The pound has tanked. The FTSE has tanked. Our credit rating with at least one of the main agencies has been downgraded to 'negative' (which impacts on the price we pay for ongoing borrowing). Scotland is angling for independence again. Northern Ireland is debating similar issues. Meanwhile, Cameron has stalled triggering the Article 50 exit procedure. Johnson and Gove have agreed 'there is no rush'. (Boris stated some months ago that he believed a Brexit vote would trigger further negotiations and a second referendum on more favourable terms). Farrage and co have accepted that the '350M to the NHS' claim and the claimed downwards impact on immigration are not truthful potential outcomes. This may yet all turn out OK. In particular, if the EU as a whole breaks up in it's present form (which is certainly a possible outcome) then we will at the very least probably not be any worse off - assuming trade links can quickly be reinstated without all the bureaucracy. But I remain of my previous view that we don't know either the potential costs of all this or the potential benefits. So we are basically gambling with jobs, mortgages and pensions without being able to calculate tthe risks and rewards. The received wisdom seems to be that many (but not all) of the 'leave' voters may be people who have suffered in terms of quality of living, and therefore have little to lose. I'm not about to (and haven't so far) accused anyone of racism or stupidity (except Farrage). But I do have a suspicion that the motives of some leave campaigners are less than wholesome or satisfactory. Where will it all end? Who knows. Hold on - it's going to be a bumpy ride.
And I'm just thinking through the issues about trade - on which our prosperity depends. Boris's position has been (if I understand it) that because trade is a two-way thing, and because we are one of the EU's most important trading partners as well as the other way round, we will be able to continue to participate in the single market. The early reactions coming from the EU hierarchy suggest that some feel that on no account should we be allowed to continue to participate. It looks a very strong bet that even if the EU's position softens, then our continued particicipation in the single market will be on the proviso that we continue to adhere to all the rules and regulations of the participating countries - including continued freedom of movement. If we choose to go along with that, what will the referendum all have been for? If we do not choose to carry on abiding by those terms pertaining to the single market then we will need to strike new free trade deals with the US and with the 'BRICs' countries. President Obama has already reiterated his advice that we 'will be at the back of the queue' for any new trade deal. I don't think this is bloody-mindedness. Even the US has a finite limit on the size of it's negotiating team and that team's efforts are bound to be concentrated on talking with the EU, which is a much larger trading bloc than Britain. If we rise up that queue, then bearing in mind that our negotiating position will be weaker standing alone any deal struck is likely to be on 'TTIP' terms. That will be disastrous for jobs, public services and hence, living conditions in the UK. Alternatively, if our trading negotiations have to be focused on countries such as Brazil, Russia, China and India, we will place ourselves in a situation of more intense competition with low-wage economies, which can only have the effect of further depressing pay and conditions in this country. The conditions that must apply to any deal on trade we strike with whoever demonstrate that the idea of 'taking back control' is illusory. Going forward, the economic danger we are now in dwarfs any issues concerning immigration, real or imagined.
I am depressed now as I was the morning after, when I woke up to find that the British public had voted to leave. I voted REMAIN and I voted purely on economic grounds. None of what has happened since has surprised me. In fact, I have predicted everything that has happened so far. The consequences of the vote, economically, will be a disaster for our country. On the Tory side, the motives of Boris Johnson are straight forward. He wanted to be Prime Minister, and he was prepared to do anything to achieve his ambition. He has seized his chance and he has got rid of Cameron. He knows that there is no opposition on the Labour side, because Corbyn is unelectable. He knows that he has a very good chance of winning a snap general election whilst the Labour party is in chaos. But what will he do then. I tell you what he will do. He will reinterpret the vote to leave the EU as a vote to renegotiate our position within the EU. The negotiations will begin as negotiations of our term of departure, but will gradually change emphasis and direction. They will become negotiations on our revised terms of membership. He will achieve little because the free movement of labour is central to the founding principals of the EU, but he will come back waving a new piece of paper and tell the electorate that he has negotiated a new deal. He will recommend that we all accept the new terms and we will have a new vote on the terms. Every MP will campaign for acceptance of the new deal, and the British public will agree. Boris will have everything he ever wanted.
Interesting piece from 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 legistlation 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."
Its certainly going to be interesting, lots of the Tories 'remainers' especially have got it in for Boris and a lot of Labour MP's haver got it in for Corbyn because of his half arsed efforts. I do feel sorry for some of the ones who voted out though, they all seem to get hammered with the racist stuff, when really many were just concerned about our lack of infrastructure, health, schools, housing etc
Unscientific survey in the Wetherspoons in Wombell last night I heard the following reasons from those who Wanted out. To get shut of Pakis. To stop Muslims. To get rid of Polish kids playing in the local parks. Cos I hate Turks. To stop Sharia law taking over. So my kids don't have to wear a veil. Genius. Of course it's about those issues.
Really interesting analysis. I can see a lot of logic in what the article says. Interesting now to see how it pans out.
