Europe - Collapse dynamics

[JimD]

We have had the US topic here for some time.  Seem's like one on Europe is long due.  After all big disruptions are likely there long before they really impact the US.

Here is a nice start - though there have been dozens of good choices over the last couple of years.  This is going to leave a mark as the saying goes.

Germany

The assaults and harassment of women by groups of young men of Arab or North African descent have hit Cologne like a bombshell. The shocking incidents are a turning point for German society, says DW's Volker Wagener.

Under the cover of darkness they gathered in large numbers - right in the center of Cologne. They were drunk. They groped under skirts and blouses. There is no doubt about who the perpetrators were: they were young, male and looked North African or Arab.
Unfailingly, this has brought the migration and refugee debate to a new level.....

That includes strengthening the police.
How can dozens of women be at the mercy of the assailants, with no protection whatsoever? A seasoned police officer pinpoints law enforcement's helplessness, saying that filing crimes away is all they can do these days. Germany's police union has already said there probably won't be a single conviction. The police simply lack the personnel needed to conduct effective criminal proceedings.
....

http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-red-alert-in-cologne/a-18962912

A spate of alleged sexual assaults and robberies at New Year's Eve festivities in the German city of Cologne has fueled a political firestorm over immigration in Germany.

Ninety criminal incidents, a quarter of which were sexual assaults, were reported following New Year's Eve celebrations in the city, Cologne police told CNN.

Police said victims described the perpetrators as gangs of Arab or North African men. Many of the assaults were likely intended to distract, allowing attackers to steal mobile phones and other devices, police said.

Authorities said the crimes, including a rape, occurred around the train station, next to the western German city's landmark cathedral.....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/europe/germany-cologne-new-year-assaults/index.html

[JimD]

I sympathize with this somewhat.  I have put forward the opinion in other venues that what I would do with Americans who have become radicalized and want to leave the US to fight in Syria is not to arrest them as the FBI does.  But rather to facilitate their departure and then have an Executive Order in place to put them on the no-fly list as soon as they depart.  As soon as they land their passports are invalidated.  If we are lucky they will become martyr's and if not they can't get back here to cause us problems.

PARIS — The French police have carried out thousands of heavy-handed searches since the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, and a raft of new laws is poised to permanently concentrate even more power in the hands of the Interior Ministry.

Yet among civil libertarians, no government proposal has raised as much alarm as a recent one to strip citizenship from French-born dual nationals convicted of terrorism.

The idea, promoted by Prime Minister Manuel Valls, a Socialist with a conservative twitch, has struck at the core of France’s ideals of the rights of citizens, while underscoring the quandary the government faces as it confronts a widening threat from terrorists born and raised in France.

The reaction of the public has been far less heated, with polls suggesting that a large majority supports the idea of taking citizenship away from French-born terrorists, even if nobody considers it the antiterrorism silver bullet.

We just had 2 Iraqi immigrants arrested in the US for planning terrorist actions.  Polls indicate that the US public is largely in line with the sentiments of the French.  These types of issues in France
and the US will hurt the more liberal political parties as when faced with the kind of dangers posed by terrorism the majority of people are going to be much less accommodating of all inclusive liberal principals and much more oriented towards security.  It is a hardwired aspect of human nature.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/world/europe/french-proposal-to-strip-citizenship-over-terrorism-sets-off-alarms.html?ribbon-ad-idx=7&rref=world/europe&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Europe&pgtype=article

[johnm33]

Having doubled overall UK debt since coming to power the conservative government holds the biggest fire sale in history. http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/fastest-asset-stripping-

[JimD]

There are just too many items to excerpt here from the link.  A read will give a good impression how screwed up this situation is and how unlikely it can be resolved in any positive direction. 


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/how-europe-will-fail-to-address-the-migration-crisis-in-early-2016.html

[JimD]

EU migrant crisis: Sweden may reject 80,000 asylum claims

Sweden may reject the asylum applications of up to 80,000 migrants and should prepare to deport them, the interior minister says.

Anders Ygeman said charter aircraft would be used to deport the migrants but it would take several years.
Some 163,000 migrants applied for asylum in Sweden in 2015, the highest per capita number in Europe.
The numbers have fallen significantly since Sweden imposed tighter border controls this year.

Yeah.  We'll see how this plays out. 


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35425735

[JimD]

Brexit

http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum

https://theconversation.com/mayoral-maths-why-backing-brexit-was-the-only-option-for-boris-johnson-55194

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33017

Granularity coming your way?

[JimD]

Europe better hope that Russia and the US (if they are really interested in fixing the situation) can get some sort of order in place in Syria soon......

After a record 2015, migrants are coming to Europe three times faster this year

More than 100,000 migrants have arrived in Europe this year so far. That means in less than two months, migrant arrivals have already exceeded what took six months in 2015—and at this rate, the total number of people arriving in Europe should easily break last year’s record.
Greece alone has received 102,547 arrivals since the beginning of the year, according to the International Organization for Migration. The vast majority of migrants were Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, and Pakistanis, according to Greek authorities. Some were also from Morocco, Bangladesh, and Somalia...

Want to bet that some of Europe's politicians will be making The Donald look like a wishy washy version of a zenophobe?  Not that it will be easy to disagree with the sentiment.  If this goes on for long many parts of Europe will soon bear little resemblance to the past.

http://qz.com/623779/after-a-record-2015-migrants-are-coming-to-europe-three-times-faster-this-year/

[sesyf]

Well, perhaps there is something taking place... we'llsee if this means much.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/vladimir-putin-takes-charge-of-syria-ceasefire-effort-russia

I'm sort of wondering that in Russia situation, with oil price, cost of doing even minor military action etc there is some weak hope that some progress will be made.

OTOH, Europe has something like 300 million people so few million refugees might have only local influence - but if politicians wish to promote some agenda they are of course usable source  material to whatever their policy is (xenophobia, racism, fear of other, vigorous new people to workforce.... )

[JimD]

Well, perhaps there is something taking place... we'llsee if this means much.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/24/vladimir-putin-takes-charge-of-syria-ceasefire-effort-russia

I'm sort of wondering that in Russia situation, with oil price, cost of doing even minor military action etc there is some weak hope that some progress will be made.

OTOH, Europe has something like 300 million people so few million refugees might have only local influence - but if politicians wish to promote some agenda they are of course usable source  material to whatever their policy is (xenophobia, racism, fear of other, vigorous new people to workforce.... )

Well Russia/Putin has certainly been a force for slowing down the disintegration in the region.  So we all owe him a measure of credit.  But there is of course no fixing the situation without a lot more blood being spilled.  Crushing ISIS and Nusra is required to really have a solid chance of some sort of political solutions and they are naturally not in favor of that.  Nor are they amenable to being coopted in any way.  It is do or die for them.  If this ceasefire (in name only really) can hold except for the 'official' terrorists then it may be possible to exert full effort on the ISIS/Nusra forces and do a really good job of removing any large scale influence they still have.  But his only applies to the Syria/Iraq theater.  BTW the Russians are basically funding what they are doing in Syria on their training budget as they are operating on a much smaller scale than the US is so low oil prices are not really a factor in this situation.

ISIS/Nusra will not be defeated so easily and they are well on their way to executing contingencies to ensure their survival and continuing struggle against modern civilization.  ISIS is well down the road to making Libya a major base of operations and will likely be the dominant presence there before they hit real opposition from the West.  It is pretty certain that in a year or two we will be seeing similar military efforts against them there by the US and the Europeans.  Unfortunately we will not likely have the Russians around to bail us out for that chapter of this long term conflict.  They most likely would prefer the international jihadi's that survive Syria/Iraq move on to Libya rather than return home to Chechnya and the other Republics to cause more mayhem there.

Not to mention all the other locations where both are currently establishing presences, like in various locations in Africa, their rise again in Afghanistan and so on throughout the Muslim world.

There is no end I think.  But the collateral damage these situations cause will be substantial over time.  It may seem like only a few million - if it is really that low I will be surprised - but the impact is already large and it will grow exponentially.  The cultural shock to the European countries will cause backlash as will the large jump in domestic terrorist actions.  Folks will only put up with so much of this.  And this is just the beginning of the migrations of refugees from war and climate change. It will never end in our lifetimes and it will get worse after we are gone.  Genocide is in our future I believe as there is no way to deal with the mass of folks who will be on the move and there is no place to put them.

[JimD]

ISIS is moving to Libya to expand its regions of influence.  As the mess in Syria gets tamped down the natural place for them to concentrate next is Libya.  The US bombed an ISIS camp there  a few days ago and now we see that France is a bit more involved.  Though it must also be said that there are a host of mercenary/security contractors there already also.  The next game is about to kick off.

Needless to say this will blow back onto Europe just like Syria did.

The French daily 'Le Monde' revealed on Wednesday that France is currently engaged in a secret war against radical jihadist group ISIS in war-torn Libya with French special forces and intelligence operatives being deployed for covert operations in the North African nation.
Like Us on Facebook
France's covert military activities against the militants 'involved occasional targeted strikes against leaders of the ultra-radical Islamist group, prepared by discreet action on the ground, to try to slow its growth in Libya' as quoted in a report by the Business Insider.
...

http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/32121/20160226/french-troops-anti-isis-secret-war-libya.htm

The Islamic State (ISIS) is taking on recruits faster than anyone can keep up with, and it’s heading towards Libya’s oil crescent, eyeing billions of barrels that a country at war with itself cannot protect—even with U.S. air strikes.

In mid-December, the United Nations brokered a power-sharing agreement between Libya’s rival factions, but there is no chance of implementing this. That means there is no chance that the Libyan government can fight back the advance of ISIS. Things are about to get messy, and U.S. air strikes will put only a small dent in a big problem.

According to U.S. intelligence figures, there are an estimated 6,000 ISIS fighters now in Libya, headquartered in the town of Sirte, as Oilprice.com has reported in the past. From here, they control hundreds of miles of coastline. There is nothing in Sirte they want; this is simply a strategic base.

ISIS fighters have also been tracked down to Benghazi, but here they have not solidified control yet. Still, Benghazi is an important recruitment venue. More specifically, this is where it can combine forces with it radical brethren in the form of Ansar al-Sharia and other radical factions. Benghazi is where ISIS gets bigger. And its pace of recruitment is faster than anything we’ve ever seen before. It absorbs new radical factions wherever it goes. The more successful its attacks and territory grabs, the more successful its recruiting becomes. In Libya, the former prowess of Ansar al-Sharia has quickly waned. ISIS is more brutal, and more decisive. It’s either join or be killed.

ISIS’ ability to launch attacks is not limited to Sirte, which is just the staging ground, or even to Benghazi. It can attack pretty much anywhere using hit-and-runs and suicide bombings.

So what is it after? There is a multipronged strategy here. The first is to get closer to Europe. The second is to get closer to Africa. The third is to get closer to more oil revenues to fill quickly depleting coffers in Syria and northern Iraq.....

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Unable-To-Halt-ISIS-March-Towards-Libyan-Oil.html

[JimD]

It's going to be a tough year for the EU.

A spectre is haunting Europe. A "contagion" of referendums, fuelled by British Prime Minister David Cameron's decision to hold an in-out vote in June, risks pulling the European Union apart, its leaders fear.

Across the continent, campaigners are demanding plebiscites to opt out of key planks of EU policy, or to quit the bloc altogether.

Its advocates call it direct democracy. In Brussels, they call it populism and blackmail.
......

http://www.afr.com/news/world/referendum-contagion-threatens-to-paralyse-europe-20160228-gn62ro

[JimD]

Anarchy just 300 miles from Europe.  More on the new ISIS base in Libya

Anatomy of the coming catastrophe.

Is there any doubt that America and Nato will be knee deep in this mess soon?  And Russia is not going to help us this time.

After Colonel Qaddafi’s fall, with minimal violence and friendly interim leadership, Libya had moved quickly off the top of the administration’s agenda. The regular situation room meetings on Libya, often including the president, simply stopped. The revolt in Syria, in the heart of the Middle East and with nearly four times Libya’s population, took center stage.

Libya, Mr. Ross said, “was farmed out to the working level.”

The inattention was not just neglect. It was policy.

“The president was like, ‘We are not looking to do another Iraq,’” said Derek Chollet, then handling Libya for the National Security Council. “And by the way, the Europeans were all along saying: ‘No, no, no, we’re doing this. We got it. We believe in Libya. This is in our neighborhood.’”

While the C.I.A. moved quickly to secure Colonel Qaddafi’s chemical weapons, other efforts fell short. “There was one arsenal that we thought had 20,000 shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles, SA-7s, that basically just disappeared into the maw of the Middle East and North Africa,” recalled Robert M. Gates, the American defense secretary at the time.

The weapons that had made it so hard to stabilize Libya were turning up in Syria, Tunisia, Algeria, Mali, Niger, Chad, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt and Gaza, often in the hands of terrorists, insurgents or criminals.

In the fall of 2012, American intelligence agencies produced a classified assessment of the proliferation of arms from Libya. “It was like, ‘Oh, my God,’” said Michael T. Flynn, then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. “We’ve not had that kind of proliferation of weapons since really the end of the Vietnam War.”

A cynical line would begin to circulate in Washington: In Iraq, the United States had intervened and occupied — and things had gone to hell. In Libya, the United States had intervened but not occupied — and things had gone to hell. And in Syria, the United States had neither intervened nor occupied — and things had still gone to hell.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

[JimD]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/brexit-the-crisis-begins.html

This is going to leave a mark. 

Who knows where this goes but we can be certain of one thing: the UK is going to have a lot less money to pay for adapting to or avoiding the worst of climate change.  The ripple effects of this across the world will be interesting to see.

[Neven]

The EU is a monstrosity because it serves the interest of bureaucrats and big business, but that means you have to improve it, you have to fight fort it, and you will have to do so always, as with many things in life.

You don't just walk away, because it feels so good down in your belly and you enjoy saying 'fuck you' to people. Looks like the babyboomers are adamant on taking everyone with them to their graves.

[AbruptSLR]

Maybe the Brexit will give a boost to Trump's campaign:

http://qz.com/715052/britains-brexit-debacle-shows-how-donald-trump-could-still-win/

Extract: "If Britain’s decision to leave the European Union is any indication, Americans cannot become complacent about Donald Trump."

[magnamentis]

The EU is a monstrosity because it serves the interest of bureaucrats and big business, but that means you have to improve it, you have to fight fort it, and you will have to do so always, as with many things in life.

You don't just walk away, because it feels so good down in your belly and you enjoy saying 'fuck you' to people. Looks like the babyboomers are adamant on taking everyone with them to their graves.

+1

let it be at that true statement to avoid heated debates but one thing i wanna throw in: one day it could be that we (they) look back and ask whether that was worth it, or answer directly with a NO. what i have in mind here is peace as the topic above all others. only joint people, even if they fight, rarely shoot at each other and don't get me wrong, i don't mean GB agains EU, the trigger is yet unknown and the first combatants as well,

to make an example, an event in sarajevo ended events in a totally different corner of the continent.

i'm not saying or predicting but i consider it as proven that wherever fights are avoided the base for it is a feeling to belong and in the oposite case to not belong oneself or others should not belong.

can't go any further here but i'm sure that at least some get my point in general while the reminder is about terms.

[Theta]

As much as I'd agree that getting out of the European Union is a good thing for the people and the environment, it is kind of redundant now that we are kind of at a point where the knock off effects of the Brexit are just going to bring about the destruction of the earth itself through multiple different apocalyptic consequences: http://guymcpherson.com/2016/06/a-town-hall-discussion-in-chico-california-part-iii/

Yes it's good to fight for something good, but it can also be a waste of time.

[AbruptSLR]

As everyone knows, without need of any proof, "good (natural/sustainable systems) always triumphs over evil (unnatural systems)" in the end.  So no matter how much damage denialist manage to achieve, in the end mankind will inevitably move towards more sustainable systems.

[ChrisReynolds]

The EU is a monstrosity because it serves the interest of bureaucrats and big business, but that means you have to improve it, you have to fight fort it, and you will have to do so always, as with many things in life.

You don't just walk away, because it feels so good down in your belly and you enjoy saying 'fuck you' to people. Looks like the babyboomers are adamant on taking everyone with them to their graves.

I couldn't agree more Neven.

The vote to leave was an economically illiterate decision that will leave the UK poorer. I had a call from one of my customers yesterday. They're going to be sending a new (reduced) schedule of work and a new production line they had been planning last year (on hold since the referendum was announced) is now an indefinitely suspended project, with engineers from an EU country now evaluating the plans.

It's really hard to assess the hit, I was looking at it yesterday morning. My best guess, a minimum -8% hit on net earnings for my branch of the company, the last 5 years have seen strong (>3%) year on year increases I suspect that will change. But as I discuss in my most recent blog post, the 'Brexit' campaign were quite open about all this.

This is the opinion of one of their lead economic advisors.

Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.

Patrick Minford of the Economists for Brexit.

Something like 17 million British people just voted for that!

[Laurent]

And You have Scotland that is globally pro Europe. They will want an other referendum soon (may be).

[pikaia]

The vote to leave was an economically illiterate decision that will leave the UK poorer.

I keep hearing that, but nobody in the Remain campaign actually explained why, and as an economic illiterate I want to know. I am not willing to take it on trust. I have tried to find out but still haven't got a straight answer, so perhaps you can explain. What can your business do within the EU that you couldn't have done if it didn't exist?

[Neven]

I don't know about all the intricacies involved with Brexit, but as soon as extreme right-wing folks, including climate risk deniers, who can only destroy and not build up, are all for it, I know there's a 99% chance I'm against it.

[Laurent]

The problem is none of them brexit or non brexit are right. The Europe must be reconstructed completely from the base, the Europe has been made by bankers (Giscard D'estaing among them (ex french president)). Neven is right you can't trust these bloody deniers and others extreme right wings. Is it possible to change the EU from within, I don't think so, the process is locked. I think before reshaping EU we have to reshape our own countries. I repeat we are not in democracy and as long it is so we are in trouble. How to do ... do no let the "representatives" write the constitution. Create a pool of people, choose by random to create one (because the constitution is suppose to control whose who are in power)... well you could say, it would be impossible to by pass the already existing systems... I think what we want to apply at a national or a EU level can be apply locally (town or smaller).

[pikaia]

On one hand we have Nigel Lawson, a climate change denier who favours Brexit, but on the other hand we have Cameron, who seems to be wrong about everything. He thinks that the UK is not overcrowded, and he has also made me a second class citizen for the crime of being single, so how can I trust the judgement of a man like that?

[be cause]

here on the border in Ireland a local diesel launderer is converting vehicles to suit the new people-smuggling opportunities .. it's an ill wind ...

[silkman]

Neven

I couldn’t agree more.

I’m still in shock following Thursday’s result and I’m struggling to get my head around what we’ve just done to the future of my six grandchildren.

The referendum campaign was a travesty, fought on both sides with soundbites, untruths and xenophobia stirred up by the popular press and was ultimately decided on a single issue that became totally conflated with EU membership – immigration.

In reality it became a plebiscite on the effectiveness of our self-interested, metropolitan political class and the decision was an understandable urge to wish a plague all their houses – Corbyn as well as Cameron.

But we now have to live with the consequences and the challenges are substantial. Just like the ice in the Arctic the resultant storm is creating cracks and fissures everywhere. Whoever picks up the poisoned chalice of Government (and even that’s unclear!) will have to face Scottish devolution, renewed pressures for a united Ireland, disputes over Gibraltar and a myriad of other challenges as well as addressing the issue of EU exit and the resultant need for new trade deals.

Climate change I’m afraid won’t get a look in though the resultant recession may seem to solve the problem for a while.

And what’s really most frightening is we have no “Brexit” government in waiting. We don’t even seem to have a plan:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/a-pyrrhic-victory-boris-johnson-wakes-up-to-the-costs-of-brexit

I think one of Roger McGough’s poems sums it up well:

I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader
I'm the leader

OK what shall we do? 

[ChrisReynolds]

The vote to leave was an economically illiterate decision that will leave the UK poorer.

I keep hearing that, but nobody in the Remain campaign actually explained why, and as an economic illiterate I want to know. I am not willing to take it on trust. I have tried to find out but still haven't got a straight answer, so perhaps you can explain. What can your business do within the EU that you couldn't have done if it didn't exist?

The basic problem with the exit campaign can be easily understood without getting bogged down in detail. Virtually all independent studies by qualified economists found a serious detrimental impact to the UK economy from a UK exit from the EU. When challenged in TV debates the exit campaigners did the following things.

1) Tried to answer the question with an answer to a different question.
2) Claimed those doing the studies were biassed, or ignored the study discussed and made this point about another study.
3) Pointed out that economists and their models have got things wrong in the past.
4) Appealed to the unique and special nature of the British people.

Does this seem familiar? (Typical tactics of AGW deniers and other nuts)

For detail however take just one issue. They said we'd get a tariff free access to the Eurozone after leaving because we buy German cars. This argument not only neglects the need to avoid 'contagion' of leave referendums by making it easy for the UK. It neglects the fact that someone buying a BMW is going to be less put off by a 4% tariff barrier than a manufacturer buying engine parts. The equation is not equal both ways. I've just bought some pipettes that were about 25% more expensive than the cheaper ones, were I buying 1000 of them I'd not just have used a hunch that they looked better quality and a 4% price difference could swing my choice.

They also said that the USA would never consent to being part of something like a United States of Europe. Er... it's called the United States of America for a reason!

At every turn I was seeing gaping holes in their arguments that made me marvel at just who they were meant to be persuading, i.e.  the uncritical and stupid, key ingredients of nationalism.

***

Basically my business services the manufacturing sector (I don't want to give enough details to identify us because I have been indiscreet above, sorry).  Anything that hits British manufacturing hits us. Directly or indirectly (Euro firms or suppliers to Euro supply chains) most of British industry depends on Europe. As I was saying yesterday to someone at work, and have posted in a reply to someone on my blog: If the EU gives the UK favourable terms a lot of Europe will think they can leave but keep the benefits. To combat this contagion of exit referenda the EU must play hard in the coming negotiations, that has already started (Jean-Claude Junke this morning).

How did I expect that? I am not psychic, it's what I have done before in the cut and thrust of business and it is exactly what I would do in Junke's position. In fact, I'd offer the UK the same terms as any other country outside the EU without a special agreement (3.7% import tariff +VAT) and word it so it was clear this was my first and final offer.

Laurent,

I agree, but imperfect doesn't mean you chuck it in. We (UK) should have voted in, then joined together with others across Europe, as happened with the scrapping of TTIP. Europe and the drive to a United States of Europe is a worthwhile idea, it rests upon the people to work for it.

Has anyone watched Russia Today? Their angle, direct from the Kremlin, is that this is the start of the collapse of Europe with other countries seeking referenda. My general rule of thumb - if the Kremlin wants it, I want the opposite. (They're still bloody communists)

[ChrisReynolds]

here on the border in Ireland a local diesel launderer is converting vehicles to suit the new people-smuggling opportunities .. it's an ill wind ...

ROFLMAO!

Pikia,
Same here. I'm hard working, but I don't have a family, and it's all aimed at hardworking families. Cameron did quite a few things right, raising the tax threshold meaning lowest paid workers don't pay tax, gay marriage. He was a lot better than the little englander racists that will now take charge.

[LRC1962]

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2462689/brexit-the-green-economy-reacts
In seeing the results this week, what the future holds concerns me.
IMO this is more a reaction of voting against the establishment. Last year Canadians voted Liberal more as a protest vote against the then current ruling party then for the present ruling party.
In the US election you are seeing similar results with the surprising runs of Sanders and Trump. Looking farther back that is the core reason for the Arab Spring, also the Occupy Wall Street movement. The problem is that when you dismantle what you have and exchange it for an alternative then you are depending upon the alternative to have a coherent thought out direction in which to go.
As history has shown, more often then not many times all the energy has been used getting a coalition to dismantle what was but there is not enough agreement among that group as to where we should go from there. This brings us to the problem of the environment. History again can show that it can be very beneficial but on the other hand it has been known to be disastrous.
The question I  have is that if the ones who voted for Brexit are among the same group who believe that going green is the reason for all our financial mess and use their same votes to dismantle any green venture then needed changes could be postponed even longer and that would be very bad news for all concerned.
Imagine if Trump wins election for similar reasons? Horrors.

[SATire]

Is that Brexit good or bad for EU, the still united K., AGW issues, and some "collapse" dynamics?

Just some thoughts without any final conclusions - such need much more time for observations:

(1) Firstly that Brexit is a great win for freedom: The existence of freedom is most clearly prooved by the possibility to decide utterly wrong e.g. against practical constraints.

(2) The Brexit is a proove, that politics still has all the power and poeple (like e.g. Merkel) stating "European unification is irreversible and without alternative" were wrong: Politicians (e.g. Cameron) did achieve that "reversion" even if they actually didn't want to do it. It is good to know that we still have all the chances and thus all responsibilities for what we do.

(3) I think the real economy will not be hit very hard by that Brexit. Of course the Banks in London and elsewhere are hit hard, the letterbox companies in Gibraltar are rendered useless and other "non-real just money stealing business models" will starve. This could be a good thing for most poeple and a bad thing for the ugly few. Other economies will win/loose a bit here and there since the pound gets cheaper but may/may not rise later - just BAU.     

(4) The freedom of people to move will be limited a bit more - not by much since UK was allready outside Schengen, thus the "flow of refugees" argument was similar BS as the "350 million pound/week"-lie. But students have more problems without Erasmus, other people will have to do the work the Polish poeple did so far, English people living at the Mediterranean may have to go back... Similarly the freedom of the people to move their money arround will be limited a bit more - which is a good thing because it is a fair consequence.

(5) For the environment on the British island the Brexit could be a giant step back - just remember how dirty England was before the European regulations kicked in. Most EU-regulations make a lot of sense since they also protect most people from the power of the few rich people. For AGW it probably could be a tie between win/loose: The benefit of a smaller economic growth could be compensated by more pollution on the island.

(6) The really bad thing for British politics: In future there is no Brussels to blame for own mistakes. They are blamed themselfes.

(7) later more from me or you...

[charles_oil]

Really sad time for Britain - our (now "their") place in the world will be diminished and I am sure there will be a reduction on UK contribution to research / science knowledge etc.  So long to spend infighting and reeling from the effects of this crazy decision. 

[pikaia]

IMO this is more a reaction of voting against the establishment.

There is anecdotal evidence that some people voted for Brexit as a protest, not believing it could happen. And there is now a petition on the Government's website to have a rerun of the vote. Over 1 million signatures!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/petition-second-eu-referendum-crashes-house-of-commons-website

[magnamentis]

I don't know about all the intricacies involved with Brexit, but as soon as extreme right-wing folks, including climate risk deniers, who can only destroy and not build up, are all for it, I know there's a 99% chance I'm against it.

exactly, "Qui Bono" ?

always good to see who wants what and why and applies to many topics of life.

[SATire]

I don't know about all the intricacies involved with Brexit, but as soon as extreme right-wing folks, including climate risk deniers, who can only destroy and not build up, are all for it, I know there's a 99% chance I'm against it.

It has been found a better term describing such folks, since they are not only "extreme right-wing". Here they are called "aggressive reactional Internationale" to put them all in a bowl: http://www.zeit.de/2016/25/rechtspopulismus-alexander-gauland-donald-trump-marine-le-pen

that term could also fit to Farage, Putin, Le Pen, Trump, Gauland...   

[JimD]

A comment about some of the responses.

1.  I really liked SATire's response and would emphasize for the non-EU readers (and maybe for some of them as well I guess) is that the EU structure is not a democratic institution but rather a form of an autocracy or authoritarian political structure.  In other words the voters have lost their sovereignty to make their own decisions and this generates serious opposition even under good circumstances.  Trying to compare the EU political structure to an almost US one is way off base as they are very different animals.  Not that the US is truly democratic, but compared to the EU it is.

The fact of number 1 above and economic status are far more indicative of ones likely position on the Brexit than anything to do with climate change denial.  Here in the US the folks who are drifting into serious opposition to the PTB (i.e. the single party dual faction of the Democrats and Republicans) are driven by economic status and it has nothing to do with climate change denial as can be seen by the huge numbers supporting Sanders and Trump - almost none of Sander's supporters are climate deniers and a good percentage of Trump's are not either.

The poor, the working class, the lower middle class and the middle middle class are and have been getting gutted by the economic system built by the 1%ers and their hired thugs.  They are not unaware of this and they are reaching the point where they are taking action.  That these actions may not make their situation any better is not the relevant metric to be using as that is a typical argument (or propaganda) pushed by the thugs who work for the 1% - if you have no hope in the system built around you it makes sense to tear it down. .  "Do what we say and not what we do?"  The situation has reached the point where such messaging (whether true or false) is automatically discounted as worthy of consideration.  If you lie to folks almost all the time then when you are telling the occasional truth you should be under no illusion that you will be trusted or believed.  Make no mistake about it the forces behind Hillary are lying just as often as Trump is and everyone is aware of that.  The working paradigm of our civilization is breaking down due to the various stresses we sometimes discuss here. 

The 'leave' voters are in the process of tearing down the system to a form which is less complex.  This is happening all over the place and not just by voters but also from other factors kicking in (see Venezuela for an example) .  It is part of the collapse dynamic and it will be repeated in spades uncounted times as we go forward in time.  There will always be a complexity argument as to why decreasing complexity has some downside to it, but it is going to happen anyway as the civilizational system can no longer support certain complexities they will fall by the wayside.  There is no guarantee that what is dropped is the best choice just as many of the levels added on in the past were not good choices either - as there is no rational process involved in their creation or destruction many times.

The EU has been a dead man walking for a long time and it has no future in the world that is coming towards us at an increasing rate.  Many things which at one time seemed like good ideas are going to go away as we will no longer have the means to maintain them.  It is just what it is.


BTW there is a great discussion to be had on how bad President Hillary is going to be in terms of accelerating collapse.  Her strong neocon foreign policy positions (The Empire forever!) are certain to have serious ramifications for not only us here in the US but also for the EU as NATO and the countries of the EU will be under strong pressure to further escalate the conflict with Russia.  There is no way this is in the interests of anyone who lives in Europe.

And Chris - to continue to describe Russia as "bloody communists" is pretty clueless.  Indeed I did not find much of anything in your response which indicates an understanding of anything beyond your wallet.  What is happening is not about what you are talking about in any meaningful sense.  And I note that you support Junke's indication that the EU should 'punish' the UK as much as possible (like they did to Greece?) in order to make a scary example of them to dissuade others to seek their own sovereignty?  It worked really well last time all right.  Not only is this supporting dictatorial actions from a non-elected entity on another exercising its rights..it will only make the situation far worse.  If the EU tries to really punishes the UK do you not think that this will have serious negative consequences?  The people of the UK will react badly and it will only embolden those in other EU countries who feel the same way as the voters in the UK who decided to depart.  Tearing the UK up will accelerate the collapse process not slow it.  And it is inevitable in any case.  So managing the decline is the better path perhaps than going all in on BAU.

[SATire]

1.  I really liked SATire's response and would emphasize for the non-EU readers (and maybe for some of them as well I guess) is that the EU structure is not a democratic institution but rather a form of an autocracy or authoritarian political structure.  In other words the voters have lost their sovereignty to make their own decisions and this generates serious opposition even under good circumstances.  Trying to compare the EU political structure to an almost US one is way off base as they are very different animals.  Not that the US is truly democratic, but compared to the EU it is.
...

Thanks for the flowers. But I do not agree with with your words like "EU structure is not a democratic institution but rather a form of an autocracy or authoritarian political structure". That does not fit.

The democratically legitimated structures in Europe are the nations and only the nations. The individual governments in Europe decided to give some competences to some central bodies via a treaty between nations (e.g. Maastricht treaty). There is no European constitution and thus the European parliament can not set up the government. There was a plan to create a constitution but that was cancelled by elections in some countries.

Thus the European executive is the "European Commission" (which consists of people send from the governments of the nations) and the "Council of the European Union" (which are the prime ministers of the nations). The governments of the nations are of course democratically legitimated and the European executive is in this way, too. More details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union

You see there is no reason to blame "Brussels" or "the EU" for any European laws or flaws: Every law existing in the European Union was agreed by all governments of all the member states. If you do not like a law or regulation blame your government and elect an other one.

The problem is of course that there are 28 (soon 27) governments which tried hard to find compromises and quite often make "dirty deals" to applease some local people. E.g. we have some strange regulations about cars (worked out by the German car industry lobby and forced to law by German government)  or strange regulations about banana (to help French over-see plantages) and the "British discount". Such things are annoing but compromises are a political basis and most of the time more democratic than a simple yes/no referendum about a complex matter - such only helps populist since only they have the simple (and very wrong) answers.
 

[ChrisReynolds]

Jim,

OK, Communists was lax, Russia is a kleptocracy run by former communists.

There are nascent leave referendum campaigns in several EU states. Yes? OK, so lets look at two scenarios. 1) The EU offers the UK generous terms of access without commitment, in which case the rest of Europe's leave tendencies may be increased and the entire EU unravels. 2) The EU offers 'punitive' terms, say the 3.7% import duty (IIRC) applied to any non-EU importer from a state without an explicit agreement.

In the case of 1 you set about the destruction of the EU. In the case of 2 you set about a process that drains industry from the UK and relocates it in the EU, whilst providing a solid example that deters people from voting to leave.

Which of the two options are in the interests of the EU?

The EU makes up 45% of the UK's export, the UK makes up 16% of Intra-EU exports. Intra EU trade is considerably more important to the EU than is UK trade.
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/after-brexit-how-important-would-uk-trade-be-eu#.V27CedQrKt8

How does that frame the coming Article 50 negotiations?

Once again, were I in Junke's shoes I'd play very hard, I'd probably not drop below a 3% tariff. And I would rely on the draw-down of operations into the EU from the UK due to that tariff barrier to offset any short term loss for the EU from loss of UK trade. Nothing personal, it's hard business calculations.

The UK, and any other EU member state can go it alone and very likely see a decline in GDP, which feeds through into a decline in living standards. Being poorer but having more sovereignty is a choice. Managed decline? Let me know when you get a government voted in that promises that. I remain the only person I know who doesn't have a car (that's because of AGW, I can afford one, I put away over £1k per month in savings and investments).

BTW - Greece isn't being punished they're paying the debt for living a financial fantasy for decades.

PS
FT.com Will the banks leave the UK for Europe?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d968b0-3a52-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7.html
Probably yes, moves are starting.
Morgan Stanley were reported on the day of the referendum as being in the progress of shifting some operations out of London. They denied this fairly rapidly - nobody wants to create any more instability right now.

[ChrisReynolds]

The demographics of the exit vote.
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/files/2016/06/brexit-big-five.png
From FT
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/2016/06/24/brexit-demographic-divide-eu-referendum-results/

The exit voters may have 'Brexited themselves in the foot'
http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/files/2016/06/brexit-exports.png
Areas with high exports to the EU have high votes for exit. 

I really must find out what the sea ice is doing.

[SATire]

There are nascent leave referendum campaigns in several EU states. Yes? OK, so lets look at two scenarios. 1) The EU offers the UK generous terms of access without commitment, in which case the rest of Europe's leave tendencies may be increased and the entire EU unravels. 2) The EU offers 'punitive' terms, say the 3.7% import duty (IIRC) applied to any non-EU importer from a state without an explicit agreement.

In the case of 1 you set about the destruction of the EU. In the case of 2 you set about a process that drains industry from the UK and relocates it in the EU, whilst providing a solid example that deters people from voting to leave.

Which of the two options are in the interests of the EU?

Chris, I think you can be very sure that there will be fair negotiations. Merkel and co. and even more the people want to be in good neighbourhood. So expect something similar like the deals with Norway, Swiss or Island. But of course not much better, since that would not be fair to them.

So if UK wants to participate on the common market with same rules like Norway, then UK must follow the EU regulations and continue to send money to Brussels. It is not clear to me if the English people would except that, since all the things the populists promised will not happen in that case: Polish people will stay, European people will come, all regulations will stay active (but without any chance to prevent a regulation). So negotiations will become "interesting" and I can understand that Cameron does not want to start that. Someone with "nuts" is needed.

[ChrisReynolds]

SATire,

Perhaps I am being a bit negative about the negotiations. However from what I've been reading over the last few days it really looks like they'll be quite hard. My reading of the situation would support a hard stance, and various commenters are saying the same thing.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-surprises-european-politicians-1466745582
Of relevance: One French commentator on BBC news was describing reactions of the people she knew, she described an element who were cracking out the Champagne on Friday night celebrating a nuisance gone.

The longer we string things out and subject the Eurozone to uncertainty the less patience they may have. We'll have to see what this week brings. Will Cameron invoke article 50 or stick to waiting for October?

Anyway, the 3.7% I remembered must be from a transaction in my previous job. It turns out that tariffs are very very variable,
https://twitter.com/ftdata/status/745902120575049728/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[SATire]

There is still the strange possibility, that the British parliament decides not to leave the EU just by not pressing the button of article 50. The referendum is not binding. http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-06/eu-ausstieg-brexit-parlament-verbleib

I have no clue what the British people would do in such case... But remember Tsipras did something like that after the referendum in Greece.

[Neven]

JimD, I sympathize with the sentiment and the general distrust that people have towards TPTB, but not if they then let themselves sheepishly be used by Adolf-light-populists like that horrible Farage and those other reactionary nitwits.

The EU is not the enemy, just like terrorism, immigrants and climate change regulation aren't. The enemy is the system that has been built around the interests of the 1%. As long as we the people do not demand a cap on how much someone can own and make, nothing will ever change to the better.

The system will find a way to use Brexit to serve its own interests. And if Brexit doesn't go through, no problem either, proceed as planned.

If you set hard limits on what someone can achieve in material terms, a lot less people will get caught in their egotistical ambitions.

I really believe this is the only solution that has any chance of being successful.

[silkman]

  So managing the decline is the better path perhaps than going all in on BAU.

Therein lies the rub.

If I felt that the success of the Leave campaign and the consequent destabilisation of the structure of the U.K. and of Europe had anything to do with the concept of a transition to a new order that recognised the unsustainability of BAU (Green or otherwise) I'd be cheering from the roof tops.

The sad fact is that the driving force behind this outcome is an attempt to shore up the UK's position in the old world driven by exponential growth. It's all about "controlling our borders". We don't need a wall, except in Ireland, but the basic thought process is identical to Trump's solution.

Unquestionably the EU has a massive democratic deficit but it has to date played a positive role in nurturing fledgling democracies across the continent. I happen to think that is a platform to build on and not to disparage and destroy.

I'm also of the view that the UK as a mature parliamentary democracy, despite or maybe even because of its colonial history, should be playing a key role in addressing the obvious challenges created by the Brussels plutocracy.

We desperately need to start moving towards a new order that recognises that it's in the best interests of everyone to abandon the economics of exponential growth and to work towards the more equitable distribution of wealth that is needed to inhibit both conflict and migration.

This maybe pie in the sky and a collapse of society may be inevitable but I fail to see why I should do anything other than to try to realise that dream.

With that in mind it terrifies me that the victorious Brexiters have no clue as to what they intend to do next but one thing is for sure - "managing the decline" is not on their agenda.

[TerryM]

I was blindsided by Brexit and have done no prior research as to the ramifications


How will NATO be affected?
Will Britan remove troops and armament from Europe, particularly those now threatening Russia's borders?
Merkel said that Nato should be strengthened only a few days after the German FM accused NATO of "warmongering".  What effect will Brexit have on the already confusing relationship between Germany and Nato?


What will Brexit do to the Paris Accord?
 Were all agreements between nations, or did the EU sign on collectively?
 Will Britain be tempted to also withdraw from this agreement, or will she push for higher emission reductions?
 Will reduced funding limit mitigation efforts by both parties, or will less expensive, less polluting alternatives be rushed out to lessen the financial shock?
 
How will America's ties to both play out?
 Obama, in what appears to be a turn, around now assures Britain that her "special relationship" with America won't change. Is this true and is it also true of America's relationship with the EU?
 
Will Britain sustain sanctions against Russia - will the EU?


So many questions.
Terry

[magnamentis]

In the case of 1 you set about the destruction of the EU. In the case of 2 you set about a process that drains industry from the UK and relocates it in the EU, whilst providing a solid example that deters people from voting to leave.

a great pleasure to read here, you and @neven are spot on imo especially the above quoted, even though that's no guarantee that they will take that path, is the key argument. they can't let the brits get away with it without pain, else EU-Doomsday is imminent. let's see.

however, not much sense to underline and repeat every point made hear but you nailed it and neven's point of view as well is spot on. one can argue left and right, back and forth but at the end those are the essentials.

[sidd]

I am faintly surprised that no one has brought up the possibility that Europe might be better off without Britain.  There used to be very old phrasing most recently reincarnated in Maoist literature referring to "running dogs of  capitalism." It is hard to deny that the UK has functioned as one such for the capitalists in NY and DC in efforts to weaken the European Union, most lately observed in reaction against financial and privacy controls.



Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"

James Hacker: "That's all ancient history, surely."

Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."

[ChrisReynolds]

There is still the strange possibility, that the British parliament decides not to leave the EU just by not pressing the button of article 50. The referendum is not binding. http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-06/eu-ausstieg-brexit-parlament-verbleib

I have no clue what the British people would do in such case... But remember Tsipras did something like that after the referendum in Greece.

SATire,

I think that would be very very dangerous. On Thursday, the day of the referendum, several of the women in the office were already claiming the ballot would be rigged (actually I  don't personally know anyone who voted exit, apart from at work). That is really rather insane reasoning! And we have already had a political murder as a result of the heated nationalistic rhetoric used by the exit campaigners.

Take this away from the 17 million who voted to leave and we could see the rise of extreme right wing parties who might actually get elected.

[ChrisReynolds]

Magnamentis. Thanks.

Sidd,

Great quote from Yes Prime Minister.

I agree, there is another angle too: On our news it is being reported that the EU is already talking of internal reform. My advice to people in the EU is to act fast. This summer lobby your MEPs and local representatives, get out and campaign, if you can get the numbers; March in your capitals and regional centres. Use the UK's mistake and the EU's fear of contagion to try to forge a new and more democratic Europe.

In short, I think the EU could benefit greatly from the loss of the UK, but a lot depends on the people.

[GeoffBeacon]

WELL PAID WITH HOUSES VOTED TO REMAIN BUT THE POOR HAD MORE VOTES

The Independent's 16 maps and charts that explain the EU referendum is very interesting. One chart shows that people with high house prices tended to vote to remain. So did the more educated - and the young.

Also high pay areas vote in and low pay areas voted out. As a nation, the UK screwed the poor and are surprised they voted against us rather better off who have been given small fortunes by owning property.

HOUSING HAS SCREWED THE POOR AND YOUNG

The idealistic young didn't seem to notice, I suspect especially those that rely on the bank-of-mum-and-dad (who are property owners).

In the UK we have really screwed the young and the poor through the housing market. To be fair to them we should have a shock for the housing market and provide starter homes at a fraction of current prices - possible for low impact developments if the racket in planning permission is sorted.

The economic blow of Brexit might be softened (just slightly) for the poor when a house prices fall.

PHYSICS TRUMPS POLITICS

But back in the real world where physics trumps politics.

We need a very different approach to living if we are to eke out our tiny remaining carbon budgets.

All the "sustainable developments" I have come across are simply greenwash.

P.S. I think of new green settlements as an extension to Neven's “Il faut cultiver notre jardin”

P.P.S. pikaia. OVERCROWDING!!! AGAIN!!!

Cameron, who seems to be wrong about everything. He thinks that the UK is not overcrowded,

The UK isn't overcrowded. London has an average density of 51 pepple per hectare, rising to 200 in parts.  The rest of the South East has a density of 4.5 people per hectare. There is room for several London's in the South East and to use the much used fact: There is more space taken by golf courses in Surrey than is built up.

[pikaia]

P.P.S. pikaia. OVERCROWDING!!! AGAIN!!!

Cameron, who seems to be wrong about everything. He thinks that the UK is not overcrowded,

The UK isn't overcrowded. London has an average density of 51 pepple per hectare, rising to 200 in parts.  The rest of the South East has a density of 4.5 people per hectare. There is room for several London's in the South East and to use the much used fact: There is more space taken by golf courses in Surrey than is built up.

So if we built several Londons in the South East it still wouldn't be overcrowded? It might be physically possible to squeeze a hundred million more into Surrey, but would any sane person  prefer to live in such a place? Would you enjoy living in an urban jungle, with nature concreted over?

Already most of our land is either covered with tiny houses packed shoulder to shoulder, or farmland which is incapable of feeding everyone so that it has to be supplemented by imports, or else only fit for sheep. Where is the unused land to feed and house even more people?