BrExit?

[Takeshi]

stizu dobrovoljci za buduceg premijera/premijerku.

 

Andrea Leadsom says Brexit 'a great moment in history' as she launches her Conservative leadership campaign

 

 

 

gospodja je pre tri godine:

 

In the recording, obtained by the Mail on Sunday, Ms Leadsom added: “I don’t think the UK should leave the EU. I think it would be a disaster for our economy and it would lead to a decade of economic and political uncertainty at a time when the tectonic plates of global success are moving.

 

[MancMellow]

bilo 

[Takeshi]

bilo  

 

 

 

ne stizem da ispratim, britanska politika zajebala sve balkanske ovih nekoliko nedelja  ^_^

video sam da je pre pola sata ozvanicila kampanju za novu tacerku. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Takeshi

[Lord Protector]

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-kingdom/2016-06-28/brexits-false-democracy

Brexit's False Democracy

What the Vote Really Revealed

Kathleen R. McNamara, Tuesday, June 28, 2016

KATHLEEN R. McNAMARA is a Professor at Georgetown University and the author of The Politics of Everyday Europe: Constructing Authority in the European Union [1].

 

Referenda are terrible mechanisms of democracy. As a case in point, the recent British referendum over the United Kingdom’s membership in the EU was a reckless gamble [2] that took a very real issue—the need for more open and legitimate contestation in the EU—and turned it into a political grotesquerie of shamelessly opportunistic political elites. The raucous debate over the United Kingdom’s continued membership in the EU was riven with lies and misrepresentations, some of which are now being explicitly rolled back[3]by Brexit advocates; even the British press rues its bombastic support [4] for the Leave side. Unfortunately, many British voters appear not to have known exactly what the EU is [5], validating other recent research demonstrating a lack of factual knowledge [6] about the union.

Observers of the referendum should therefore be wary about drawing conclusions about broader globalization efforts, the Western order, the inevitability of the rise of populist anti-immigration parties, or the viability of the EU project overall. The answer to the breathless question posed in the New York Times on Sunday [7]—“Is the post-1945 order imposed on the world by the United States and its allies unraveling, too?”—is simple. No, it is not. And yet the emotions and cultural chasms brought to bear in the Brexit vote cannot and should not be ignored. 

Brexit’s real lesson is that there is a consequential divide between cosmopolitans who view the future with hope and those who have been left behind and have seen their economic situations and ways of life deteriorate. The same story may well play out in the United States and elsewhere, with important electoral effects. But the Brexit story also speaks to the uniqueness of the EU as a new kind of polity with a profound impact on the lives of all within it. History has shown that the development of new political formulations rarely goes smoothly. The divisions between those who can imagine a better life in the new system and those who cannot will likely continue to drive politics [8] in the EU and elsewhere for years to come.

 

CLASS CONSCIOUS

 

Although the Brexit referendum was a highly imperfect form of democratic representation, the emotions [9] voiced by Leave voters were very real. They echo important and valid feelings of other populations across the Western democracies. There are two worlds of people, as analysis of Brexit voting patterns clearly indicated, that are divided in their experiences and their visions of the future. Educational attainment [10], age, and national identity decisively determined the vote [11]. Younger voters of all economic backgrounds and those with a university education voted overwhelmingly in favor of Remain. Older voters, the unemployed, and those with a strong sense of English national identity sought to leave.

One way of thinking about the division is to see it as cosmopolitan versus parochial thinking, rooted in deeper social and economic trends that create their own cultural dynamics. Cosmopolitanism, a sense of belonging to a global community beyond one’s immediate borders, requires confidence in one’s place in the world and implies a hope about the future beyond the nation-state. The parochial view is tinged with fear about that future and a sense that societal transformation will leave the common voter behind. In part, that fear reflects the opening of markets, but it is equally due to changes in technology and broader shifts in capitalism away from protection of both the middle and the working classes. These shifts can’t be blamed solely on globalization; they also have much to do with domestic politics and policy decisions. In the United Kingdom and elsewhere, political choices have accelerated deindustrialization while decimating social safety nets and doing little to put the brakes on rising inequality.

Given this harsh reality for the unemployed, the older, and the uneducated, the Remain campaign’s warnings about the economic disaster of Brexit carried little weight; many voters believed that their opportunities were closed off long ago. The clever marketing of the Brexit campaign, including the mantras “Take Back Control” and “Breaking Point,” spoke to very real senses of exclusion but offered few solutions; the reality is that British political dynamics, more than the EU’s rules, have created the United Kingdom’s social and economic problems.

The economic divide and the social effects of it pushed immigration to the forefront of the debate. Voters were right that immigration of both EU nationals and non-EU immigrants has risen tremendously [12], particularly since the financial crisis. Whereas other states within the EU have struggled with immigrants from Syria and Iraq, however, the United Kingdom has had a tiny number of asylum claims [13]. And studies show that immigrants pay far more in taxes than they take out in benefits. Nevertheless, the underlying fears made such facts unimportant. Indeed, the areas with the most foreigners voted overwhelmingly for staying in the EU. They are regions already integrated into a new cosmopolitan world.

 

NEW POWER, NEW PROBLEM

 

The fight over Brexit is a reflection of the social exclusion that arises in a world of stark economic inequality. But the referendum should also be viewed in terms of a much longer history of political development and state building. The EU is far beyond a simple international organization or trade treaty, since it has accrued significant political authority across a wide range of areas. The rulings of the European Court of Justice, for example, supersede national law, and the laws of the EU have transformed everyday life in Europe, even as the Brussels bureaucracy and its fiscal presence remain tiny. 

Historically, new political authorities have emerged and evolved in messy, ugly, and often violent ways. National projects of unification have involved coercion, civil wars, and the brutal exercise of power. Questions of federalism in the United States are still being fought today. Although the nation-state seems universal and natural, there have been many other forms of government in Europe alone: the Hapsburg monarchy, Italian city-states, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Hanseatic League, for example, have all come and gone. The EU, for all its faults, is an innovative new form, a polity in formation. Those under 45, and particularly those under 30, embrace it and see it as a natural and positive thing, a backdrop to their changed everyday lives that creates more opportunities than it closes down.

Given history’s guide, we should not be surprised that the deepening of the EU has created a backlash. But we can be appalled by the craven opportunism and lack of political leadership in the United Kingdom and on the European continent in guiding this development. The EU will only work if all its citizens can imagine themselves part of a cosmopolitan, thriving democratic polity, one that balances local, national, and EU powers and creates economic opportunity. Listening to those on both sides of the cultural divide, and working to ease the economic inequality that underlies the division between the hopeful and the excluded, is the only way forward for the EU—and the rest of us.

[Lord Protector]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-kingdom/2016-07-03/swiss-model

Sunday, July 3, 2016

The Swiss Model

Why It Won't Work for the United Kingdom

Lukas Kaelin

LUKAS KAELIN is Assistant Professor at the Catholic Theological Private University Linz and Lecturer at the University of Vienna.

After the Brexit referendum [1], it became clear that the people had spoken. But in the days that followed, it also became clear that no one knew what had been said. And nowhere is this more apparent than with the leaders of the “Out” campaign who seem to have no real plan on how to actually leave the bloc and organize the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union thereafter. Boris Johnson’s surprise exit from the race to replace Prime Minister David Cameron, who announced his resignation following the vote, on top of the Labour Party establishment coup against its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, adds to this feeling of insecurity. Some observers have raised the option of the Swiss model. And there are certainly parallels worth considering, even if land-locked Switzerland has never attempted to join the EU and the island kingdom may soon be put out to sea.

Nearly a quarter century ago, in December, 1992, Switzerland held its own “In–Out” referendum. It was on whether to join the European Economic Area (EEA), which the Swiss government branded as a “training camp” for full membership into the European community and which, it argued, would come without any option for an exit. A small majority of the voters, prioritizing the protection of national sovereignty and fearing that the country would lose its cherished reputation for political neutrality if absorbed by the European Union, ticked “Out.” [2] For this group of voters, the expected economic benefits from joining and the possible geopolitical fallout from remaining out of the economic bloc, were less important.

In the last two decades, Switzerland has twisted itself in circles to strike different economic and political deals with the EU without actually becoming a member. It has even joined, among other treaties, the controversial Dublin Regulation requiring European countries to take in asylum-seekers wherever they first land. Switzerland also negotiated a deal with the EU that made it a member of the Schengen area, which effectively abolished Swiss sovereignty over its borders. Switzerland has never adopted the euro, and yet it is a de-facto currency in many regions of the country. And over the years, Switzerland has effectively participated in the creation of a European single market that guarantees the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. Only in 2014 did the Swiss hold a popular vote [3] demanding the restriction of immigration, but negotiations with EU leaders turned out to be next to impossible because restricting immigration would also lead to Brussels’ withdrawal from key bilateral agreements. After the Brexit decision, it is very unlikely that Switzerland will reach an agreement over this issue, at least within the three-year period set by the Swiss referendum.

The Swiss model is not a viable plan for the United Kingdom or other countries curious about life outside the union. Switzerland has never joined the EU (and so never had to negotiate an exit). In view of Brussel’s fear of protracted insecurity and a domino effect of other countries asking to leave the union, the British government is in a more difficult position to negotiate an exit [4]. Furthermore, time constraints—invoking article 50 of the European Treaty that allows for two years tops for leave negotiations—do not favor the United Kingdom’s bargaining position, as trade negotiation requires intense preparation that may be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve within such an amount of time. After all, the trade deal between Canada and the EU took seven years of negotiations and it is still unclear whether it will take effect.

 

Switzerland is also geopolitically insignificant. It is not a member of NATO and does not play an active role in global military conflicts. Its “permanent neutrality” gives it a role in security and peace negotiations and allows it to trade without regard to political affiliation. But, as a comparably small country surrounded by four large EU nations, it is radically economically dependent on the European Union. More than 50 percent of all Swiss exports go to EU countries, and almost 75 percent of all imports into Switzerland come from EU countries. That is why Switzerland has every reason to play nice with the EU.

The United Kingdom has equally vital interests in continuing its trade relations with the EU, which amount to about 50 percent of its imports and exports, respectively. The Swiss model shows that it is certainly feasible to reach a strong bilateral trade agreement, but there are tradeoffs for doing so, namely obliging Brussels on immigration, which was at the heart of the Leave campaign. In Switzerland’s case, it became clear that becoming part of the single European market would mean accepting the free movement of people. When it comes to enforcing bilateral treaties with the EU, Switzerland is habitually forced to agree to laws decided by the union, in which it has no say, in order to keep trade unhindered. Right now Switzerland has to pay a “toll,” as the EU critics call it: The Swiss are providing the Eastern EU members with $1.32 billion over ten years (from 2007 to 2016) in economic aid, which is set to be renewed beyond this year. Given that the Leave campaign promised to save the country money by leaving the EU, such an agreement would not sit well with the British people.

So in essence, if the United Kingdom were to follow the Swiss example, it would still have to follow all of the rules of the EU without being able to veto the bad ones; the country’s bargaining position is hardly better than Switzerland’s. Of course, it can use London as leverage. It would hurt Europe too, at least temporarily, if the international financial hub were suddenly shut out of the single market. U.S. and European stock markets tumbled alongside the British one on Friday, and since the vote, global markets have lost $3 trillion. In Germany, the United Kingdom’s third-biggest export market, Chancellor Angela Merkel has, unsurprisingly, called for an unrushed, reasoned approached. The United Kingdom is also eyeing a new regulation, slated to go into effect in 2018 (which is right around when Leave negotiations would wrap up) that would allow it to retain most of its “passporting” rights, which give its financial sector unfettered access to the EU market. But the United Kingdom has more to lose as Frankfurt prepares to accommodate a large portion of the London banking business should the British government invoke Article 50. And in general, EU market access would almost certainly mean accepting the freedom of movement rules and contributing to the EU budget.

Given the novelty of Brexit [1] and the size and importance of the United Kingdom, it is difficult to make any meaningful predictions about the upcoming exit negotiations. Over the next few weeks, London and Brussels will begin discussions on how to translate the current chaos into sensible policies, but whether that means joining the EEA (like Norway and Iceland), following a bilateral Swiss model, or carving out an entirely new path is yet to be determined.

Edited July 4, 2016 by slow

[Prospero]

Daniel Hannan

‏@DanielJHannan

Extraordinary. Schäuble admits he only threatened to exclude us from the market because George Osborne asked him to.

 

Politik

Wolfgang Schäuble

03.07.16

 

"In Europa nicht so weitermachen wie bisher"

Finanzminister Schäuble hat der Brexit wie ein Schlag getroffen. Danach hat er viele seiner Ideen verworfen. Von einer Vertiefung will er nichts mehr hören – das gilt auch für das Juncker-Gremium.

 

...

Welt am Sonntag: Sie sagten vor der Abstimmung auch: "In is in. Out is out". Was heißt "out" heute?

 

Schäuble: Ich habe diese Formulierung auf ausdrückliche Bitte des britischen Finanzministers gebraucht.

 

Welt am Sonntag: Die Briten haben ausgerechnet einen Deutschen dafür gefragt?

 

Schäuble: Ja, George Osborne bat mich, nach London zu kommen, um das "Remain"-Lager zu stärken und aufzuzeigen, dass ein Brexit ein unumkehrbarer Schritt sein würde.

...

 

Google prevod:

 

Welt am Sonntag: You said before the vote also: "In is out is out in.". What's "out" today?

 

Schäuble: I have used this phrase to express request of the UK Treasury.

 

Welt am Sonntag: The British have asked just a German for this?

 

Schäuble: Yes, George Osborne asked me to come to London to strengthen the "Remain" camp and to show that a Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union would be an irreversible step.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Prospero

[MancMellow]

Sojble nije normalan, pa gde se ovo prica,..

[apostata]

[Friend]

 Independent:

Jean-Claude Juncker is becoming a problem Angela Merkel will soon have to “deal” with, according to sources within the German government.

The President of the European Commission has faced criticism from a number of directions over his conduct following the outcome of Britain’s referendum on EU membership.

A German minister told the Sunday Times that Chancellor Merkel had come to regard Mr Juncker as “part of the problem” with the EU.

 

The source said: “Juncker has time and again acted against the common interest, and his reaction to the British referendum has been very damaging.”

Mr Juncker’s rhetoric about Northern Ireland and Scottish independence - and especially his meeting with SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon in Brussels - were seen as “unnecessarily provocative,” the newspaper reported. 

“This is not a time for institutional bickering,” the source added, “but the pressure for him to resign will only become greater and chancellor Merkel will eventually have to deal with this next year.”

 

Baba ce da ga rastrga

[MancMellow]

 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-kingdom/2016-06-28/brexits-false-democracy

Brexit's False Democracy

What the Vote Really Revealed

Kathleen R. McNamara, Tuesday, June 28, 2016

KATHLEEN R. McNAMARA is a Professor at Georgetown University and the author of The Politics of Everyday Europe: Constructing Authority in the European Union [1].

 

Referenda are terrible mechanisms of democracy. As a case in point, the recent British referendum over the United Kingdom’s membership in the EU was a reckless gamble [2] that took a very real issue—the need for more open and legitimate contestation in the EU—and turned it into a political grotesquerie of shamelessly opportunistic political elites. The raucous debate over the United Kingdom’s continued membership in the EU was riven with lies and misrepresentations, some of which are now being explicitly rolled back[3]by Brexit advocates; even the British press rues its bombastic support [4] for the Leave side. Unfortunately, many British voters appear not to have known exactly what the EU is [5], validating other recent research demonstrating a lack of factual knowledge [6] about the union.

Observers of the referendum should therefore be wary about drawing conclusions about broader globalization efforts, the Western order, the inevitability of the rise of populist anti-immigration parties, or the viability of the EU project overall. The answer to the breathless question posed in the New York Times on Sunday [7]—“Is the post-1945 order imposed on the world by the United States and its allies unraveling, too?”—is simple. No, it is not. And yet the emotions and cultural chasms brought to bear in the Brexit vote cannot and should not be ignored. 

Brexit’s real lesson is that there is a consequential divide between cosmopolitans who view the future with hope and those who have been left behind and have seen their economic situations and ways of life deteriorate. The same story may well play out in the United States and elsewhere, with important electoral effects. But the Brexit story also speaks to the uniqueness of the EU as a new kind of polity with a profound impact on the lives of all within it. History has shown that the development of new political formulations rarely goes smoothly. The divisions between those who can imagine a better life in the new system and those who cannot will likely continue to drive politics [8] in the EU and elsewhere for years to come.

 

CLASS CONSCIOUS

 

Although the Brexit referendum was a highly imperfect form of democratic representation, the emotions [9] voiced by Leave voters were very real. They echo important and valid feelings of other populations across the Western democracies. There are two worlds of people, as analysis of Brexit voting patterns clearly indicated, that are divided in their experiences and their visions of the future. Educational attainment [10], age, and national identity decisively determined the vote [11]. Younger voters of all economic backgrounds and those with a university education voted overwhelmingly in favor of Remain. Older voters, the unemployed, and those with a strong sense of English national identity sought to leave.

One way of thinking about the division is to see it as cosmopolitan versus parochial thinking, rooted in deeper social and economic trends that create their own cultural dynamics. Cosmopolitanism, a sense of belonging to a global community beyond one’s immediate borders, requires confidence in one’s place in the world and implies a hope about the future beyond the nation-state. The parochial view is tinged with fear about that future and a sense that societal transformation will leave the common voter behind. In part, that fear reflects the opening of markets, but it is equally due to changes in technology and broader shifts in capitalism away from protection of both the middle and the working classes. These shifts can’t be blamed solely on globalization; they also have much to do with domestic politics and policy decisions. In the United Kingdom and elsewhere, political choices have accelerated deindustrialization while decimating social safety nets and doing little to put the brakes on rising inequality.

Given this harsh reality for the unemployed, the older, and the uneducated, the Remain campaign’s warnings about the economic disaster of Brexit carried little weight; many voters believed that their opportunities were closed off long ago. The clever marketing of the Brexit campaign, including the mantras “Take Back Control” and “Breaking Point,” spoke to very real senses of exclusion but offered few solutions; the reality is that British political dynamics, more than the EU’s rules, have created the United Kingdom’s social and economic problems.

The economic divide and the social effects of it pushed immigration to the forefront of the debate. Voters were right that immigration of both EU nationals and non-EU immigrants has risen tremendously [12], particularly since the financial crisis. Whereas other states within the EU have struggled with immigrants from Syria and Iraq, however, the United Kingdom has had a tiny number of asylum claims [13]. And studies show that immigrants pay far more in taxes than they take out in benefits. Nevertheless, the underlying fears made such facts unimportant. Indeed, the areas with the most foreigners voted overwhelmingly for staying in the EU. They are regions already integrated into a new cosmopolitan world.

 

NEW POWER, NEW PROBLEM

 

The fight over Brexit is a reflection of the social exclusion that arises in a world of stark economic inequality. But the referendum should also be viewed in terms of a much longer history of political development and state building. The EU is far beyond a simple international organization or trade treaty, since it has accrued significant political authority across a wide range of areas. The rulings of the European Court of Justice, for example, supersede national law, and the laws of the EU have transformed everyday life in Europe, even as the Brussels bureaucracy and its fiscal presence remain tiny. 

Historically, new political authorities have emerged and evolved in messy, ugly, and often violent ways. National projects of unification have involved coercion, civil wars, and the brutal exercise of power. Questions of federalism in the United States are still being fought today. Although the nation-state seems universal and natural, there have been many other forms of government in Europe alone: the Hapsburg monarchy, Italian city-states, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Hanseatic League, for example, have all come and gone. The EU, for all its faults, is an innovative new form, a polity in formation. Those under 45, and particularly those under 30, embrace it and see it as a natural and positive thing, a backdrop to their changed everyday lives that creates more opportunities than it closes down.

Given history’s guide, we should not be surprised that the deepening of the EU has created a backlash. But we can be appalled by the craven opportunism and lack of political leadership in the United Kingdom and on the European continent in guiding this development. The EU will only work if all its citizens can imagine themselves part of a cosmopolitan, thriving democratic polity, one that balances local, national, and EU powers and creates economic opportunity. Listening to those on both sides of the cultural divide, and working to ease the economic inequality that underlies the division between the hopeful and the excluded, is the only way forward for the EU—and the rest of us.

 

 

brexit je u stvari bio o necemu o cemu ne postoji referendum ili izbori koji to mogu da rese: u danasnjem svetu, ako si uspesna ekonomija neminovno imas gomilu imigranata. Jer 1) to je u interesu biznisa 2) ima previse zaintereseovanih od kojih i ako 0,1% prodje to su milioni. Alternativa je da nemas uspesnu ekonomiju, sto niko ne zeli. A za pristup jedinstvenom trzistu (bez koga su izgubljeni s obzirom na to gde se nalaze) ce neku vrstu priliva radne snage iz EU morati da prihvate. Mozda dobiju neki emergency brake ali generalno nista preterano znacajno. Oni koji su igrali na tu kartu (a samo ta je bila dobitna) su ucinili trajnu stetu politickoj stabilnosti u svojoj zemlji. Ono oko regulative je vec druga stvar, ali...to nije popularno jer to ne donosi bolje uslove rada nikome :) Ali to je upravo no sto ce najverovatnije dobiti oni koji su glasali za Brexit. Times vec poziva da se privreda leci tj posledice Brexita ofsetuju masivnom deregulacijom, a Osborn krese Corporation tax sa 20 na 15%. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by MancMellow

[Prospero]

Pol Mejson:
 
 

...
Now, among the liberal-minded salariat, there is a feeling of loss: loss of European identity, loss of life chances for the young, loss of self-image; loss of institutional certainty. A “contagious mourning” as Boris Johnson observed today.

On Saturday, this rebellion against loss spilled over into a large, progressive, pro-EU demo in central London. There were good-natured and witty placards, careful and professionally informed legal arguments and, above all, proportionality and restraint.

But if we are not careful, this “contagious mourning” will become an ideological collapse of the centre. Unfortunately, for the most enthusiastic among the remain insurgency, it is no longer a question of convincing the floating voter. Some are openly in favour of ignoring the vote, sabotaging it with a parliamentary procedure. Now, the first of the legal challenges, fronted by the law firm Mishcon de Reya, has been launched.

If this response gathers support – to ditch democracy because you cannot persuade the other side – you really will have the moral collapse of centrist politics. You can sense the danger amid the peevishness and personal backstabbing among the Tory backbench and the Labour centrists of yesteryear. It is displacement behaviour for what they should be doing; which is governing the country and shaping a coherent negotiating pitch with Brussels.

I voted remain, but through gritted teeth. I put my long-term criticisms of the EU second to my desire to prevent a Thatcherite power grab and the installation of an unelected government whose impulse will be to shrink the state, and to attack the very people who thought they were voting for liberation on 23 June.

For those of us who warned that “the EU is killing European values” the task is not to sabotage the vote. It is to nurture and defend those European values in a Britain whose future is now uncertain. The values of secularism, internationalism, science and a market constrained by social justice. Above all, we should revel in the democratic moment – even as it goes against us.

...

[hazard]

Sojble nije normalan, pa gde se ovo prica,..

 

[Prospero]

Hejg:
 
 

We Conservatives are all Leavers now. We must unite to build a new and better Britain
William Hague
4 July 2016 • 6:00pm
 
A new era needs new policies

Even in grim times, few things are as exhilarating as being the dark horse in a Tory leadership election – provided you are thundering up behind your rivals at breakneck speed.

In a first ballot, such as that due today, beating expectations can be vital to establishing momentum into a second ballot. One of my own techniques for achieving this in 1997 was to keep a solid core of secret votes in my back-pocket – not even telling my own team about some of the pledges of support I had received from other MPs. They then reacted with surprised delight to the result, to a degree that could not be faked, or leaked in advance.

We will soon see if any dark horse has made it through the pack this time, but whatever happens there is one crucial thought that the country and the world have to get used to: regardless of who is the next Conservative leader, we are leaving the European Union.

It is strange to have to point this out even after the referendum, but it is evidently necessary. At the weekend, tens of thousands of people demonstrated in London against the referendum result. Many more seem to think it will never be implemented. Some think a general election will overturn it. And Tony Blair has implied that if the country changes its mind we can stay in the EU after all.

As one who argued for the Remain side I hate to disillusion all these people, but there is no point living in a state of denial. On a high turnout, in a democratic society, the electorate voted to Leave. There is not going to be a sudden general election – the Conservatives want boundary changes before the next election, and Her Majesty’s Opposition is in the worst shape to face the country of any opposition since Burke and Fox split over the French Revolution in 1794.

The idea that we can keep having referendums to see if voters have changed their minds is unrealistic, to say the least. They might very well change their minds from month to month, or year to year, as good or bad news comes in. They might, for instance, be pleased they’re leaving the EU in 2017, regret it in 2019 and be thrilled they’re doing so by 2021. That doesn’t mean we can change our national direction every two years as sentiment ebbs and flows.

Within the Conservative Party, the result of  June 23 is accepted as settling the issue, albeit not the considerable question of how to implement it. It is inconceivable that the next leader and Prime Minister can now lead the party in any other direction than one of carrying out the mandate to leave.

While it is important that the truth of this sinks in to the minds of business leaders and senior civil servants, it also has an immediate bearing on how Conservative MPs cast their votes in this week’s ballots. For if it is indeed the case that the decision to leave the EU is in practice irreversible, then it follows that the new leader does not have to be chosen on the basis of which side of the recent campaign they were on.

Making sure we have a Prime Minister with resilience, experience, electability and sensible ideas now becomes more important than which way they voted two weeks ago. The fact that there is no going back means that MPs should lift themselves out of their Remain or Leave silos and get back together to keep the confidence of the country on whose wishes they are committed to act.

This will require rallying behind whichever individual wins the leadership. And it obviously means that new leader has to include in their Cabinet senior colleagues who were on the opposite side of the referendum campaign in key positions.

Such a Cabinet needs two new powerful Secretary of State positions, one to handle the negotiations with the EU and the other to lead trade talks with the rest of the world and be a full-time champion of exports. There will be more heavyweight jobs to fill than the traditional great offices of state. Existing departments of state could be merged to make way for the new posts required.

The creation of such a team can only be sealed when the new leader enters No 10 Downing Street, but a new Tory consensus on how the British economy can compete outside the EU can emerge during the leadership election itself. In the boardrooms of major companies, and at the kitchen tables of small ones, decisions to invest in the UK or to hire more employees are now on hold, awaiting clarity on our post-EU plans and prospects. That is why a recession in the coming months is widely predicted.  

There is no way of reassuring these companies about continued access to the European single market on the same terms, since that will almost certainly be incompatible with the control of migration that was such a huge issue for British voters. So it is vital that they hear and witness in the Conservative leadership contest the development of other ideas to keep Britain high up the league tables of great countries in which to do business.

George Osborne’s statement about reducing corporation tax to less than 15 per cent is a step in exactly the right direction. Lets go for 12.5 per cent, the same as the Irish Republic. Maintaining infrastructure spending is a vital signal, including deciding rapidly on a new London airport runway – and if it can’t now be Heathrow at least get on and decide to put it at Gatwick.

The EU Working Time Directive could be abolished and replaced with a more flexible alternative. And when it comes to deciding how to regulate financial services, every option should be looked at, not necessarily mirroring EU rules – don’t just think Brussels, think Singapore.

Everyone in Britain, including those of us who voted Remain, now has to make the mental leap to accept what has happened and to work out how to compensate for what we are losing with new national advantages.
The Conservative Party is the only party with both the power and the disposition to lead that leap. By doing so it can unite again intellectually as well as physically. The next Prime Minister must be someone who can lead that process. Their ability to do so matters far more than being a Remainer or a Leaver, for they are all Leavers now.

 

[Roger Sanchez]

[MancMellow]

kakav bezobrazluk :D