Teebs was right
So the man who just last weekend was the odds on favorite to be the next PM is out. Someone going under the moniker “Teebs” saw it coming 5 days ago, and left these prescient remarks in the comment section of the Guardian:
If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over – Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession … broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was “never”. When Michael Gove went on and on about “informal negotiations” … why? why not the formal ones straight away? … he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.
Tags:
30. June 2016 at 07:04
Amazing; the bast analysis I’ve seen so far
Of course, thinking further, Cameron also lost. Not because he steps down as PM. He leaves with his head high, and may well come back
Everybody lost. Except Mssrs Juncker, Tusk & Co. Few in Britain (or, for that matter, in many Continental countries) are all that happy with the EU. Not to the point of wanting out, or being prepared to pay the price. But to the point of quiet desperation as to its unresponsiveness and arrogance in the face of abject failure
Cameron’s rhetoric in his negotiations with the EU before the referendum may well have been in good faith. EU needs to feel the resentment it causes, and needs to give way
Who will have any credibility demanding this if Britain chickens out now?
I can vividly imagine Juncker’s smug smirking and Tusk’s brutal refusal if anyone even brings up the topic
Until now, i felt Britain paved the way for us who are less courageous (I live in the EU), probably taking on more risk for itself than is entirely wise. If they back out now, that’s reversed
Of course, no-one has the right to demand self-sacrifice from the Brits. And us others, who kept our heads down while unelected grandees told us what’s good for us, will learn (again) that nations sacrificing freedom for security will loose both
30. June 2016 at 07:11
In reality it took over 40 years for the American colonists to separate themselves from the British Empire. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought in 1775. The last shots of the Battle of New Orleans were fired in 1815. Two wars were fought and the White House was burned. Yet in four days Americans will celebrate the 240th anniversary of their Declaration of Independence. It clearly was not easy but we pretend like it was worth it.
30. June 2016 at 07:19
Mark Carney just talked about further easing which again knocked the pound down.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/30/ftse-100-and-pound-resume-slide-as-post-brexit-rally-loses-steam/
30. June 2016 at 07:26
“It clearly was not easy but we pretend like it was worth it.”
I question the analogy to the US.
In any case, why is it the young who were totally against it if it’s their future that will allegedly improve so much? They don’t think ‘it’s worth it.’
If it was really about freedom the youth would be the first to support it.
Because they know the truth. The old folks have thrown their futures into uncertainty out of romanticist illusions about Little England.
All these cynical politicians like Grove, Johnson, and Cameron knew the idea was as the Brits say, bollocks.
But Cameron pushed for the referendum to help in 2014 assuming it would lose all along.
Johnson never thought it would really pass.
Now no one even wants to be PM now. Of course not, being the caretaker of Britain is no fun.
30. June 2016 at 07:28
In an age of political volatility governments continue to take actions ensuring further volatility (like ignoring a decisive victory in a referendum with massive turnout). Years from now we will be told (with a straight face) “who could have seen this coming?”
30. June 2016 at 07:33
Glad you highlighted this one Scott. I’m almost positive I read that before. Jennifer Rubin is making a similar point:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/06/30/brexits-loudest-voices-just-like-trump-have-no-answers/
30. June 2016 at 07:38
Boris Bam!Bam! Brexit-Boy Johnson decided leadership isn’t for him after all, eh?
30. June 2016 at 07:40
The US started the war of 1812 to snatch Canada and got smacked down hard. The battle of New Orleans happened after the peace treaty was signed.
30. June 2016 at 07:44
Mike,
Thomas Jefferson was a romantic Libertarian idealist. He was a man of grand ideas for a nation who struggled to manage his own personal affairs. Yet the brilliance of Jefferson is that what he envisioned the American people believed. For while it is true that the American Revolution was triggered by the activism of a few American elite. the Revolution succeeded because it was what the people wanted.
The challenge for Britain is to find leaders who will do for the British people what the British people want. And if the British people decide that being subject to the whims of the EU bureaucrats is acceptable than Brexit will fizzle. But if a Brexit leader arises who can remind the people why they need self-determination for their nation then Brexit will proceed.
vision that
When he penned the Declaration of Independence it is doubtful he nor those who signed it gave much consideration to the costs of seeing the Declaration through if Britain resisted them.
30. June 2016 at 07:46
Wish fulfillment, on his part and yours.
30. June 2016 at 07:53
All these cynical politicians like Grove, Johnson, and Cameron knew the idea was as the Brits say, bollocks.
Why not explain to us what’s ‘bollocks’ about getting out from under the European Commission?
30. June 2016 at 08:00
Scott, I saw this and thought some of your commentators would find it to be good news:
http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/north-carolina/ku-klux-klan-dreams-of-rising-again-150-years-afte/nrqGy/
30. June 2016 at 08:15
teebs or the beeb; i’ll go for the beeb. Two of the five candidates will sign article 50; May the favourite though a remainer will also sign. That leaves the other two who won’t get very far.
As for Cameron – not that smart. Called a referendum he thought that he couldn’t lose and now has resigned as pm and tory leader.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36671336
30. June 2016 at 08:21
Totally false in every way.
Michael Gove 2016!
Invoke Article 50 now!
Make Britain Great Again!
30. June 2016 at 08:25
“In any case, why is it the young who were totally against it if it’s their future that will allegedly improve so much?”
-Did they vote in the 1975 referendum? The old did.
“The old folks have thrown their futures into uncertainty out of romanticist illusions about Little England.”
-Uh, no. The European Union referendum was about the European Union. Not any other BS butthurt Remainers like to talk about because they can’t come up with any good reason for why they worship the European Union as though it’s the greatest thing that ever existed.
30. June 2016 at 08:28
Dan, You said:
“Thomas Jefferson was a romantic Libertarian idealist.”
Oh, so now “Libertarians” (capitalized, no less) are slaveowners? Is this some kind of joke?
AM, Sorry to disappoint you, but check out my new Econlog post. Brexit is years away, and the UK stock market is soaring.
Harding, Brace yourself for a disappointment.
30. June 2016 at 08:37
I had reached similar conclusions, but it took me a number of days to get there. I watched as Brexit leaders walked back promises about gains from Brexit and few wanted to rush the process. If Brexit was so great, why the reaction? As some in the London Times opined, perhaps many of them didn’t want to win the referendum and were surprised by the outcome.
Some of these British politicians may have thought they were being smart careerists, but the laugh’s on them.
30. June 2016 at 08:40
“Harding, Brace yourself for a disappointment.”
-So you’re saying Bryan Caplan will win his bet on this? I seriously doubt it. The next PM will surely invoke Article 50.
30. June 2016 at 08:44
“Oh, so now “Libertarians” (capitalized, no less) are slaveowners? Is this some kind of joke?”
-Who in Congress or among the Founding Fathers was more libertarian than Jefferson and not a slaveowner?
“Brexit is years away”
-Obviously. I still expect it to happen before Jan 1 2020.
30. June 2016 at 08:45
Scott,
The joke is on you. The political philosophy Jefferson espoused for the nation was of personal freedom and liberty. That this philosophy did not extend to slaves is an anachronism.
As published on Cato:
“The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.”
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
30. June 2016 at 09:02
OK, I read the econlog post, but I don’t mind waiting a bit longer as long as it happens.
But on the possibility of it not happening and somehow the vote being subverted I did discuss this with some African friends. They thought that the losers trying to reverse the vote sounded very like African politics.
30. June 2016 at 09:12
But on the possibility of it not happening and somehow the vote being subverted I did discuss this with some African friends. They thought that the losers trying to reverse the vote sounded very like African politics.
North of 40% of Conservative MPs backed Brexit. About 1/4 of the right-of-center vote was cast for UKIP last time. North of 55% of self-identified Tory voters backed Brexit. Reneging at this time is begging for a schism which will leave the Conservative Party a rump on the order of Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives in Canada in 1993.
The velvet divorce between the Czech lands and Slovakia took less than five months. This doesn’t need to take ‘years’.
30. June 2016 at 09:22
So now I have multiple commenters who think slave-owning is just a minor blemish of Jefferson’s “Libertarianism”.
And Libertarians wonder why there are so few African Americans in their party. I’m guessing that most blacks don’t see slavery as a minor issue.
30. June 2016 at 09:27
I support Brexit because Europe is on the path towards federalization with even higher taxes, greater regulations, less accountability, and less ability for producers and consumers to freely choose.
If Milton Friedman was still alive, I suspect he too would support Brexit. The man had a way of seeing the bigger picture.
30. June 2016 at 09:30
Art.
I certainly don’t want it to take years but fear it will be slow walked by the elite and is being already slow walked by Cameron’s actions. He should be put in the tower.
Your numbers and conclusions are good. The winner out of all this will be UKIP not only from the conservative side but also labour voters. Corbyn’s ambivalence and May’s was far less elitist. Basically they accepted Europe has lots of problems and didn’t go around calling anyone who disagreed with them thick as mince and racist.
No one mentions either the large number who want out of Europe but only voted to remain because of the economic projections. If it had not been for the economics they would have voted leave.
30. June 2016 at 09:33
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction,
You know this is cock-and-bull, so why are you quoting this man?
30. June 2016 at 09:38
Scott,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Is that a Libertarian declaration?
30. June 2016 at 09:44
O/T: Scott, what are you views on gun control? (Just thought I’d take a stab at stirring up some additional trouble here) =)
30. June 2016 at 09:47
@E. Harding,
Good news!!!
http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/06/30/christie-trump-vp-vetted/
Ha!… I seem to recall you declaring that choosing Christie for VP would push you into the #NeverTrump camp. That was three days ago, if I recall correctly. Are you sticking to that?
30. June 2016 at 09:47
On the comment that Jefferson couldn’t be a libertarian because he held slaves…
Well, I’m surprised a libertarian would hold any position other than support of Brexit. The EU must be stopped. Free trade and free migration does not require the kraken of ever growing government.
30. June 2016 at 09:48
…oh, I almost forgot:
Make America Grate Again!
30. June 2016 at 09:59
If I could delete my previous post, I would. I really don’t want to make it sound like I’m insulting anybody. There are a lot of good people on both sides of this.
My frustration is that it is because of the little education in economics I have (which largely comes from this blog) that I favor Brexit. Yet it seems that if I want to find commentary in favor of Brexit I have to visit /r/The_Donald (a Trump subreddit) or therightscoop (a pro-Cruz social conservative site).
For years and years so many economists have been saying that the EU is a mess, but whenever push comes to shove, most of them want to keep it. Meanwhile, I’m sitting over here, dumbfounded, because the stuff they teach strongly suggests that the EU is in need of serious demolishing.
30. June 2016 at 10:00
Scott,
Can a Libertarian be a supporter of infantcide? Is it not possible that in some future time people will look back in horror at the how 21st century society treated the unborn? Would it then be fair for that future society to judge today’s defenders of abortion as evil and non-Libertarian?
30. June 2016 at 10:15
Can a Libertarian be a supporter of infantcide? Is it not possible that in some future time people will look back in horror at the how 21st century society treated the unborn
Infanticide? No. The unborn? Sure. A fertilized egg is not an infant. Unless you believe in some spooky nonsense about magic “souls” popping inside the egg from some other dimension at the instant of fertilization. If so, the burden of proof is on those who claim such entities exist and that they function as advertised. I’ll eagerly await the papers conclusively demonstrating it in reputable, peer reviewed science journals (“Nature” and “Science” will work). Those will be instant Nobel prize winners, so there’s a tremendous incentive to find conclusive proof of such entities. Currently there is precisely zero evidence. Sad.
Now how about after the fertilized egg divides? And divides again? Nope, and nope. How about when it has it’s first brain cell? Nope. How about when it has the equivalent of an ant’s brain? Nope. How about a lizard’s brain… for me, nope. But sometime between say puppy brain sized and right before birth… somewhere in that gray region, you might have an argument. I’ll eagerly await your case in the next issue of “Science” or “Nature.” Alternatively we could all put out favorite answer in a hat, and we take the median, and call that the dividing line. Science could provide valuable information to the electorate making such a decision.
30. June 2016 at 10:18
“Cameron … leaves with his head high, and may well come back”
He endangered the UK for a bit of personal political advantage. That’s hardly a proud moment.
That the Leavers have no rational policy for proceeding is a bit worrisome. How do they expect to get the EU to give them the trading access they want without insisting on free movement of people? How do they expect to sell to the EU without complying with all those EU regulations? How do they expect to negotiate trade agreements with the world in two years?
30. June 2016 at 10:38
Tom,
Science shows that there is no difference in the function of a developed lifeform, whether it be in the birth canal or not, but our society accommodates the opinion that it is legal to kill as long as death takes place in the right location.
Of course all of this discussion is a distraction from the original point which is that Brexit is likely to be a long process. And whether it happens or not will depend on the persistence of both pro-Brexit politicians and the will of the British to follow-through with it.
Steve F., I agree with your observations. The EU is a bad club and everyone knows it but apparently it is gauche to actually leave it.
30. June 2016 at 10:59
@Dam W.
Society accommodates the opinion that it is legal to kill a few skin cells: either your own, or via some legal procedure, those of someone else. A fertilized egg is no more a human than those skin cells because neither have a brain.
30. June 2016 at 11:07
Tom,
My point is that society accommodates much more than your biology 101 example:
http://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin
30. June 2016 at 11:07
“And Libertarians wonder why there are so few African Americans in their party.”
-You seem not to have read any of Scott A’s posts, despite your praise for him:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/02/11/black-people-less-likely/
Scott, Blacks acting on their own have never created a first-world country. Ever wonder why that is?
And Ron Paul was the most popular GOP presidential candidate among Blacks. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, won the White vote.
Simply put, the vast majority of Blacks, just like the vast majority of Whites, have zero regard for libertarianism. This is exacerbated by Blacks’ lower average regard for family values, capitalism, and small government than Whites’. There are only three Black Republicans in Congress. Not a single one got elected thanks to the Black vote. Tim Scott is a pretty reliable conservative, as is Mia Love. Both were elected via huge margins among non-Hispanic Whites. Bill Hurd is an interesting guy, and one of the less conservative Republicans in the House.
Also, Sumner, I suggest you unblock my IP address.
30. June 2016 at 11:15
“Are you sticking to that?”
-Yeah; sure.
30. June 2016 at 11:23
And if you’ll recall, Blacks were converted to the Democratic Party by FDR, back when all the states that voted most strongly Democratic were the most racist. Your theory, Sumner, is bunk.
30. June 2016 at 11:25
@Dan W., I agree there’s a large gray area, and things could shift (legally and ethically) from where they are now.
@E. Harding, good to hear. I guess, we’ll know for sure one way or another pretty quick.
30. June 2016 at 11:30
“How do they expect to negotiate trade agreements with the world in two years?”
-How does Canada survive outside the holy bosom of the E.U.?
And enough democracy-hatred, foosion. You lost. Now it’s time for Britain to invoke Article 50 and get its independence, the sooner, the better (ceteris paribus).
30. June 2016 at 11:39
“Now it’s time for Britain to invoke Article 50…”
Harding, I think your complaint lies with others.
Looks like Boris “Let’s not be hasty” Johnson has taken himself out of the running for any responsibility there.
Maybe they need another lecture from Jean-Claude Juncker about “respecting the will of the British people” to get their undemocratic buts in gear? Oh, the irony!
30. June 2016 at 11:49
Mike I know blabbering on about subjects you know nothing about is sortof your thing but this is a particularly stupid post from you. Why would Johnson support a referendum he thought would never pass? He was fully intent on being PM until he was knifed in the back by his running mate and over forty MPs switched sides with him. No one wants to lead Britain? You mean apart from the five people who have announced they want to do just that? Also if the young were so “totally against it” they would have bothered to get out of bed to vote.
30. June 2016 at 11:59
Hamilton,
I posted a similar suspicion about Johnson. Simply compare his pre- and post-Brexit behavior. Presumably, he thought he could spark populist conservative support, without facing the consequences of Brexit. He hasn’t exactly seemed thrilled that it occurred.
It’s just a guess as to whether he thought Leave would win. It’s not a possibility I’d dismiss.
30. June 2016 at 12:00
“Why would Johnson support a referendum he thought would never pass?”
Hmmm, mind you this is just speculation, but maybe for the same reason Ted Cruz led a dead end charge to shutdown the government until Obama agreed to buckle on his signature piece of legislation?
30. June 2016 at 12:03
“He hasn’t exactly seemed thrilled that it occurred.”
The day after I thought he looked like his dog just died.
30. June 2016 at 12:08
Scott, a few pointers:
1) Don’t read reader comments on The Guardian. That should go without saying, and yet, here we are.
2) Don’t read The Guardian. That should go without saying, and yet, here we are.
3) Cameron’s threat to invoke Article 50 immediately was actually a means of scaring people…away…from voting Brexit. The fact that he backed down, means Project Fear lost. Not Brexit.
4) Everyone of the Brexiters has said it will take time and negotiations etc before pulling out. No one was calling for Article 50 right away.
5) Mr Guardian commenter gets the story precisely…in reverse. That should go without saying, and yet…here we are.
30. June 2016 at 12:13
“I certainly don’t want it to take years but fear it will be slow walked by the elite and is being already slow walked by Cameron’s actions. He should be put in the tower.”–am
Who is the obstructionist elite, Brexit leaders? They can invoke Article 50 as soon as they are in charge, mere months from now. There is no reason to it last months, unless they gave no idea about what they are doing.
30. June 2016 at 12:26
Scott,
I don’t know enough history to have a dog in the underlying fight, but I don’t think you’re reading Dan W.’s comments charitably or even fairly.
As I read the debate, (1) Mike Sax complained that the pro-Brexit voters did a great deal of damage in service to “romantic illusions” and (2) Dan W responded that a lot of Jefferson’s thoughts were based on a romantic view of libertarianism that ultimately did a lot of good.
I do think that slaveholding, while unforgivable, doesn’t actually answer the question of whether the US would have been better off without Jefferson’s influence. It’s possible that a slaveholder nevertheless started a movement that improved things for the better, although all else being equal, it seems less likely than a non-slaveholder.
The underlying question is whether romantic libertarian illusions can nevertheless lead to good. (And, I suppose, whether the Brexit voters can really be described as romantic libertarians rather than romantic nationalists). Jefferson might be a data point in that discussion, if it’s true that he was an articulate proponent of romantic libertarian ideals,* and if his ideas ultimately changed things for the better than the counterfactual where he didn’t exist.** But it’s not reprehensible, IMHO, to ask those questions notwithstanding Jefferson’s slaveholding.
* I don’t know if he was or not
** I don’t know that either.
30. June 2016 at 12:27
Harding, You said:
“Also, Sumner, I suggest you unblock my IP address.”
And so paranoia is another of your attributes.
30. June 2016 at 12:39
A fertilized egg is no more a human than those skin cells because neither have a brain.
Wait 266 days and see what you get
A generation ago, just about no one who wrote for publication was ever this crude (bar Barbara Ehrenreich, of course).
30. June 2016 at 12:41
For years and years so many economists have been saying that the EU is a mess, but whenever push comes to shove, most of them want to keep it.
They’ll endorse anything with the character string ‘Trade Treaty’ on it as well, even though Jagdish Bhagwati will tell you that 99% of the text of these agreements consists of special interest carve outs.
30. June 2016 at 12:47
That the Leavers have no rational policy for proceeding is a bit worrisome. How do they expect to get the EU to give them the trading access they want without insisting on free movement of people?
Foosian, do you expect Germany to organize an embargo of Britain? Do you think the U.S. and Canada do not export to the EU countries? Do you fancy that everyone in the world is a member of the EU? Do you think the EU has some sort of Smoot-Hawley like uniform external tariff?* If the answer to these questions is ‘no’, does your complaint make any sense?
* (The mean ad valorem assessment on goods from non-EU countries is 0.8%).
30. June 2016 at 12:51
Art,
So true. This looks to me like an open and shut case on libertarian principles. The EU is the bigger government choice, and it doesn’t matter that the current UK motivation is anti-immigration and anti-trade. 50 years from now, all the varied sentiments will blow over and we’ll be left with a situation of either bigger government or smaller government.
There’s a saying: “sometimes you have to make the small mistake in order to avoid making the big mistake” Brexit is the small mistake that helps avoid the big mistake of increasingly powerful and layered bureaucracy.
30. June 2016 at 12:51
Oh, so now “Libertarians” (capitalized, no less) are slaveowners? Is this some kind of joke?
Under Virginia law at that time, manumitting slaves was a tangled legal procedure and Jefferson’s indebtedness was an impediment to putting any manumission plan into effect.
30. June 2016 at 12:56
(And, I suppose, whether the Brexit voters can really be described as romantic libertarians rather than romantic nationalists).
Voters are fed up with the European Commission, with the hag-chancellor’s flash mobs, with mass importation of East European construction workers, with Tony Blair’s elect-a-new-people party-building strategy, and with the catastrophe that is the southern underbelly of the Eurozone, and they’re romantics????
30. June 2016 at 12:58
but maybe for the same reason Ted Cruz led a dead end charge to shutdown the government until Obama agreed to buckle on his signature piece of legislation?
Why would anyone think you had any insight into Ted Cruz?
30. June 2016 at 13:02
J Mann,
I agree with your summary of the point I was making.
It is unfair to attack the Leave vote by saying the vote was made without having a plan. They had a plan. It was to vote Leave. Now begins the process of working out the process of actually leaving.
So it was with the American Revolution. When the Colonists voted to Leave they had nothing! They had no military. They had no national government. They had grievances against the King and a few had lofty ideas about how government should work. And from that began the journey to figure out how to build a free and independent nation.
30. June 2016 at 13:35
“It is unfair to attack the Leave vote by saying the vote was made without having a plan. They had a plan. It was to vote Leave. Now begins the process of working out the process of actually leaving.”
Yes. Which was the point of Project Fear: Cameron’s threat of enacting Article 50 immediately was in order to scare people from voting Brexit since obviously no one was prepared to leave the EU…instantly…after the vote.
Cameron backed down. Brexit won, not the other way around.
30. June 2016 at 13:38
“Mike I know blabbering on about subjects you know nothing about is sortof your thing but this is a particularly stupid post from you.”
Somebody’s projecting.
I feel bad even calling you Alexander Hamilton who also would have opposed this very stupid vote by the Brits. I say that as someone who was born there myself.
“Why would Johnson support a referendum he thought would never pass? He was fully intent on being PM until he was knifed in the back by his running mate and over forty MPs switched sides with him.”
You’ve never heard of the words political posturing before either. You say I know nothing about it but clearly I know a good deal more than you.
“No one wants to lead Britain? You mean apart from the five people who have announced they want to do just that? Also if the young were so “totally against it” they would have bothered to get out of bed to vote.”
Well Boris Johnson has taken himself out and Cameron has now too. I think being the next leader of Britain right now is sort of like being the next House GOP Speaker last year.
In theory it should be a great position, but except that the place is a disaster.
The country faces all these headwinds. No one even knows how to do Brexit and they all know it’s a totally stupid idea. With any luck Theresa May is the next PM and shelves Brexit.
“Also if the young were so “totally against it” they would have bothered to get out of bed to vote.”
This is why you must be projecting, Fake Alexander Hamilton, in calling me stupid or that I know nothing about it.
If you don’t know that 75% of the youth voted to Remain then you are truly being far too modest in calling anyone but yourself ignorant and stupid.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/meet-the-75-young-people-who-voted-to-remain-in-eu
Alexander Hamiltion deserves better than a intellectual lightweight like you using his name.
30. June 2016 at 13:42
And if you’ll recall, Blacks were converted to the Democratic Party by FDR, back when all the states that voted most strongly Democratic were the most racist. Your theory, Sumner, is bunk.
1. Economic catastrophe.
2. Herbert Hoover was as coldly indifferent to the welfare of blacks as any post-bellum president not named “Andrew Johnson” or “Woodrow Wilson”.
3. Eleanor Roosevelt.
Still, you had 20-30% of voting blacks casting ballots for the Republican Party for a generation afterward. It was not until about 1962 that blacks began voting Democratic by margins of 10-to-1.
30. June 2016 at 13:50
The country faces all these headwinds. No one even knows how to do Brexit and they all know it’s a totally stupid idea. With any luck Theresa May is the next PM and shelves Brexit.
The headwinds are an illusion generated by the hot air being emitted by the Remaindered. Inanities like ‘it’s a totally stupid idea’ may help you and your coffee-bar chums feel better while you’re gassing with each other. They are not, however, an argument in favor of the EU hydrocephalous.
Again, Teresa May will have to worry about her MPs and her voters defecting to UKIP. The woman has a history of being conflict-averse, no matter how inconvenient that is for the fulfillment of your political fantasies.
30. June 2016 at 13:52
If you don’t know that 75% of the youth voted to Remain then you are truly being far too modest in calling anyone but yourself ignorant and stupid.
You’re vote doesn’t count double just because you’re callow.
30. June 2016 at 14:01
“The headwinds are an illusion generated by the hot air being emitted by the Remaindered. Inanities like ‘it’s a totally stupid idea’ may help you and your coffee-bar chums feel better while you’re gassing with each other. They are not, however, an argument in favor of the EU hydrocephalous.”
So that’s what you do with your chums? I don’t know what ‘gassing each other’ means, and I don’t want to know either.
The markets clearly think it was a very stupid idea as trillions of dollars of wealth were lost. Yes, I know the market came back a little today-but it’s not clear that this is over by any stretch.
Overall, we now have all this needless uncertainty for the next how many years for a totally fake moment of British nostalgia. Sounds stupid to me. I can get to that point without any odd coffee pals.
“Again, Teresa May will have to worry about her MPs and her voters defecting to UKIP.”
Most of the Tories in Parliament don’t want Brexit.
I’m not saying this is 100% likely to happen but it’s probably at least a decent chance that this dopey thing never happens.
30. June 2016 at 14:04
“And so paranoia is another of your attributes.”
-ssumner, it doesn’t matter whether you consciously made the decision to block my IP address or not. It’s still blocked. And it has been blocked ever since you deleted some of my more foul-worded comments. I’m only commenting here via Tor.
“If you don’t know that 75% of the youth voted to Remain then you are truly being far too modest in calling anyone but yourself ignorant and stupid.”
-Only those who voted. Youth voter turnout for Brexit was the lowest for any age group.
Love your comments, Art Deco. You’re one of the most knowledgeable and highest-IQ people commenting here.
30. June 2016 at 14:05
Scott:
“And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten … the list grew and grew…”
Some of these things don’t sound all that daunting to me if they give themselves a decent transition period, say 5-10 years. Is the country that once ruled the world incapable now of reissuing passports or establishing rules for and staffing the Irish and Calais borders? As for tearing up mountains of legislation: that might be a good thing. And, as for continuing compliance with EU regulations for a free market: what’s so hard about saying that we will follow the current regulations until further notice?
The real danger it seems to me is if the European Union acts out of spite and doesn’t let England transition out gracefully. If they aren’t spiteful, they will allow existing agreements to stand during the transition while they work to establish new ones. They can start by copying and pasting the text from their Swiss trade agreements if they’re having trouble figuring out what to write. And if they aren’t arrogant, they’ll recognize that they wouldn’t be in this mess if they hadn’t tried to take away British toasters.
30. June 2016 at 14:18
“The markets clearly think it was a very stupid idea as trillions of dollars of wealth were lost.”
-As they are every other month or so. Nobody cares. Wealth is gained and lost every day. It’s called capitalism. “Muh pounds!” is not an argument when so relatively few of them are at stake.
“I’m not saying this is 100% likely to happen but it’s probably at least a decent chance that this dopey thing never happens.”
-Faithless electors are not often decisive in the electoral college. This is not as binding, but the same principle applies.
Again, what was so good about the E.U. anyway?
30. June 2016 at 14:19
The markets clearly think it was a very stupid idea as trillions of dollars of wealth were lost.
https://www.google.com/search?q=dax&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=dax&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=ftse+index
Just hit the ‘3 month’ option and you can see the flux in the DAX and FTSE the last quarter.
30. June 2016 at 14:28
Most of the Tories in Parliament don’t want Brexit.
But north of 40% of them do, and a losing 10% of them would be more than enough to take down the government. And, of course, you’d be betraying north of 55% of your electorate. Teresa May would be writing to Kim Campbell about late-middle age career changes.
Overall, we now have all this needless uncertainty for the next how many years for a totally fake moment of British nostalgia.
What’s fake? Where’s the ‘nostalgia’? Why is it either fake or nostalgiac to take your country out from under the European Commission?
30. June 2016 at 14:32
“Again, what was so good about the E.U. anyway?”
Soon the question will be ‘What’s so good about the UK anyway?’
The question for you is what’s so good about Little England as this is all that may be left soon if they do Brexit
The time path dependent nature of things means that the status quo is usually better.
What might have been the best policy at Time Zero won’t be in the future.
30. June 2016 at 14:33
Art if you don’t know what nostalgia means try a dictionary. You’ll get your answer there.
30. June 2016 at 14:36
“As they are every other month or so. Nobody cares. Wealth is gained and lost every day. It’s called capitalism. “Muh pounds!” is not an argument when so relatively few of them are at stake.”
From a capitalist standpoint Brexit was very stupid. The market likes certainty. This has led to all kinds of uncertainty for no reason.
It’s one thing when unforeseen stuff happens that you don’t choose.
Then you have uncertainty but it can’t be helped.
But this was chosen. In capitalist terms not smart at all.
30. June 2016 at 14:39
So, Mike, you’ve just demonstrated to us you can’t answer the question. And neither can any other butthurt Remainer I’ve seen.
30. June 2016 at 14:42
“This has led to all kinds of uncertainty for no reason.”
-“No reason”=”national independence from unaccountable bureaucrats”. And Cameron was OK with Turkey entering the EU, which, while not going to happen for quite a while, still scared the bejeezus out of people. Turkey is a terrorist state; they deserve every ounce of scorn they get.
30. June 2016 at 14:42
Some of these things don’t sound all that daunting to me if they give themselves a decent transition period, say 5-10 years.
You don’t need 5-10 years. That aside, the Gibraltar border has been there since 1714. The Czech lands separated from Slovakia with little fuss. The placement of British agents at the Chunnel is a minor issue (and see here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3666971/Europe-starts-crack-migrants-French-say-Britain-trade-deal-control-border.html). The Irish border is and will be less problematic than it was 30 years ago.
As for the ‘mountain of legislation’ (hmmm), you can break it up into sections and incorporate each section into the body of British law but with an expiration date. You stagger the expiration dates so committees of parliament can work on them in succession.
30. June 2016 at 14:45
From a capitalist standpoint Brexit was very stupid.
From the standpoint of anyone who did not take certain trading positions ‘ere 23 June, it matters not a whit. And traders lose money on specific deals every day.
30. June 2016 at 14:53
Art if you don’t know what nostalgia means try a dictionary. You’ll get your answer there.
Mike, ‘nostalgia’ is a term that’s pretty generally understood. Except, perhaps, by ‘Mike Sax’, who makes nonsensical use of it. Mike, this is nostalgia:
https://www.amazon.com/Thats-Entertainment-Fred-Astaire/dp/B0002OXVD2
and it’s perfectly harmless.
The question of whether or not to take Britain out from under the authority of the European Commission is not nostalgia nor is it motivated by nostalgia.
Now, ‘Nostalgia’ is used as a cant-term by liberals (see Christopher Lasch’s critique of its use) to avoid discussion of the ill effects of one or another of their policy maneuvers or cultural promotions. No one is under any obligation to take that seriously.
30. June 2016 at 15:21
Mike Sax,
When considering policies with long term ramifications, initial uncertainty is only of meager importance.
The fear of uncertainty is a primary tool authoritarians use to mold society to their views. If you wish to wait for good policies that so many people agree on that there won’t be any resultant uncertainty, you’re gonna be left waiting and waiting and waiting.
30. June 2016 at 15:38
“The fear of uncertainty is a primary tool authoritarians use to mold society to their views. If you wish to wait for good policies that so many people agree on that there won’t be any resultant uncertainty, you’re gonna be left waiting and waiting and waiting.”
There’s nothing to wait for. I said the status quo is usually preferable-not always-and not some Utopain moment of perfection. So I’m not waiting for anything. Unlike the fantasists on the Far Left and Right an live in the present.
It seems to me those with Utopian fantasies are the Brexiters along with their Trumpster cousins.
The point was is that Brexit led to a large amount of uncertainty that wasn’t needed.
If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. But the Brexiters like all good hypochondriacs came up with a phony cure-Brexit-for a phony illness-xenophobia.
This Brexit thing was not thought through by anyone-which is why the ignorant old Brits-the young didn’t vote for it-googled ‘What’s the EU’ and ‘What’s Brexit’ after the vote.
As for this talk of authoritarians the only ones that seemed happy about Brexit are authoritarians. Nick Farage, Putin, Iran, etc.
What trigged this latest pscyhosomatic illness I think infects a number of the Trumpsters as well: the very same xenophobia I mentioned above.
30. June 2016 at 15:43
Mike,
The EU is broke. 50 years from now it will be a far bigger deal if there’s a powerful EU than the 50-year-ago uncertainty caused by elites who wished they weren’t forced to no longer be a part of the EU.
30. June 2016 at 16:03
Re-issuing passports will break the bank?
Grexit next please. And print drachmas to the moon.
30. June 2016 at 16:13
It seems to me those with Utopian fantasies are the Brexiters along with their Trumpster cousins.
The ‘utopian fantasies’ exist in the space between your ears and nowhere else. Attributing them to me or Harding or Nigel Farage may improve your mood, but it’s still nonsense.
If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
The EU is broke. See: Greek labor market, Spanish labor market, refugee flash mobs, and the European Commission.
What trigged this latest pscyhosomatic illness
Quit projecting.
30. June 2016 at 16:17
“Nick Farage,”
-The closest thing to a libertarian in mainstream British politics.
“Putin,”
-No more authoritarian than anyone else in Russia.
“Iran, etc.”
-Because China and Saudi Arabia are true friends of liberty.
“This Brexit thing was not thought through by anyone-which is why the ignorant old Brits-the young didn’t vote for it-googled ‘What’s the EU’ and ‘What’s Brexit’ after the vote.”
-Lies are the name of your game, aren’t they? The margin of victory was a million votes. Only a thousand likely non-voters, most probably young and ignorant, googled these terms.
“The point was is that Brexit led to a large amount of uncertainty that wasn’t needed.”
-In the timeless words of the Joker, “nobody panics when things go according to plan”.
“If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”
-But the E.U. is broken in so many different ways! If you can’t see that, you are blind.
30. June 2016 at 16:27
“If you don’t know that 75% of the youth voted to Remain then you are truly being far too modest in calling anyone but yourself ignorant and stupid”
You mean…75% of the “youts” didn’t even bother to show up to vote, meaning that they didn’t actually care one way or another.
What is this “youts”?
Brexit won the majority in those 40+. It won close to majority in the 30-35 demographic.
It only lost substantially in the 18-30 demographic: i.e., people who are by and large not working and not benefiting from all the supposed arguments for why staying in the EU is such a great idea.
And of the 18-30 demographic, close to 70% didn’t show up to vote.
So Brexit lost 60% of the 30% of 18-30 year olds. Wow…YOUTS!
So a “yout” is 18-30, and anyone 35 and over is a grandpa. Got it.
30. June 2016 at 16:28
@E. Harding
How much freer will the citizens of England and Whales be after Brexit has been fully implemented? Can you put a number on it? A percentage? Estimate it if you need to. And then justify that number with evidence? Also, can you estimate the cost in pounds of that newly acquired freedom? I’d like you to be as specific as possible. Thanks.
30. June 2016 at 16:36
… if you don’t like the way I formulated that request, then point me to your favorite three detailed quantitative cost benefit analyses of Brexit, which I’m sure you’ve spent a great deal of time studying at length. Thanks.
30. June 2016 at 16:39
… favorite in terms of the ones that you feel are the most accurate. Again, much appreciated.
30. June 2016 at 17:18
Is it even possible to do a meaningful quantitative analysis of something this varied?
30. June 2016 at 17:21
For decades, the most divisive issue in the Conservative Party has been the EU. They now have a chance to put that behind them and implement the (majority) people’s decision. I am confident they will take it and they have a majority in the House of Commons.
In the race of life, back self-interest, it’s the only horse that’s trying.
Well known Australian political adage.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Lang
Also, Brexit will mean the UK (pop 64m) will be in a similar position to Australia (pop 23m), which also has a higher per capita GDP. That is a dreadful place to be why exactly?
I am sure the transition will have some awkward bits to it, but the internal United Kingdom dynamics are surely where the key difficulties lie.
30. June 2016 at 17:25
Here’s something I don’t understand:
When economists discuss migration, they tend to only think of it in its most simple terms — how it creates greater economic benefit and all that. I never see them discuss it in terms of unintended consequences, like how immigration from an anti-capitalist culture can undermine capitalism and thus undermine the aforementioned economic benefit.
Try this: turn the world into a global federation and give everybody the vote. Then watch as our prosperous western capitalist democracies turn into socialist, welfarist, fundamentalist-religion hellholes.
30. June 2016 at 17:40
“Is it even possible to do a meaningful quantitative analysis of something this varied?”
What else do you have to go on? Feelings?
30. June 2016 at 17:44
Logic.
For example, it’s not because of data or quantitative analyses that economists believe the minimum wage reduces the demand for labor; it’s because of the logic derived from supply and demand. At least, that’s AFAIK.
30. June 2016 at 17:56
@Steve F, no science is accomplished by sitting in an armchair and using only logic. The results would be no better than your starting assumptions. It’s OK for mathematics perhaps, where you accept the starting assumptions as a given, but it’s not useful for describing reality.
30. June 2016 at 17:59
I get that. The point is to be as empirical as possible. Still, I look at economics and I see something a lot different. Even something as basic as minimum wage has so many variables that studies can only tell us so much.
30. June 2016 at 18:21
Karl Marx was blatant racist, who believed Europeans were genetically superior to all others and defended American slavery. I guess that explains why so few African Americans are members of the Communist party…makes sense to me.
30. June 2016 at 20:03
I have to imagine that the upcoming elections will feature candidates who want to move forward with the Brexit and those who do not. Imagine that one of the Remain-After-All candidates wins enough seats to form the next government. Has there been any opinion polling so far that can tell us whether the Leave supporters (in the main) would accept that they had just lost the only vote that really matters with regard to democratic legitimacy of the outcome?
1. July 2016 at 01:24
@ArtDeco – tariffs are not the issue, regulations and proving compliance are the issue. In order to sell to Germany, UK exporters will have to comply with EU regulations regarding goods to be sold and will have to prove compliance. Complying will mean continuing with so many pesky EU regulations (or increase costs by having separate goods for domestic and export). Proving compliance can be costly and time consuming. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y and https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/what-s-wrong-with-the-wto-option-1fcbf5e8cee6#.ss0b414il
1. July 2016 at 04:51
“In the race of life, back self-interest, it’s the only horse that’s trying.”
That assumes self interest points in the direction of Brexit. It very well might not if the next 5 months continue to be very messy.
It’s impossible to predict what public sentiment will be by then. Already they’ve backpedaled. Cameron had claimed that Brexit was going to be done overnight.
Now it’s ‘Why the rush.’
I’m not saying they will table Brexit just that it’s not implausible that they will.
The odds of it are nontrivial. But the Brexiters in this comments section act like they know with 100% certainly that it isn’t tabled-either through an act of parliament, or a new referendum, or just dragging out the process interminably and at some point backing off.
1. July 2016 at 04:55
A big wild card too with Brexit is what public opinion is in five months. It’s quite possible that if they could do it again now, Brexit would lose.
It depends on the currents of public opinion in October. If, for instance, there was another referendum no one could claim that was undemocratic. As the Brexiters are so confident that this is the true, immutable view of the British people-rather than they believed a bunch of lies that have already been debunked-then what’s their objection to a second referendum just to be sure?
1. July 2016 at 05:00
AIG thinks Brexit is proven because I made a typo. Talk about logic.
Trump is the king of typos and the racists all love him. So AIG Is just grasping at straws
1. July 2016 at 05:05
“The ‘utopian fantasies’ exist in the space between your ears and nowhere else. Attributing them to me or Harding or Nigel Farage may improve your mood,”
Art Deco is always speculating on my mood. Not surprisingly his speculations about my mood are as wrong as his speculations in most other things.
What would improve my mood is if Utopian fantasists like you, Harding, Farage, and Trump couldn’t impose your xenophobic nonsense on the rest of us.
When that happens I’ll be like Boehner the day he was no longer House Speaker. Zip to de do dah, zip to de day.
If your goal in life is worrying over my mood that’s how to improve it.
1. July 2016 at 06:30
I never see them discuss it in terms of unintended consequences, like how immigration from an anti-capitalist culture can undermine capitalism and thus undermine the aforementioned economic benefit.
No, the tools economists have at their disposal do not allow such consideration. Bryan Caplan has devoted much of his career to applying economist’s tools to political questions; I suspect there were more promising research programs and I doubt anyone out of a certain stable finds his work of much use.
These sorts of things are in the ambo of the study of social relations. The trouble with sociology and anthropology is that they’re apologetical disciplines and people who approach questions with disapproved normative assumptions or who reach the ‘wrong’ answers can be subject to professional harassment. This has happened to some psychologists who’ve touched 3d rails as well, but psychology is so variegated there are places for dissidents to hide out. Robert Putnam, after some delay, published inconvenient reseach. He is however, a political scientist and poli sci is, again, much more variegated and tolerant.
1. July 2016 at 06:40
Art Deco is always speculating on my mood.
I don’t care about your mood, Mike. I do note that you attribute things to me and to Harding and to Nigel Farage that could never be derived from anything one of us has actually said. It is the issue of your imagination or your forensic games. To anyone remotely familiar with Harding, such a characterization sounds unreal. As for me, I’ve been reading newspapers for 40 years. If I thought flesh and blood human beings could or would create shining cities on a hill, I’d have been disabused of the idea by now. Just balancing the federal budget routinely is beyond our politicians.
Words like ‘nostalgia’ and ‘utopian fantasists’ have meanings even if they are abstractions. They’re not generic insults like ‘jerkface’.
1. July 2016 at 06:46
@ArtDeco – tariffs are not the issue, regulations and proving compliance are the issue.
Foosian, exports to the EU from the rest of the world have been running to about $1.7 trillion Euros per annum in recent years. The ratio of imports to domestic product in the EU is about 11% (a bit below the 12.5% which prevails for the United States). Somehow, American, Canadian, and Russian enterprises manage to make good coin selling to EU customers without being EU members.
1. July 2016 at 08:21
As to the fate of Boris, I dunno, it might be no more than typical backstabbing run-of-the-mill betrayal politics.
“Gove and Johnson: What happened?… three different accounts:”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36679738
By the way, some years back Boris very amusingly related the travails of getting an op-ed written for the NY Times past its editors — so funny because it was true.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=19137
I’ve watched and greatly enjoyed Boris ever since.
1. July 2016 at 09:40
Carl, You said:
“They can start by copying and pasting the text from their Swiss trade agreements if they’re having trouble figuring out what to write.”
The Brits won’t accept that deal, as it involves free flow of labor.
Lorenzo, You said:
“For decades, the most divisive issue in the Conservative Party has been the EU. They now have a chance to put that behind them and implement the (majority) people’s decision.”
Maybe, but I don’t see this issue going away.
Engineer, I was talking about current attitudes, not attitudes 200 years ago.
Take a deep breath.
3. July 2016 at 21:10
Scott: results by constituency reinforce my point.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisapplegate/why-a-pro-eu-party-could-be-screwed-in-the-next-election?utm_term=.yqe1WKkXw#.qtQmN24pk
4. July 2016 at 12:36
The Brits won’t accept that deal, as it involves free flow of labor.
The Swiss don’t accept this deal either. In 2014 for example the Swiss voted against free migration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#The_2014_referendum
Brexit is nothing new. It began way earlier – and for good reasons. And the EU makes no signs of changing – stubborn and arrogant as ever. So the exit movements will continue.
The solution is clearly the Norwegian model. They got a common market without the free flow of labor. Some voters might get realize in the future. They might ask: Why them and not us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway%E2%80%93European_Union_relations
4. July 2016 at 12:44
Lorenzo, It’s always going to be a question of degree, and that debate (within the Conservatives) won’t go away.
Christian, You said:
“The solution is clearly the Norwegian model. They got a common market without the free flow of labor.”
Wrong. They must accept EU workers.
4. July 2016 at 12:50
The comment by “Teebs” is wrong in parts.
Article 50 has not been triggered so far because it would be a very stupid idea as a basis for negotiations. Trigger it now and you lose so much bargaining power.
And Boris Johnson stepped back simple because he lost support in his party. Take Michael Gove as an example.
And all the other “great insides” Teebs wrote about were no secrets at all to informed people. Even Breitbart wrote about all this at length. Two months earlier. In April.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/20/michael-gove-says-dont-need-article-50-wants-second-referendum/
So it looks like this: Publish Breitbart articles two months later in The Guardian and people will think you are a genius. But you are not. The Guardian and its audience are just stupid. At least in this case. I bet it’s not the only case.
4. July 2016 at 13:01
Wrong. They must accept EU workers.
Yes you are right, I looked it up. I thought an article by Die Welt was right but it’s clearly not.
It’s weird that they prefer this solution because this way they have all the “taxation” but zero “representation” in the EU.
But the opinion polling is stark. From 37%/38% Yes/No EU membership in 2003 to 19%/70% in 2016. Not hard to imagine how they might vote in a Nexit referendum.