( And the U.S) . The E.U. hasn't adapted well because while it seeks to remove internal barriers among member states, the Common tariff and agro subsidies still discriminate against the developing world- take African agri producers for example. So a nation state wanting to negotiate her own trade agreement with a non-EU country will face resistance from Brussels. Another consequence of stiff competition from outside of the E.U. has been protectionism - buttressing up uncompetitive industries and implementing domestic laws that affect the entire E.U. region, feeding resentment.
As for sovereignty - this is where the E.U., through its actions, created the environment for demagogues to flourish. Laws are passed without justifying them and governments across the region adopted a stance where they believe they do not have to explain policy decisions that originate from Brussels to the electorate. On top of that, You have competing visions of the Euro among member states- notably Spain and Germany - and monetary policy decisions by the ECB which resulted in economic displacement and unemployment, particularly in Southern Europe. Compound that with the pressure of immigration policies and you have a powder keg of a situation a Le Pen or Farage are too happy to light and set ablaze.
Any kind of substantive discussion about reform of the EU, or these challenges ( which I barely addressed) was never a feature of the debate. So a complex decision, with long reaching consequences, was distilled into "yes" and "no", and now there's buyer's remorse.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)A big one, as you point out, for the Leavers was perceived undemocratic imposition by bureaucrats.
The fiscal governance was lacking. So countries like Greece and Spain could spend into a hole in the ground with the expectation that the EU would bail them out, as it had to do, though it was painful for the countries involved. The Leavers exploited friction over support given to the poorest members.
The Right, as they always do, played up on emotions. Farage in particular made promises that he afterward admitted were outlandish and impossible to keep.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Please forgive me, but you are confused. Your statement would better read: Wealthy investors protected by the laws and politics of countries like Germany and Luxembourg could make a lot of money financing development and modernization in countries like Greece and Spain, and when those investments turned sour, in large part due to the then potential meltdown of the entire Anglo-American financial order as a consequence of financial sector deregulation and sub-prime, essentially fraudulent behavior, taxpayers in the targetted countries were required to pay, what they could not and should not be required to pay. While meanwhile the wealthy and still untouchable 'investors' (rapists) walk laughing all the way to their (offshore, usually UK or US-operated) banks.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)1) Corporations moving jobs offshore and destroying manufacturing jobs and even service jobs (call centers for example). The other side is that the toys we all love become plentiful and available to much larger segments of the populace than the top 1% or 10%.
Remember when the first flip phones became available at about a thousand dollars to replace the clunky cell phones that weighed three pounds. Without globalization it would have taken a few decades for the price of those flip phones to come down to a point where 50% could afford one.
The Right Wing likes to play both ends of this kind. They love to fatten profits by exporting jobs but they also love to whip up a frenzy about lost jobs.
2) Globalization also means travel, communication, trans-national love affairs / marriages / children, cultural sharing, work experiences, spreading social experimentation in extending rights, and greater cooperation on issues that impact all people; chief issue of course being climate change.
The Right Wing is dead set against this kind of globalization. It wakes people up, widens their horizons and makes progressive ideas and policies more believable.
Denzil_DC
(7,242 posts)There's no escaping it without withdrawing into total isolationism, which even the current UK Tory government and the Brexit campaign (inasmuch as it was coherent) isn't proposing. The question is how to manage it, and in whose interests.
As things stand, it looks like the UK standing alone will be managing it in favour of big business and multinational corporations in desperation to make up for the likely loss of trade with the EU (note that May was one of Trump's first high-profile visitors after he took power). In the initial negotiating stances, it's actually the EU that's trying to put a shot across the UK government's bow by suggesting there would be penalties for imposing a low-tax/low workers' rights offshore money laundering regime that would lead to unfair competition with EU countries.
So much mythology had built up about the EU (which undoubtedly, like any polity, has flaws and needs reform, and always will) that it was impossible to counter it effectively in the hurly-burly of a highly charged campaign.
Where did some of these most persistent myths originate? Well, one major factor was Boris Johnson, our current Foreign Secretary. Here's Martin Fletcher, a journalist who worked alongside Johnson in Brussels:
Johnson, sacked by The Times in 1988 for fabricating a quote, made his mark in Brussels not through fair and balanced reporting, but through extreme euro-scepticism. He seized every chance to mock or denigrate the EU, filing stories that were undoubtedly colourful but also grotesquely exaggerated or completely untrue.
The Telegraph loved it. So did the Tory Right. Johnson later confessed: 'Everything I wrote from Brussels, I found was sort of chucking these rocks over the garden wall and I listened to this amazing crash from the greenhouse next door over in England as everything I wrote from Brussels was having this amazing, explosive effect on the Tory party, and it really gave me this I suppose rather weird sense of power.'
Johnsons reports also had an amazing, explosive effect on the rest of Fleet Street. They were much more fun than the usual dry and rather complex Brussels fare. News editors on other papers, particularly but not exclusively the tabloids, started pressing their own correspondents to match them. By the time I arrived in Brussels editors only wanted stories about faceless Brussels eurocrats imposing absurd rules on Britain, or scheming Europeans ganging up on us, or British prime ministers fighting plucky rearguard actions against a hostile continent.
Much of Fleet Street seemed unable to view the EU through any other prism. It was the only narrative it was interested in. Stories that did not bash Brussels, stories that acknowledged the EUs many achievements, stories that recognised that Britain had many natural allies in Europe and often won important arguments, almost invariably ended up on the spike.
https://www.indy100.com/article/a-journalist-has-shared-a-story-about-boris-johnson-that-completely-undermines-his-authority-on-the-eu--bkoHJPBuVZ
It's not so much that governments felt they didn't have to explain EU policy decisions to the electorate. It suited the UK government to have the EU as a scapegoat for all the ills besetting the country - a handy distraction from the mindless fetish of austerity, and lack of investment and vision, especially in the wake of the 2008 crash.
And even if the EU or the UK government felt like justifying and explaining policy developments (the EU does run websites and other forms of outreach in an attempt to explain itself, and some decent MEPs do try to communicate with their constituents), as outlined above, it would be a severely uphill task getting the media to provide informative coverage. There were furious howls from the Brexit campaign during the referendum when Cameron belatedly published a booklet circulated to all households setting out the advantages of EU membership.
Little Englanders think the UK (they'll often slip and call the UK England) is an exceptional country, and hark back to the Empire, pounds, shillings and pence, imperial measurements, and a time when non-white faces in their localities were rarer than they are now. They think the UK is so exceptional that it should have all the perks of EU trade without adhering to the Four Freedoms. Apparently theirs is the only voice that matters at the moment, as the rest of us are constantly being told to sit down and shut up. We're disenfranchised, so let's talk about sovereignty.
Ex-minister under Thatcher Michael Heseltine (I'm no fan, but he's right on this) described triggering Article 50 as "the biggest sacrifice of British sovereignty that I can remember:
Link to tweet
#Article50 #PMQs The reality of Brexit
We will still be subject to EU regulations and laws if we want to trade with it as a bloc, but we won't have any say in shaping them. Even if we go for the last-ditch WTO rules option if we can't agree trade deals with the EU, we'll still be beholden to others making the rules, and freedom of movement for employment will still be one of the strictures.
Meanwhile, the Great Repeal Bill proposed by the Tories will adopt all EU laws into British legislation, meaning the government can then pare away at any aspects it doesn't like (those that stand in the way of business interests and the Tories' ambition for consolidating long-term rule) by statutory instrument without any parliamentary scrutiny beyond, if we're lucky, a token debate or two.
Already, after months of saber-rattling, May and her sorry team of negotiators are backtracking and grudgingly acknowledging that the holy grail of a "hard Brexit" is impractical and there are strong limits to what the EU will be willing to concede in negotiations. The results will likely please nobody, as the government has acknowledged that even immigration, that great red herring, is unlikely to reduce significantly in the medium term, and it still has no more idea of the economic and unintended consequence costs of Brexit than it did during the referendum campaign.
And yes, you're right, it was idiotic and the height of irresponsibility to try to distill all these complexities into a simple yes/no question before any details had even been considered (our civil service was forbidden by Cameron from committing any contingency plans to paper), let alone worked out.
Now, on a daily basis, when not parroting the facile "Brexit means Brexit", the vote is being used to justify everything from leaving the Single Market (which we were reassured repeatedly, publicly and in parliament, during the campaign was not going to happen, so there was no point in even discussing it) to draconian steps to limit the rights of EU nationals living in the UK which will cripple our NHS and many of our industries (those we have left) - that process has already started as people are leaving the UK because of all the uncertainty and the general sense of hostility and being unwelcome.
JHan
(10,173 posts)and I agree totally with this:
In fact, the EU was a handy excuse to have on hand to never be accountable for anything.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)should require a 70% or higher vote that way you can hopefully avoid mistakes.
Wounded Bear
(58,662 posts)not just >50% of who actually turned out. I'm not sure what turnout for Brexit actually was, but I doubt if it was to where the "pass" vote was more than 50% of actual eligible voters.
Otherwise make it 2/3 or something. It bothers me here that often people can put up an initiative that actually alters the state constitution on a bare majority vote.
On something so major, there should be some kind of stipulation that prevents a minority, or even a plurality, from driving such a large decision.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)No referendum would get 50% of eligible voters.
So if you want to leave the EU, you make up a referendum to stay. It will fail.
If you want to crack down on LGBT, you make up a referendum to "keep current LGBT rights". It will fail, and then the government is bound to take away the rights.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I think the referendum, by its every nature, leads to impulsive decision making and sets bad precedents. Right now Sturgeon wants a second referendum in response to the EU referendum - how many times will politicians keep using this trick? The risk of her doing this will be to alienate Scots who aren't all that nationalistic in the first place, jeopardizing the independence movement.
Denzil_DC
(7,242 posts)unless you expect the majority of people in Scotland just to shut up and accept Brexit. It's not a "trick", it's responsible governance, so give it and Sturgeon some due credit. She's one of the few adults in the room at the moment.
The goalposts have moved over the years. Thatcher is on record as saying that if the SNP (at the time the only pro-independence party, but now the Greens are on board) got a majority of the Scottish MPs at Westminster, that would be enough to trigger independence. That bar was well and truly passed at the last UK parliamentary elections - 56 out of 59 MPs are SNP.
Meanwhile, Scotland voted 62-38% Remain in the Brexit vote. The SNP's manifesto at the last Holyrood elections reserved the right to call another referendum if there was a material change in circumstances such as the UK leaving the EU. One of the "No" (to independence) campaign's main planks was that Scotland would have to leave the EU if it voted for independence, and that, among other scaremongering, swayed a lot of voters. The SNP again became the largest party in the Scottish Parliament at those elections, and supported by the Greens, forms the Scottish administration. That's quite a mandate. How could Sturgeon not follow this through and retain any credibility for her or her party?
I contrast the two years of the Scottish independence referendum campaign with the Brexit campaign. There was very lively debate and engagement at all levels of society in Scotland during the indyref. The "Yes" campaign was expected to have hard and fast answers to each and every question - currency, trade, you name it, and the SNP issued a detailed White Paper, which was picked apart at great length by those opposed. Even now, we know vastly more about what Scottish independence might have looked like than what Brexit might end up looking like.
The answer so far from May to calls for another indyref has been "Now is not the time." Nobody wanted the referendum now. The plan would be to hold the referendum when the Brexit negotiations are complete. This makes a lot of sense, because at that point all the other EU countries will be considering and preparing to vote on the final details.
The only country that has no prospect of a vote about the UK's future outside the EU at that point is the UK itself!
If Scotland doesn't get a referendum or if it votes to stay in the UK, the next step for May or her successor will be to hack away at the hard-won gains in Scottish devolved powers through statutory instruments, most likely with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, neutering or even abolishing the Scottish Parliament. And that government will have carte blanche to turn the UK into an offshore tax haven and multinationals' playground, unless the EU manage to fend that off in negotiations. I don't want to live in that UK.
The whole situation is not of our choosing. I'd be in favour of setting a more decisive bar in a future indyref. I think about two-thirds of the electorate would be achievable, given that at the start of the last indyref, with a lot more scope for Project Fear from the "No" side, support for independence was around the mid-20% and ended up at about 45%, and currently stands at anywhere between 45% and 50-odd, depending which polls you believe.
I guess an alternative might be for Sturgeon to call another Scottish election to seek a mandate for independence, never mind a referendum, but she also has a country to run in the mean time.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I'm just hating on the concept of taking these issues to referendum. Thatcher's angle acknowledged the MP's - the representatives. A majority of representatives supporting the move would be a sign to move for independence. I am not sure how she would feel about a referendum, particularly a popular vote that is self-executing by prerogative power.
Yes, I think that's Sturgeon's best move. Take it to the electorate via election.
Especially on issues like this...
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)in that it is often motivated by Spite, wherein one harms oneself to harm another.
byronius
(7,395 posts)Denzil_DC
(7,242 posts)Take a look at the UK DU Forum and you'll see us setting out the many ways this is the biggest unnecessary self-inflicted fuck-up in British history.
Approximately 50% of the UK population (that's a very conservative estimate given the number of non-voters who nevertheless have an opinion) are currently disenfranchised under the mantra "the people have spoken", conveniently used to justify anything at all the current government sees fit to enact. Not in my name they haven't. I can't remember the last time I spoke to anyone who was in favor of all this, though I live in Scotland, so that might make a difference.
I don't know what sort of cataclysm in the country or the Tory Party it would take for sheer self-interest and common sense to prevail, but I'm praying for it anyway, and I don't usually pray for things.
Raster
(20,998 posts)... should be front-and-center in the faces of the British people.
Yes, laugh all you want, Brits, UNFORTUNATELY we do have tRump* to deal with... and you have Farage*, who used racism and misrepresentation to saddle Great Britain with Brexit and fuck you over for decades to come.
tikka
(762 posts)What better way to aid Russia than to breakup the EU? He did the same thing before the referendum as trump did during the campaign. He sowed dissension, disinformation, and used anti-immigration race baiting. After visiting trump at the White House, he went to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and couldn't remember why he went there. Funny thing is that's where Julian Assange, head of Wikileaks, is staying. He and another person are active in the movement to divide California into two states.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...but it definitely exists and like the connection to Farage and Brexit is a proven fact. There's more than one way to break up alliances and more than one way to break up a country -- and who does it serve?
Putin and the Oligarchs, that's who.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)But nobody has the guts to say
"the referendum was non-binding"
or
"the circumstances have changed, let's redo the referendum".
Raster
(20,998 posts)...that do not benefit the "New Tsar" and his vision of a redeemed and restored Russia.
How does Putin manage to have so much sway with such a wide variety of persons of multiple nationalities?
MONEY: hard, Western currency that he uses as a weapon, and he acquired FROM LOOTING THE CITIZENS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION. I agree wholeheartedly: Farage* is a Putin plaything, same as tRump* and his grifter family*.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)In democracies believe that discussion and compromise and just plain working things out is bad. They prefer the blind drunkenness of ideological purity. Then the next day they wake up in the bed they soiled and wonder why there are consequences.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Post removed
Hekate
(90,714 posts)All of us? Someone has parental issues maybe? Or just driving a sharp wedge between the generations of Democrats?
Try again.
kydo
(2,679 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)It all reminds me of some dumb friends of mine who amicably enough divorced over nothing. They bought thought there was a better life out there waiting for them. He thought there was some wild and sexy young thing out there waiting for him, she thought there was some worldly George Clooney type guy out there who was just dying to show her the world. They were both spectacularly wrong.
OnDoutside
(19,960 posts)once the potential deal has been finalized. "This is the best we can get, is it really what you want ?". That's why it is vital the EU give an absolutely terrible deal.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...it won't matter at that point. To reverse course, and rejoin the EU, would require approval from every EU member nation, and you know there will be at least one nation that will veto it. The only choice will be to accept the terrible deal, or be kicked out with no deal, which means the much-worse WTO rules apply.
OnDoutside
(19,960 posts)however, I've heard a number of EU officials say that there is no onus on the UK to actually walk away, even though they have triggered Article 50. May had said she wants negotiations complete in 2 years, yet others have suggested it could take double that. Article 50 is quite vague thankfully !
Edit : Just to clarify, whether the British get a good deal or not, what I'm saying is that they do not have to come all the way out of the EU, and reapply to join. From what I've heard, the UK government could simply say, we've decided not to go. However, it would be political suicide for them to do that, without having some reason for going back to the People and saying is this crappy deal really want you want ?
OnDoutside
(19,960 posts)dropped that nugget into the conversation. The Irish civil servants, charged with the hardest balancing act of not wanting to piss off neither the UK nor the EU, while getting the best deal vis a vis Northern Ireland, would not have dropped this just to cause descension in their relationship with the UK government.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Two of the top candidates involved in a 4 way tie in France are Le Pen and Melenchon. Both want a referendum on Frexit.
No France, no EU. The EU is weak and crumbling at the moment. Too many fires, not enough firefighters.
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Now, it's too late to backtrack. Their only options are a bad Brexit deal, or an even worse non-deal.
Voltaire2
(13,051 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)this course to its likely conclusion, I intend to sue the said Government, and Mr. Cameron personally (for everything he and his family own) for serious damages.
I am a British citizen and long-term resident in another EU country as an EU citizen. So long-term (half my life) that I was denied a vote, disenfranchised, in this pathetic process. In my sixties now, I am already, and will likely be even more, deeply hurt. I will go to law, preferably joining in a class action, when the time comes.
JHan
(10,173 posts)He took a risk on something he should never have risked, just for the sake of political survival. And he had to resign anyway.
disgusting.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)and in no way represented the interests of the people, nor the country, he was shoddily elected to represent.
I reckon I will have a case worth fighting in the highest courts of the land.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,350 posts)... we also had an election that turned out badly.
With dire consequences.