Back in the Queue

Josh Marshall looks at a reader's feedback:

"I hadn't taken Obama's statement that a post-EU UK would have to go 'to the back of the line' for trade negotiations that seriously. I'd seen it as more a nudge to ward off any expectation that trade relations with the US would be instantly restored on some crash course negotiation. But the possibility of the break-up of the UK itself (which seems like a very real possibility to me over the 4 to 5 year time horizon) hadn't occurred to me as a drag on potential negotiations."

"Overall, I liked your post about Brexit. I will have to say though that I'm doubtful the US will make a deal with the UK outside the EU a priority."

1) If Brexit makes it look like the UK may split apart within 5 years, the opportunity costs of negotiating with the UK just are high. USTR isn't that large an office, so negotiations with the likes of EU states (TTIP) and China are probably going to take a higher priority when deciding how to use scarce resources. TPP will probably have to go back to the negotiating table somehow for another round of negotiations if it's going to pass the next Congress. A temporary US-UK deal may not be worth the manpower. If anything, we'll probably be more concerned about where to locate the UK's nukes that are currently located in Scotland."

2) My general impression from the people I know at USTR is that the failure of TPP (and also the Sanders and Trump campaigns) has left a lot of people there shellshocked. USTR needs a win for it to be taken seriously, but spending time on negotiating with a country that might not exist in 5 years would just look foolish."

3) The next president also doesn't want to intentionally annoy the major EU states. The next British PM is probably going to be weak until elections are held. Chances are Clinton (if she wins) will care more about our productive relationship with people like Merkel than some blowhard like Boris Johnson, who is just a bull in a china shop. The major remaining EU states together - Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland - matter to us more than the UK by itself. These EU states and the EU as a whole would be annoyed by the US playing nice with a country that just openly insulted Europe. If anything, the EU will want to increase the economic pain on the UK to create disincentives to leaving. That is why EU officials are talking already about fast-tracking the UK's exit."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/out-of-luck

One argument that the Brexiters have made is that Brexit might lead to the dissolution of the EU-if other countries also in light of Brexit also leave.

If there is no more EU, then maybe then the US will be forced to make Britain more central to trade again.

But as this commentator says, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Poland are going to be important trading partners for the US either way.

Little England just screwed us all?

So says Felix Salmon:

"I’m sitting here looking at my burgundy-red British passport, with EUROPEAN UNION emblazoned in gold letters across the top. I’ve fastened the shirt I’m wearing with cufflinks which have the UK flag on one side, and the German flag on the other—my proud European heritage. I’m thinking about everything I loved about growing up in London: the food, the culture, the fact that in one teeming, vibrant city you could find the entire world. I’m thinking about the single happiest moment that I ever saw my (German) mother, when I ran into the kitchen and told her to come, watch the TV, the Berlin Wall was coming down, the unthinkable was happening. Europe was really, truly, coming together."

"And I’m grieving. Because that world—the world of hope, the world of ever-closer union among countries which for centuries would kill each other by the million—came to a shattering end on Thursday."

http://fusion.net/story/318538/england-brexit-screwed-us-all/

I've had some interesting discussions with some of my leading readers like Greg and Nanute. Greg in particular, thinks it's a good decision. I'm much more skeptical. I think staying was the right choice. There are two things that have to be looked at on their own terms:

1. Being on the euro. This has been a disaster. I'm all for any country voting off the euro. Of course, the trouble is that even though that would be in the long term a better choice there is so much pain involved in the transition.

2. Being in the EU. There probably are benefits and negatives to that. I think those who like Brexit don't acknowledge the benefits that Salmon points out so vividly.

"It happened with a wholly unnecessary vote, which was called by Britain’s gormless prime minister, David Cameron, for the sole purpose of trying to engineer a tactical advantage in last year’s general election. The Brexit referendum—the referendum that sealed the fate of an entire continent—should never have happened in the first place. But even though the decision to call the referendum was truly idiotic, the responsibility for the outcome still rests on the shoulders of the British people—and, specifically, of the English people."

I tend to agree with him. I say 'tend' as it's a complex question that I don't want to pretend to be too confident about. Brexit may work out. Of course, even if in the long term Britain is ok economically I think they will likely lose politically.

Cameron surely is a joke.

Even a guy as leftist populist as Ryan Cooper agrees that such foundational questions are not normally good to put to a referendum or at least not one with a 50+.1 standard.

It should take 60 percent at least.

Some will say that it's' wrong to do anything that people don't get to vote on. Well consider: if American independence had been put to a vote it wouldn't have happened.

Those who were strong Patriots and wanted independence were only about 25 percent of the public. Most people were agnostic. They were not strongly inclined either way.

Now there's talk of Texit. Maybe it would pass. The ballot box is often not strong enough to decide such foundational questions.

The question of Unionism was not decided at the ballot box but in our most bloody way, the Civil War.

P.S. Shadi Hamid, the Middle Eastern scholar, feels differently:

I guess we're now going to spend the next six months thinking of creative ways to deny the democratic will of British voters."

https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/746859718321246208

I disagree that calling for another referendum is undemocratic. You can argue how democratic referendums are anyway.

Again, such a large foundational question deserves more than 50.1 percent.

Beyond this, Hitler was also elected. I can't agree that you can be absolute about this.