What will the UK election results mean for the EU and Scottish independence?

[cristo]

Isn't this a statement that you don't support a (presumed future) democratic decision? A decision made possible by an election? The Euroskeptic movement is apparently gaining support in Britain. That this will impact future government actions is democracy, no?

Sure, but I just don't think the public should be given the chance to change things in such a dramatic way. The number of people that will/are sold by the "Eastern Europeans coming here stealing our jobs" nonsense is the scary part.

In most countries the government doesn't control the outcome of referenda.

Well, to be fair, they do get to decide when the referendum will take place, and someone has to decide who can vote (EU citizens resident in the UK, presumably). That's what I meant.

I think that's not a stupid question. I think an entirely reasonable question is "What are the costs and benefits to the UK remaining in the EFTA but not the EU?" Most of the pro-EU arguments I have read are on economic grounds - grounds where the EFTA would provide most of the same benefits. This is especially true since the UK has opted out of major EU programs: Schengen and the Euro come to mind.

That's a reasonable question, but will anyone be able to provide a straight answer?

 

[lavoisier]

@SteamKing - BTW thanks for your thorough answer to my question about the electoral system.
And sorry for my comment on the UK's politics. I didn't mean to question or criticize the choice Britain made, I just think it's going to be very tough on society to move even further toward a certain model that is not so 'tried-and-tested' this side of the Atlantic. But perhaps in the long run it will turn out to be the right choice for the UK. We'll see.
As for the EU and the euro... well, not very popular with many people on 'the Continent' either at the moment, I can tell you. Yes, the arrogant, hideous face of an incredibly expensive yet inefficient and often business-averse, privileged EU bureaucracy is something many EU citizens, heavily struck by crisis after crisis and crushing austerity measures that regularly took away mainly from the wrong people, really can't stomach any longer. So yes, it's possible that the whole thing will fail. Trouble is that if that happens in an abrupt and inconsiderate way, on the wave of a populist movement, once again only the interests of 'some' will be safeguarded (because they will see that coming and will make sure they get away with it not only unscathed, but better off still!), whereas a multitude of people will again be unjustly punished, made even poorer and deprived of rights and hope for the future. A more reasoned, gradual process that increases the efficiency while decreasing the expense of the EU machinery, and re-establishes some *internationally* valid principles of social justice in business and finance to protect the most defenseless against the solely profit-driven excesses of such systems, is preferable in my opinion. More difficult to achieve, perhaps, but probably socially fairer.
I may be wrong, but I don't think we should play Monopoly with the lives of hundreds of millions of people, that's all.

 

[mheslep]

Article 50: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Given this was the rule under which the people democratically decided to join the Union, what is overly dramatic about the people democratically deciding to leave. Is there to be a new rule for the democratic process, that suffrage is to be denied when some decide the electorate is improperly biased? Who's to be the some? Return of the nobility?

 

[Vanadium 50]

but is there a mathematical theory of how biased this system can be compared to proportionality?

Whole books have been written about this. There is also a theorem by Kenneth Arrow that says that with more than two candidates, there is no voting system that provides a universal, well-behaved way to aggregate individual preferences to community preferences - i.e. there is no perfect voting system. It can also be proven that there are no voting systems with more than two candidates where tactical voting (voting for a less preferred candidate to produce a more preferred outcome) is never effective.

 

[Czcibor]

OK - this is an extreme case that is probably very unlikely to happen in reality, but is there a mathematical theory of how biased this system can be compared to proportionality?
And does anybody know what the justification was for choosing this system as opposed to a purely proportional one?

I'm not 100% certain about it, but I think that's a legacy issue.

In the past there were attempts to use other extreme - almost perfectly proportional system. Let's say that also was problematic - too many small parties. Result was lack of stable rule, which in case of 2nd Polish Republic lead to military coup d'etat, and semi dictatorship was considered as reasonable solution.

In consequence to provide for stable rule there are mechanism for tweaking a bit result. For example in Poland, for parliament:
- only parties with at least 5% of votes get seats
-theoretically system is claimed being proportional, but using D'Hondt method makes it a bit biased against small parties (example in 2011 SLD got 8,2% votes and 5,8% of seats)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method

 

[Czcibor]

Everyone seems to be crying in their beers over the possibility that the UK might leave the EU.

What happens if Europe leaves the EU behind? Will Greece and Germany be able to make up, I mean, without mentioning the War?

Is the euro the currency of the future, or just another Continental dead end?

What has Europe ever done for the UK? I mean, besides Napoleon and the World Wars.

Why would it be such a catastrophe for the UK not to be bound by whatever the circus in Brussels does?

Can a nation in the 21st Century survive if there are no bureaucrats somewhere telling it what the proper shape of its bananas should be?

Could it be that the EU needs the UK now more than vice versa?

Honestly speaking I doubt that EU does not UK any more, then UK needs Scotland. But if a referendum goes, then it could be changed.

So your point is that UK should be cut off from the common market? (that would be blow for the business) Or maybe UK should adopt EU regulation, but as an EEA country (like Norway or Switzerland)?

How do you think, Scotland is quite strongly pro EU... Maybe England, Welsh and North Ireland should leave EU, while leaving Scotland in the EU? :D

 

[SteamKing]

Honestly speaking I doubt that EU does not UK any more, then UK needs Scotland. But if a referendum goes, then it could be changed.

The statement above is unclear. There is a missing verb in the clause, "I doubt that EU does not ... UK any more"

So your point is that UK should be cut off from the common market? (that would be blow for the business) Or maybe UK should adopt EU regulation, but as an EEA country (like Norway or Switzerland)?

I didn't say anything like that. And if the UK decides to pull out of the EU, why would that prevent the UK from trading with the EU? The UK and the Common Market co-existed before the EU was founded. I don't see why trade with the Common Market should be interrupted should the UK vote to leave the EU.

How do you think, Scotland is quite strongly pro EU... Maybe England, Welsh and North Ireland should leave EU, while leaving Scotland in the EU? :D

As long as the UK remains 'united', even if in name only, international policy should be decided by the national government. I fail to see why the rest of the UK should defer to Scotland on this point or any other, for that matter.

There was a referendum in Scotland about whether they should become independent of the rest of the UK. It failed. Obviously, a majority of Scots decided not to go it alone and remain with the UK, which implies that although many Scots may not agree with the policies established by Westminster, enough of them don't feel that this is sufficient cause to break up the UK.

 

[Czcibor]

The statement above is unclear. There is a missing verb in the clause, "I doubt that EU does not ... UK any more"

verb - "need"; sorry

I didn't say anything like that. And if the UK decides to pull out of the EU, why would that prevent the UK from trading with the EU? The UK and the Common Market co-existed before the EU was founded. I don't see why trade with the Common Market should be interrupted should the UK vote to leave the EU.

You didn't say that directly. UK is not in the EU for ex. some great spiritual gains but mostly for common market. The default idea is, that if you leave EU by default quite many privileges are no longer applicable. For example there would be a tariff border between the UK and the UE. Or a located in any EU country branch of a British company paying dividend/interests/royalty fees to its mother company would be subject to a withholding tax (UK would not be subject to EU Parent Subsidiary Directive, right? :D ). Or British food exporters would have to make extra paper work to show that their food pass EU standards.

Because European Communities don't exist any more? And the successor organization is the EU?

So maybe the UK should apply afterwards to join the European Economic Area, and have most of free trade advantages without being formally within the EU? But then your argument concerning bananas (semi-mythical being from Banana War) is no longer valid, as an EEA country they would have to follow EU regulations anyway.

As long as the UK remains 'united', even if in name only, international policy should be decided by the national government. I fail to see why the rest of the UK should defer to Scotland on this point or any other, for that matter.

There was a referendum in Scotland about whether they should become independent of the rest of the UK. It failed. Obviously, a majority of Scots decided not to go it alone and remain with the UK, which implies that although many Scots may not agree with the policies established by Westminster, enough of them don't feel that this is sufficient cause to break up the UK.

Honestly speaking I fail to see sufficient cause to break up either the UK or the EU. But that's a beauty of such referendum when nationalistic pride can beat rational calculation.

Why? Because for Scots one of arguments for staying in the UK, was risk of having to re-apply for joining in the EU and this argument would no longer be valid.

 

[epenguin]

I just asked one of our managers if there were any contingency plans now that we know for sure that there will be an in-out referendum for the UK's membership of the EU in 2017.
We -like most research institutes and universities in the UK- get much of our funding from the EU (e.g. FP7 and now H2020), this is also the main mechanism we use to set up formal collaborations with partners in the rest of Europe.
Even the mere fact that there will be a referendum is therefore going to have a huge effect on science in the UK. Starting from today the uncertainty about what would happen if the UK was to leave will make it more difficult to set up collaborations and apply for funding.

I don't even want to think about what would happen if the people in the UK actually voted to leave in 2017. It would be a complete disaster for science in the UK.

Don't worry, I am sure this is one of the many things where an exit will make no detectable difference from the point of view of the scientist. The UK will continue to take full part in the FW Programmes, as do the non-EU members, Switzerland, Norway and Israel (and as did many countries during pre-accession periods).

More broadly this is just one of the ways in which an exit will be all appearance. The UK will still have to conform to to the thousands of laws and regulations, participate in Programmes like Science and Environment etc. and pay in, all the things the UK public has been told it is discontented with, just with more complicated arrangements and reduced influence.

At this moment the official idea is Cameron will renegotiate the terms of British EU membership, and then seek approval of the terms in a referendum. Nobody knows just what he will renegotiate and I tell you he doesn't either. They will be minor things which he will have to trumpet as major concessions, nothing needing all this hoo-ha. He is IMO more likely to win than not, but only just, a serious worry. It is all too typical of the lack of any positive leadership of the public concerning the EU from the political class which is nearly all committed to membership - rather than positive lead forwards they put on an act of being dragged backwards into it. What politician is going to take the risk of trying to educate the public, or incur the enmity of the press barons?

One potential disaster would be if it comes out that an exit option wins in England and loses in Scotland, which would furnish a new pretext for separation.

 

[SteamKing]

The default idea is, that if you leave EU by default quite many privileges are no longer applicable. For example ... :D ). Or British food exporters would have to make extra paper work to show that their food pass EU standards.

It's not clear that the amount of any paperwork is reduced by joining the EU. If anything, it only seems to increase, since shuffling paperwork is the lifeblood of any bureaucracy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Janet Daley has an interesting opinion piece in the Telegraph (for non-UK readers, the Telegraph leans right) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...he-British-people-was-entirely-justified.html

One excerpt:

But the question that demands an answer is: why did so many voters feel compelled to avoid telling Mr Kellner and his friends their real intentions? Because that is certainly what happened. I am as sure of this as I was of the eventual election result: the four in 10 poll respondents who said they had not yet made up their minds who to vote for (a figure that remained remarkably consistent right to the end) did not, as one Labour spokesman claimed, suddenly decide “when they had the pencils in their hands” that they were going to support the Tories. Most of them knew all along that they were going to do that – but they were not willing to say so.

Somehow we have arrived at a point where the conscientiously held beliefs and values of the majority of the population have become a matter for secret shame. The desire to do as well as you can in life, to develop your potential and expect to be rewarded for it, to provide your family with the greatest possible opportunity for self-improvement and to do that on your own without being dependent on the state – these are the assumptions that seem to have become so unacceptable that identifying with them is beyond the pale, or at least so socially outrageous that it is not worth the ignominy of admitting to them.

This is very similar to the US in 1972, where Richard Nixon swept 49 states, prompting the comment, "How could this happen? Nobody I know voted for Nixon!"

 

[Czcibor]

Janet Daley has an interesting opinion piece in the Telegraph (for non-UK readers, the Telegraph leans right) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...he-British-people-was-entirely-justified.html
One excerpt:
This is very similar to the US in 1972, where Richard Nixon swept 49 states, prompting the comment, "How could this happen? Nobody I know voted for Nixon!"

Same as in Poland, except:
-there are plenty of changing parties in power, but anyway the anti-establishment ones are
under-represented in opinion polls (or people who don't vote tend to claim when questioned supporting something moderate)
-the Agricultural Party is always underrepresented, but it seems that no-one bothers to ask its constituents (the explanation of anti-establisment fails at them, so it seems that some samples are a bit biased against people from tiny villages)Anyway, in Poland we just had the first round of presidential election and the winner so far according to exit polls is a right wing populist, so I'm not delighted.