|
Posted: 24 Jun 2016 01:38 PM PDT
Now that the citizens of the U.K. have voted to leave the European Union, it’s time to take a good look at the implications for the technology sector. So-called Brexit will take a while to arrive. Prime minister David Cameron indicated Friday morning that he will stay on for three months before handing over to a successor, and he wants the next prime minister to begin the negotiations with the EU over the terms of the exit. That could take two years, so Britain will probably only leave in 2018. That means years of uncertainty, with tech firms and investors unable to know for sure how regulations will evolve (or devolve) in the U.K. and, indeed, the EU. As Stratechery’s Ben Thompson has correctly noted, the U.K. is one of the voices in Europe that has called for relatively light-touch tech regulation in the EU. Without it, Germany and France will have even stronger positions in the bloc than they currently do. Germany and France are the countries that have taken the lead on cracking down on American tech firms, such asGoogle, over their perceived transgressions. Without British pushback, that stance is likely to gain more heft. Then there is the issue of data and its ability to flow across borders. You may have been following the tumultuous trajectory of EU-U.S. data transfers—the fall of the Safe Harbor agreement and the attempted rise of its replacement, Privacy Shield. Right now, U.S. multinationals and tech firms are running out of ways to legally process the data of EU citizens. This is because the EU has so far been unable to finalize an “adequacy” decision that would declare the U.S. safe as a destination for Europeans’ personal data. (Negotiators claimed a breakthrough on Friday, but champagne might be premature.) When it leaves the EU, the U.K. will be in the same boat—again, if British companies want to process the personal data of employees and customers on the European mainland, the country will need to win an adequacy decision. This was confirmed on Friday morning by the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the country’s privacy watchdog. The ICO said the U.K.’s existing Data Protection Act, which is based on older EU rules, would remain in force. However, the upcoming EU privacy reforms—the much tougher General Data Protection Regulation—will not apply to the U.K. directly. This means the U.K. will have to reform its privacy laws in line with the new EU rules, even though it is leaving, or face big barriers to cross-border data flows. “Having clear laws with safeguards in place is more important than ever given the growing digital economy, and we will be speaking to government to present our view that reform of the U.K. law remains necessary,” the ICO said. Foreign tech firms may not be so keen on the details of the new EU rules—they clear the way for massive fines for privacy violations, and allow people to opt out of being profiled online—but they do at least welcome the uniformity that they promise. The EU currently has a patchwork of privacy laws, and the General Data Protection Regulation is supposed to provide harmonization. So tech firms, too, will likely want to see the U.K. align its laws with the EU on this front. However, that might not be enough to win an adequacy decision. The big problem here is surveillance. The main reason Safe Harbor fell was the mass surveillance policies of the U.S. The U.K. also has mass surveillance programs that affect other countries (and it is currently trying to shore up the underlying legislation), but while it is part of the EU, the U.K.’s behavior cannot stop data flowing between it and the mainland. Once it is no longer in the EU, that situation will change dramatically. It is by no means a certainty that the U.K. will be able to continue to participate in the European single market—something that Brexit campaigners promised, but that may be tricky to negotiate in the face of hostility from EU governments. The majority of British tech startups came out against Brexit ahead of the vote. They warned that Brexit would hurt confidence in the sector and make it more difficult to hire talent from abroad. Microsoft warned that Brexit would make it less likely to invest more in the U.K. And the U.K.’s rivals won’t hold back in taking advantage of the situation. Just hours after the referendum result came through, the Berlin-based venture capital provider German Startups Group issued a statement proclaiming that “Brexit is good news for the German startup scene.” “Only since 2015 was Berlin able to surpass London, the previously dominant hub of Europe, in the number of and overall volume of financial transactions from startups,” said CEO Christoph Gerlinger. “This development will now accelerate and the distance between Berlin vs. London will increase. We expect a significant decrease in new incorporations in London in favour of Berlin, as well as an influx of successful London startups. This will be particularly true of the especially dynamic [financial technology] sector.” The Federation of German Startups also said Berlin will emerge as the winner in the Brexit scenario, although it added: “It is a victory we do not want and will not be celebrating.” As for tech users, British people may no longer be able to get cheap mobile calls and data when they visit the EU, as recent EU legislation allows. The new EU net neutrality rules now probably also won’t apply in the U.K., which could be bad news for consumers there. Another thing to look out for will be radio spectrum. The EU is currently on a drive to harmonize the spectrum allocations made by countries around the bloc, in order to help the manufacturers of mobile devices, for example, to achieve efficiencies of scale. With 5G around the corner, nobody wants countries diverging on which radiowaves they assign to super-fast mobile broadband. The U.K. will now no longer have to go along with the decisions made on the mainland—although again, following the EU’s lead would be the most obvious choice to make. For now, all eyes are rightly focused on the post-Brexit carnage taking place in global markets—chaos that may well have its own impact on the tech sector. But in the long term, the repercussions of Thursday’s decision could be very profound and complex. This article originally appeared on Fortune.com |
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Here’s What Brexit Means For the Tech Industry - Fortune
EU gambled on UK not leaving - Wall Street Journal
U.S. politicians react to Brexit vote
Last Updated Jun 24, 2016 9:57 AM EDT
During a tour of his golf courses in Scotland, Donald Trump praised the results of Thursday's British vote to exit the European Union, calling it a sign that the United Kingdom "took back control of their country."
"It's a great thing," Trump told reporters Friday at the reopening of his Turnberry, Scotland golf resort. "They're angry over borders, they're angry over people coming into the country and taking over."
In a separate statement posted to his Facebook page, the billionaire pledged to "strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain," and assured Americans that they too would have an opportunity to "declare their independence" in November's general election.
He also noted that the British vote -- also widely known as "Brexit" -- reflected some parallels to his own bid for the White House.
"I think there are great similarities between happened here and my campaign," the business mogul said in his press conference. "People want to take their country back."
He also predicted that the plummeting worth of Britain's currency could be a net positive in the future, even saying that it could benefit his own business interests in Scotland.
"If the pound goes down, more people are coming to Turnberry frankly," Trump said, referring to his latest golf resort.
In a tweet, Trump said he observed Scotland "going wild" over the referendum results:
Follow
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!
7:21 PM - 24 Jun 2016
* 10,615 10,615 Retweets 23,773 23,773 likes
Scotland, however, voted to remain in the EU.
Other U.S. politicians also weighed in on the historic vote, including President Barack Obama.
"The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision," the president wrote in a short statement Friday morning, assuring that the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K. would still remain intact.
"The United Kingdom and the European Union will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world," he said.
Vice President Joe Biden sought to assure Ireland and the EU over their relationships with the U.S. while attending a medal ceremony at Trinity College in Dublin.
"I must say we had looked for a different outcome. We would have preferred a different outcome," Biden said at the university, where he received an honorary law doctorate. "And I would imagine many of you here felt the same way."
But as the United States has a long standing friendship with the United Kingdom, one of the world`s great democracies, we respect the decision that they have made," the vice president added. "And I want to assure all of you in this room that America`s special bond with the United Kingdom runs deep and it will endure, and our relationship with Ireland and with the European Union will remain the cornerstone of our global engagement."
U.S. markets prepare for turmoil after Brexit vote
Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, released a statement addressing the British vote, saying she "respect[s] the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made."
She noted, however, that the decision to leave the European Union meant "economic uncertainty" in the near future.
"Our first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America," Clinton wrote. "We also have to make clear America's steadfast commitment to the special relationship with Britain and the transatlantic alliance with Europe."
She added that "this time of uncertainty" highlights the need for "calm, steady, experienced leadership" in the White House.
Bernie Sanders, Clinton's rival, also voiced his "concerns" about the vote.
"I think it's a decision for the British people but I have concerns," Sanders, a Vermont senator, said in an interview with "CBS This Morning" Friday. "I have concerns you know when we think back over the last 100 years and the horrible wars, the kind of blood that was shed throughout Europe -- the idea of the countries coming closer together is something that we want to see."
Sanders on Brexit, what it would take for him to endorse Clinton
But, he added, "a lot of people are being left behind in this global economy."
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, maintained that the relationship between the U.S. and the United Kingdom would remain "unaffected" by the British departure from the EU.
"I respect the decision made by the people of the United Kingdom," Ryan said in a statement Friday morning. "The UK is an indispensable ally of the United States, and that special relationship is unaffected by this vote."
Civil rights icon and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, R-Georgia, warned that the vote would have a "devastating" effect on the global economy.
"It is unbelievable. It is unreal," Lewis told "CBS This Morning" Friday. "I believe it is going to have a devastating effect and amazing impact on the market all around the world. I'm interested in seeing what the president is going to say today, what the secretary of treasury is going to say today and maybe how Wall Street reacts today."
Donald Trump ’s arrival in Scotland on Friday to visit one of his golf courses was precisely the metaphor that the Brexiteers didn’t want. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee cheerily declared that the British had just “taken back their country” in the same way that he’s inviting Americans to do—underscoring one of the biggest misconceptions about the EU referendum campaign. Britain isn’t having a Trump moment, turning in on itself in a fit of protectionist and nativist pique. Rather, the vote for Brexit was about liberty and free trade—and about trying to manage globalization better than the EU has been doing from Brussels.
The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary (and, on this issue, the most prominent dissenter in Mr. Cameron’s cabinet). Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Gove was mocked for such analogies. Surely, some in the Remain camp argued, the people who were voting for Leave—the pensioners in the seaside towns, the plumbers and chip-shop owners—weren’t wondering how they could reboot the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment for the 21st century. Perhaps not, but the sentiment holds: Liberty and democracy matter. As a recent editorial in Der Spiegel put it, Brits “have an inner independence that we Germans lack, in addition to myriad anti-authoritarian, defiant tendencies.”
Mr. Cameron has been trying to explain this to Angela Merkel for some time. He once regaled the German chancellor with a pre-dinner PowerPoint presentation to explain his whole referendum idea. Public support for keeping Britain within the EU was collapsing, he warned, but a renegotiation of its terms would save Britain’s membership. Ms. Merkel was never quite persuaded, and Mr. Cameron was sent away with a renegotiation barely worthy of the name. It was a fatal mistake—not nearly enough to help Mr. Cameron shift the terms of a debate he was already well on the way to losing.
The EU took a gamble: that the Brits were bluffing and would never vote to leave. A more generous deal—perhaps aimed at allowing the U.K. more control over immigration, the top public concern in Britain—would probably have (just) stopped Brexit. But the absence of a deal sent a clear and crushing message: The EU isn’t interested in reforming, so it is past time to stop pretending otherwise.
Donald Trump ’s arrival in Scotland on Friday to visit one of his golf courses was precisely the metaphor that the Brexiteers didn’t want. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee cheerily declared that the British had just “taken back their country” in the same way that he’s inviting Americans to do—underscoring one of the biggest misconceptions about the EU referendum campaign. Britain isn’t having a Trump moment, turning in on itself in a fit of protectionist and nativist pique. Rather, the vote for Brexit was about liberty and free trade—and about trying to manage globalization better than the EU has been doing from Brussels.
The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary (and, on this issue, the most prominent dissenter in Mr. Cameron’s cabinet). Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Gove was mocked for such analogies. Surely, some in the Remain camp argued, the people who were voting for Leave—the pensioners in the seaside towns, the plumbers and chip-shop owners—weren’t wondering how they could reboot the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment for the 21st century. Perhaps not, but the sentiment holds: Liberty and democracy matter. As a recent editorial in Der Spiegel put it, Brits “have an inner independence that we Germans lack, in addition to myriad anti-authoritarian, defiant tendencies.”
Mr. Cameron has been trying to explain this to Angela Merkel for some time. He once regaled the German chancellor with a pre-dinner PowerPoint presentation to explain his whole referendum idea. Public support for keeping Britain within the EU was collapsing, he warned, but a renegotiation of its terms would save Britain’s membership. Ms. Merkel was never quite persuaded, and Mr. Cameron was sent away with a renegotiation barely worthy of the name. It was a fatal mistake—not nearly enough to help Mr. Cameron shift the terms of a debate he was already well on the way to losing.
The EU took a gamble: that the Brits were bluffing and would never vote to leave. A more generous deal—perhaps aimed at allowing the U.K. more control over immigration, the top public concern in Britain—would probably have (just) stopped Brexit. But the absence of a deal sent a clear and crushing message: The EU isn’t interested in reforming, so it is past time to stop pretending otherwise.
Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, a likely candidate to lead the Conservative Party, during a pro-Brexit campaign visit in London Wednesday.PHOTO: EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
With no deal, all Mr. Cameron could do was warn about the risks of leaving the EU. If Brits try to escape, he said, they’d face the razor wire of a recession or the dogs of World War III. He rather overdid it. Instead of fear, he seemed to have stoked a mood of mass defiance.
Mr. Obama also overdid it when he notoriously told the British that, if they opted for Brexit, they would find themselves “in the back of the queue” for a trade deal with the U.S. That overlooked a basic point: The U.K. doesn’t currently have a trade deal with the U.S., despite being its largest foreign investor. Moreover, no deal seems forthcoming: The negotiations between the U.S. and the EU over the trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are going slowly, and the Brits involved in the talks are in despair.
Deals negotiated through the EU always move at the pace dictated by the most reluctant country. Italy has threatened to derail a trade deal with Australia over a spat about exports of canned tomatoes; a trade deal with Canada was held up after a row about Romanian visas. Brexit wasn’t a call for a Little England. It was an attempt to escape from a Little Europe.
Many British voters felt a similar frustration on security issues, where the EU’s leaders have for decades now displayed a toxic combination of hunger for power and incompetence at wielding it. When war broke out in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, the then-chair of the European Community’s Council of Ministers declared that this was “the hour of Europe, not the hour of the Americans—if one problem can be solved by the Europeans, it is the Yugoslav problem.” It was not to be.
Nor did the EU acquit itself much better in more recent crises in Ukraine and Libya. Field Marshal Lord Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the British military, put it bluntly last week: “I feel more European than I do American, but it’s absolutely unrealistic to think we are all going to work together. When things get really serious, we need the Americans. That’s where the power is.” Brits feel comfortable with this; the French less so.
Throughout the campaign, the Brexit side was attacked for being inward-looking, nostalgic, dreaming of the days of empire or refusing to acknowledge that modern nations need to work with allies. But it was the Brexiteers who were doing the hardest thinking about this, worrying about the implications of a dysfunctional EU trying to undermine or supplant NATO, which remains the true guarantor of European security.
In the turbulent weeks and months ahead, we can expect a loud message from the Brexiteers in the British government: The question is not whether to work with Europe but how to work with Europe. Alliances work best when they are coalitions of the willing. The EU has become a coalition of the unwilling, the place where the finest multilateral ambitions go to die. Britain’s network of embassies will now go into overdrive, offering olive branches in capital after capital. Britain wants to deal, nation to nation, and is looking for partners.
Even the debate about immigration had an internationalist flavor to it. Any member of any EU state has had the right to live and work in Britain; any American, Indian or Australian needs to apply through a painstaking process. Mr. Cameron’s goal is to bring net immigration to below 100,000 a year (it was a little over three times that at last count). So the more who arrive from the EU, the more we need to crack down on those from outside the EU. The U.K. government now requires any non-European who wants to settle here to earn an annual salary of at least £35,000 (or about $52,000)—so we would deport, say, a young American flutist but couldn’t exclude a Bulgarian convict who could claim (under EU human-rights rules) that he has family ties in the U.K.
To most Brits, this makes no sense. In a television debate last week, Mr. Cameron was asked if there was “anything fair about an immigration system that prioritizes unskilled workers from within the EU over skilled workers who are coming from outside the EU?” He had no convincing answer.
The sense of a lack of control over immigration to Britain has been vividly reinforced by the scenes on the continent. In theory, the EU is supposed to protect its external borders by insisting that refugees claim asylum in the first country they enter. In practice, this agreement—the so-called Dublin Convention—was torn up by Ms. Merkel when she recklessly offered to settle any fleeing Syrians who managed to make it over the German border. The blame here lies not with the tens of thousands of desperate people who subsequently set out; the blame lies with an EU system that has proven itself hopelessly unequal to such a complex and intensifying challenge. The EU’s failure has been a boon for the people-trafficking industry, a global evil that has led to almost 3,000 deaths in the Mediterranean so far this year.
Britain has been shielded from the worst of this. Being an island helps, as does our rejection of the ill-advised Schengen border-free travel agreement that connects 26 European countries. But the scenes on the continent of thousands of young men on the march (one of which made it onto a particularly tasteless pro-Brexit poster unveiled by Nigel Farage, the leader of the anti-immigration UK Independence Party) give the sense of complete political dysfunction. To many voters in Britain, this referendum was about whether they want to be linked to such tragic incompetence.
The economists who warned about the perils of Brexit also assure voters that immigration is a net benefit, its advantages outweighing its losses. Perhaps so, but this overlooks the human factor. Who loses, and who gains? Immigration is great if you’re in the market for a nanny, a plumber or a table at a new restaurant. But to those competing with immigrants for jobs, houses or seats at schools, it looks rather different. And this, perhaps, explains the stark social divide exposed in the Brexit campaign.
Seldom has the United Kingdom looked less united: London and Scotland voted to stay in the EU, Wales and the English shires voted to get out. (Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already called a fresh vote on secession “highly likely.”) Some 70% of university graduates were in favor of the EU; an equally disproportionate 68% of those who hadn’t finished high school were against it. Londoners and those under age 30 were strongly for Remain; the northern English and those over 60 were strongly for Leave. An astonishing 70% of the skilled working class supported Brexit.
Here, the Brexit battle lines ought to be familiar: They are similar to the socioeconomic battles being fought throughout so many Western democracies. It is the jet-set graduates versus the working class, the metropolitans versus the bumpkins—and, above all, the winners of globalization against its losers. Politicians, ever obsessed about the future, can tend to regard those left unprotected in our increasingly interconnected age as artifacts of the past. In fact, the losers of globalization are, by definition, as new as globalization itself.
To see such worries as resurgent nationalism is to oversimplify. The nation-state is a social construct: Done properly, it is the glue that binds society together. In Europe, the losers of globalization are seeking the protection of their nation-states, not a remote and unresponsive European superstate. They see the economy developing in ways that aren’t to their advantage and look to their governments to lend a helping hand—or at least attempt to control immigration. No EU country can honestly claim to control European immigration, and there is no prospect of this changing: These are the facts that led to Brexit.
The pound took a pounding on the currency markets Friday, but it wasn’t alone. The Swedish krona and the Polish zloty were down by about 5% against the dollar; the euro was down 3%. The markets are wondering who might be next. In April, the polling firm Ipsos MORI asked voters in nine EU countries if they would like a referendum on their countries’ memberships: 45% said yes, and 33% said they’d vote to get out. A Pew poll recently found that the Greeks and the French are the most hostile to the EU in the continent—and that the British were no more annoyed with the EU than the Swedes, the Dutch and the Germans.
The Brexit campaign was led by Europhiles. Boris Johnson, the former London mayor turned pro-Brexit firebrand who now seems likely to succeed Mr. Cameron, used to live in Brussels and can give interviews in French. Mr. Gove’s idea of perfect happiness is sitting on a wooden bench listening to Wagner in an airless concert hall in Bavaria. Both stressed that they love Europe but also love democracy—and want to keep the two compatible. The Brexit revolution is intended to make that point.
Mr. Gove has taken to borrowing the 18th-century politician William Pitt ’s dictum about how England can “save herself by her exertions and Europe by her example.” After Mr. Cameron departs and new British leadership arrives, it will be keen to strike new alliances based on the principles of democracy, sovereignty and freedom. You never know: That might just catch on.
Mr. Nelson is the editor of the Spectator and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph.
Last Updated Jun 24, 2016 9:57 AM EDT
During a tour of his golf courses in Scotland, Donald Trump praised the results of Thursday's British vote to exit the European Union, calling it a sign that the United Kingdom "took back control of their country."
"It's a great thing," Trump told reporters Friday at the reopening of his Turnberry, Scotland golf resort. "They're angry over borders, they're angry over people coming into the country and taking over."
In a separate statement posted to his Facebook page, the billionaire pledged to "strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain," and assured Americans that they too would have an opportunity to "declare their independence" in November's general election.
He also noted that the British vote -- also widely known as "Brexit" -- reflected some parallels to his own bid for the White House.
"I think there are great similarities between happened here and my campaign," the business mogul said in his press conference. "People want to take their country back."
He also predicted that the plummeting worth of Britain's currency could be a net positive in the future, even saying that it could benefit his own business interests in Scotland.
"If the pound goes down, more people are coming to Turnberry frankly," Trump said, referring to his latest golf resort.
In a tweet, Trump said he observed Scotland "going wild" over the referendum results:
Follow
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!
7:21 PM - 24 Jun 2016
* 10,615 10,615 Retweets 23,773 23,773 likes
Scotland, however, voted to remain in the EU.
Other U.S. politicians also weighed in on the historic vote, including President Barack Obama.
"The people of the United Kingdom have spoken, and we respect their decision," the president wrote in a short statement Friday morning, assuring that the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K. would still remain intact.
"The United Kingdom and the European Union will remain indispensable partners of the United States even as they begin negotiating their ongoing relationship to ensure continued stability, security, and prosperity for Europe, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the world," he said.
Vice President Joe Biden sought to assure Ireland and the EU over their relationships with the U.S. while attending a medal ceremony at Trinity College in Dublin.
"I must say we had looked for a different outcome. We would have preferred a different outcome," Biden said at the university, where he received an honorary law doctorate. "And I would imagine many of you here felt the same way."
But as the United States has a long standing friendship with the United Kingdom, one of the world`s great democracies, we respect the decision that they have made," the vice president added. "And I want to assure all of you in this room that America`s special bond with the United Kingdom runs deep and it will endure, and our relationship with Ireland and with the European Union will remain the cornerstone of our global engagement."
U.S. markets prepare for turmoil after Brexit vote
Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, released a statement addressing the British vote, saying she "respect[s] the choice the people of the United Kingdom have made."
She noted, however, that the decision to leave the European Union meant "economic uncertainty" in the near future.
"Our first task has to be to make sure that the economic uncertainty created by these events does not hurt working families here in America," Clinton wrote. "We also have to make clear America's steadfast commitment to the special relationship with Britain and the transatlantic alliance with Europe."
She added that "this time of uncertainty" highlights the need for "calm, steady, experienced leadership" in the White House.
Bernie Sanders, Clinton's rival, also voiced his "concerns" about the vote.
"I think it's a decision for the British people but I have concerns," Sanders, a Vermont senator, said in an interview with "CBS This Morning" Friday. "I have concerns you know when we think back over the last 100 years and the horrible wars, the kind of blood that was shed throughout Europe -- the idea of the countries coming closer together is something that we want to see."
Sanders on Brexit, what it would take for him to endorse Clinton
But, he added, "a lot of people are being left behind in this global economy."
House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, maintained that the relationship between the U.S. and the United Kingdom would remain "unaffected" by the British departure from the EU.
"I respect the decision made by the people of the United Kingdom," Ryan said in a statement Friday morning. "The UK is an indispensable ally of the United States, and that special relationship is unaffected by this vote."
Civil rights icon and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, R-Georgia, warned that the vote would have a "devastating" effect on the global economy.
"It is unbelievable. It is unreal," Lewis told "CBS This Morning" Friday. "I believe it is going to have a devastating effect and amazing impact on the market all around the world. I'm interested in seeing what the president is going to say today, what the secretary of treasury is going to say today and maybe how Wall Street reacts today."
Donald Trump ’s arrival in Scotland on Friday to visit one of his golf courses was precisely the metaphor that the Brexiteers didn’t want. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee cheerily declared that the British had just “taken back their country” in the same way that he’s inviting Americans to do—underscoring one of the biggest misconceptions about the EU referendum campaign. Britain isn’t having a Trump moment, turning in on itself in a fit of protectionist and nativist pique. Rather, the vote for Brexit was about liberty and free trade—and about trying to manage globalization better than the EU has been doing from Brussels.
The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary (and, on this issue, the most prominent dissenter in Mr. Cameron’s cabinet). Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Gove was mocked for such analogies. Surely, some in the Remain camp argued, the people who were voting for Leave—the pensioners in the seaside towns, the plumbers and chip-shop owners—weren’t wondering how they could reboot the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment for the 21st century. Perhaps not, but the sentiment holds: Liberty and democracy matter. As a recent editorial in Der Spiegel put it, Brits “have an inner independence that we Germans lack, in addition to myriad anti-authoritarian, defiant tendencies.”
Mr. Cameron has been trying to explain this to Angela Merkel for some time. He once regaled the German chancellor with a pre-dinner PowerPoint presentation to explain his whole referendum idea. Public support for keeping Britain within the EU was collapsing, he warned, but a renegotiation of its terms would save Britain’s membership. Ms. Merkel was never quite persuaded, and Mr. Cameron was sent away with a renegotiation barely worthy of the name. It was a fatal mistake—not nearly enough to help Mr. Cameron shift the terms of a debate he was already well on the way to losing.
The EU took a gamble: that the Brits were bluffing and would never vote to leave. A more generous deal—perhaps aimed at allowing the U.K. more control over immigration, the top public concern in Britain—would probably have (just) stopped Brexit. But the absence of a deal sent a clear and crushing message: The EU isn’t interested in reforming, so it is past time to stop pretending otherwise.
Donald Trump ’s arrival in Scotland on Friday to visit one of his golf courses was precisely the metaphor that the Brexiteers didn’t want. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee cheerily declared that the British had just “taken back their country” in the same way that he’s inviting Americans to do—underscoring one of the biggest misconceptions about the EU referendum campaign. Britain isn’t having a Trump moment, turning in on itself in a fit of protectionist and nativist pique. Rather, the vote for Brexit was about liberty and free trade—and about trying to manage globalization better than the EU has been doing from Brussels.
The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary (and, on this issue, the most prominent dissenter in Mr. Cameron’s cabinet). Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Gove was mocked for such analogies. Surely, some in the Remain camp argued, the people who were voting for Leave—the pensioners in the seaside towns, the plumbers and chip-shop owners—weren’t wondering how they could reboot the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment for the 21st century. Perhaps not, but the sentiment holds: Liberty and democracy matter. As a recent editorial in Der Spiegel put it, Brits “have an inner independence that we Germans lack, in addition to myriad anti-authoritarian, defiant tendencies.”
Mr. Cameron has been trying to explain this to Angela Merkel for some time. He once regaled the German chancellor with a pre-dinner PowerPoint presentation to explain his whole referendum idea. Public support for keeping Britain within the EU was collapsing, he warned, but a renegotiation of its terms would save Britain’s membership. Ms. Merkel was never quite persuaded, and Mr. Cameron was sent away with a renegotiation barely worthy of the name. It was a fatal mistake—not nearly enough to help Mr. Cameron shift the terms of a debate he was already well on the way to losing.
The EU took a gamble: that the Brits were bluffing and would never vote to leave. A more generous deal—perhaps aimed at allowing the U.K. more control over immigration, the top public concern in Britain—would probably have (just) stopped Brexit. But the absence of a deal sent a clear and crushing message: The EU isn’t interested in reforming, so it is past time to stop pretending otherwise.
Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, a likely candidate to lead the Conservative Party, during a pro-Brexit campaign visit in London Wednesday.PHOTO: EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
With no deal, all Mr. Cameron could do was warn about the risks of leaving the EU. If Brits try to escape, he said, they’d face the razor wire of a recession or the dogs of World War III. He rather overdid it. Instead of fear, he seemed to have stoked a mood of mass defiance.
Mr. Obama also overdid it when he notoriously told the British that, if they opted for Brexit, they would find themselves “in the back of the queue” for a trade deal with the U.S. That overlooked a basic point: The U.K. doesn’t currently have a trade deal with the U.S., despite being its largest foreign investor. Moreover, no deal seems forthcoming: The negotiations between the U.S. and the EU over the trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are going slowly, and the Brits involved in the talks are in despair.
Deals negotiated through the EU always move at the pace dictated by the most reluctant country. Italy has threatened to derail a trade deal with Australia over a spat about exports of canned tomatoes; a trade deal with Canada was held up after a row about Romanian visas. Brexit wasn’t a call for a Little England. It was an attempt to escape from a Little Europe.
Many British voters felt a similar frustration on security issues, where the EU’s leaders have for decades now displayed a toxic combination of hunger for power and incompetence at wielding it. When war broke out in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, the then-chair of the European Community’s Council of Ministers declared that this was “the hour of Europe, not the hour of the Americans—if one problem can be solved by the Europeans, it is the Yugoslav problem.” It was not to be.
Nor did the EU acquit itself much better in more recent crises in Ukraine and Libya. Field Marshal Lord Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the British military, put it bluntly last week: “I feel more European than I do American, but it’s absolutely unrealistic to think we are all going to work together. When things get really serious, we need the Americans. That’s where the power is.” Brits feel comfortable with this; the French less so.
Throughout the campaign, the Brexit side was attacked for being inward-looking, nostalgic, dreaming of the days of empire or refusing to acknowledge that modern nations need to work with allies. But it was the Brexiteers who were doing the hardest thinking about this, worrying about the implications of a dysfunctional EU trying to undermine or supplant NATO, which remains the true guarantor of European security.
In the turbulent weeks and months ahead, we can expect a loud message from the Brexiteers in the British government: The question is not whether to work with Europe but how to work with Europe. Alliances work best when they are coalitions of the willing. The EU has become a coalition of the unwilling, the place where the finest multilateral ambitions go to die. Britain’s network of embassies will now go into overdrive, offering olive branches in capital after capital. Britain wants to deal, nation to nation, and is looking for partners.
Even the debate about immigration had an internationalist flavor to it. Any member of any EU state has had the right to live and work in Britain; any American, Indian or Australian needs to apply through a painstaking process. Mr. Cameron’s goal is to bring net immigration to below 100,000 a year (it was a little over three times that at last count). So the more who arrive from the EU, the more we need to crack down on those from outside the EU. The U.K. government now requires any non-European who wants to settle here to earn an annual salary of at least £35,000 (or about $52,000)—so we would deport, say, a young American flutist but couldn’t exclude a Bulgarian convict who could claim (under EU human-rights rules) that he has family ties in the U.K.
To most Brits, this makes no sense. In a television debate last week, Mr. Cameron was asked if there was “anything fair about an immigration system that prioritizes unskilled workers from within the EU over skilled workers who are coming from outside the EU?” He had no convincing answer.
The sense of a lack of control over immigration to Britain has been vividly reinforced by the scenes on the continent. In theory, the EU is supposed to protect its external borders by insisting that refugees claim asylum in the first country they enter. In practice, this agreement—the so-called Dublin Convention—was torn up by Ms. Merkel when she recklessly offered to settle any fleeing Syrians who managed to make it over the German border. The blame here lies not with the tens of thousands of desperate people who subsequently set out; the blame lies with an EU system that has proven itself hopelessly unequal to such a complex and intensifying challenge. The EU’s failure has been a boon for the people-trafficking industry, a global evil that has led to almost 3,000 deaths in the Mediterranean so far this year.
Britain has been shielded from the worst of this. Being an island helps, as does our rejection of the ill-advised Schengen border-free travel agreement that connects 26 European countries. But the scenes on the continent of thousands of young men on the march (one of which made it onto a particularly tasteless pro-Brexit poster unveiled by Nigel Farage, the leader of the anti-immigration UK Independence Party) give the sense of complete political dysfunction. To many voters in Britain, this referendum was about whether they want to be linked to such tragic incompetence.
The economists who warned about the perils of Brexit also assure voters that immigration is a net benefit, its advantages outweighing its losses. Perhaps so, but this overlooks the human factor. Who loses, and who gains? Immigration is great if you’re in the market for a nanny, a plumber or a table at a new restaurant. But to those competing with immigrants for jobs, houses or seats at schools, it looks rather different. And this, perhaps, explains the stark social divide exposed in the Brexit campaign.
Seldom has the United Kingdom looked less united: London and Scotland voted to stay in the EU, Wales and the English shires voted to get out. (Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already called a fresh vote on secession “highly likely.”) Some 70% of university graduates were in favor of the EU; an equally disproportionate 68% of those who hadn’t finished high school were against it. Londoners and those under age 30 were strongly for Remain; the northern English and those over 60 were strongly for Leave. An astonishing 70% of the skilled working class supported Brexit.
Here, the Brexit battle lines ought to be familiar: They are similar to the socioeconomic battles being fought throughout so many Western democracies. It is the jet-set graduates versus the working class, the metropolitans versus the bumpkins—and, above all, the winners of globalization against its losers. Politicians, ever obsessed about the future, can tend to regard those left unprotected in our increasingly interconnected age as artifacts of the past. In fact, the losers of globalization are, by definition, as new as globalization itself.
To see such worries as resurgent nationalism is to oversimplify. The nation-state is a social construct: Done properly, it is the glue that binds society together. In Europe, the losers of globalization are seeking the protection of their nation-states, not a remote and unresponsive European superstate. They see the economy developing in ways that aren’t to their advantage and look to their governments to lend a helping hand—or at least attempt to control immigration. No EU country can honestly claim to control European immigration, and there is no prospect of this changing: These are the facts that led to Brexit.
The pound took a pounding on the currency markets Friday, but it wasn’t alone. The Swedish krona and the Polish zloty were down by about 5% against the dollar; the euro was down 3%. The markets are wondering who might be next. In April, the polling firm Ipsos MORI asked voters in nine EU countries if they would like a referendum on their countries’ memberships: 45% said yes, and 33% said they’d vote to get out. A Pew poll recently found that the Greeks and the French are the most hostile to the EU in the continent—and that the British were no more annoyed with the EU than the Swedes, the Dutch and the Germans.
The Brexit campaign was led by Europhiles. Boris Johnson, the former London mayor turned pro-Brexit firebrand who now seems likely to succeed Mr. Cameron, used to live in Brussels and can give interviews in French. Mr. Gove’s idea of perfect happiness is sitting on a wooden bench listening to Wagner in an airless concert hall in Bavaria. Both stressed that they love Europe but also love democracy—and want to keep the two compatible. The Brexit revolution is intended to make that point.
Mr. Gove has taken to borrowing the 18th-century politician William Pitt ’s dictum about how England can “save herself by her exertions and Europe by her example.” After Mr. Cameron departs and new British leadership arrives, it will be keen to strike new alliances based on the principles of democracy, sovereignty and freedom. You never know: That might just catch on.
Mr. Nelson is the editor of the Spectator and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
