British Voters Choose to Exit EU, PM Cameron to Step Down
Luis Ramirez, Voice of America
Britain has made a historic decision to leave the European Union in a referendum that stoked passions on issues of immigration and sovereignty, and prompted the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron.
“The British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction,” Cameron told reporters outside 10 Downing Street Friday.
Cameron said that transition should happen in October.
Analysts say voters’ stunning decision to quit the EU meant Cameron lost his mandate. The man who led the 'Leave' campaign, former London Mayor Boris Johnson - also of Cameron’s Conservative Party - is widely expected to replace Cameron as prime minister.
With all counties reporting results Friday morning, the 'Leave' cause won 51.89 percent of the vote. The news prompted a negative reaction in Asian markets and the British pound tumbled to a three-decade low.
Turnout was high, at 72 percent – the highest in a national poll in more than two decades - despite torrential rainstorms on referendum day, reflecting the strong feelings that the debate evoked in a nation whose immigration rate has doubled in the past 16 years.
The vote appeared to be driven by anti-establishment sentiments and the feeling the EU governing structure has taken too much control away from the common British citizen.
“Let June 23 go down in our history as our independence day,” anti-EU campaigner Nigel Farage, told supporters in Westminster early Friday. Farage heads Britain’s UK Independence Party, which favors implementing tough immigration restrictions. He said the election predictions would be “a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people.”
The decision to quit the EU opens a new chapter of uncertainty for Britain, which must now forge new trade relationships with continental Europe and begin the process of disentangling from the 28-member bloc, reversing a process that began more than four decades ago when Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community.
Revelers celebrated outside 10 Downing Street early Friday as passing cars honked in support of the decision.
Analysts say that disengagement may take two or more years to complete.
Voters appeared to have defied calls by government and business, which forecast dire economic consequences for Britain. The British treasury predicted that leaving the EU would cost the average family nearly $6,000 a year.
On Friday, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney said the bank is prepared for the shock, and said it is making available nearly $345 billion in financial support.
Business leaders warned that new immigration restrictions that could result from a Brexit would cause them to transfer thousands of British jobs to countries still in the EU.
In the end, British voters appeared to choose the risk of independence over what many 'Leave' supporters view as overreach by an undemocratic EU governing apparatus that is only getting bigger and more intrusive.
“The EU has just gone into every nook and cranny. It started off as a trade agreement. It moved towards a community. It now is a union and it wants its own currency and now wants its own defense forces. Well, it’s only a matter of time before it becomes a country,” Lord David Owen, a former foreign secretary, told VOA.
Comments
The New York Times
✔ @nytimes "Well, that didn't take long." Brexit proponents' false promises crumble:
http://nyti.ms/290LLWC
Populist parties are popular until they are elected......then....the sky falls....
Brits flood Ireland with passport applications after EUref, risk "clogging up the system"
http://politi.co/297g8OD
Are there any "real" UK citizens....
I believe I may have not been specific enough re: my argument below.
Thus, while:
a. I did suggest that the U.S./the West's "exercise of empire" cir. 2003 onward -- specifically to "transform the Middle East -- might, indeed, and as per C.E. Callwell, be understood as the "root cause" of many/most of our problems today. (Some, such as per the Brexit, becoming evident only now; others, such as the potential break-up of the EU, potentially being on the horizon),
b. I possibly did not identify a specific means/method (to wit: "support for revolutionary warfare") which, in part at least, this such "exercise of empire" activity appears to have been undertaken/carried out.
In this regard, let us consider the following 1973 offering from D.M. Condit and see if we should have reviewed his such warnings before embarking upon a mission to "transform the Middle East" -- via, and if the shoe fits here -- "support of revolutionary warfare" in these such foreign areas:
BEGIN QUOTE
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR REVOLUTIONARY WARFARE
Interestingly enough, governments have also exploited revolutionary techniques, in a number of situations, including both offensive and defensive postures during general war, localized warfare, and even peacetime. These uses, as well as some possible defensive and offensive uses of revolutionary warfare in conjunction with nuclear, are posited in chapter III. It is certainly feasible for governments, including this one, to consider support of revolutionary warfare as a useful tactic.
At the same time, the United States remains under a number of constraints in the possible support of revolutionary warfare in foreign areas, both in relation to the ideologically-opposed communist powers and the less-committed Third World.
First, the United States generally lacks the useful, committed local proxies that have abetted and shielded communist efforts.
Second, the United States lacks the cohesive motivational force of a communist philosophy, with its built-in incentives to revolution. While identification of the United States with an abundant economy may be attractive, many nations are not ready for industrial modernization. Attempts at modernization create stress and pain, and capitalism as a philosophy is identified with an alien and unattractive colonial and imperialist past. Despite its failure to "deliver," communism continues to attract revolutionary fronts. Despite its successes, capitalism does not "sell."
Third, partly for the first two reasons, the United States lacks a revolutionary clientele, particularly one that would accept direction in return for support.
Fourth, the success of insurgency, despite popular myth, is highly uncertain.
Fifth and further, revolutionary success has often required time-for example, 26 years in China, 27 years thus far (and still no unification) in Vietnam-and even time does not necessarily spell success, as the Greek communists and Angolan nationalists have discovered. Could this country afford to wait so long for a policy of aid to revolution to bear fruit?
Sixth, the passage of time increases the cost of supporting insurgency in terms of price escalation, possible embarrassment, concessions made elsewhere, and opportunities lost in the interim.
Seventh, one of the prices must be the loss of internal stability, as even the U.S.S.R. has discovered. Can it be that encouragement, of external revolution also encourages internal instability?
Eighth, a further price is likely to be a high cost in external relations, as other regimes and governments ponder the security of their relations with the United States. To support a policy of aiding revolution abroad would mean undoing the work of over 25 years in attempting to develop a stable international system -- just as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China appear more ready to accept the constraints of the state system.
Feasibility, value, and cost all appear to argue against any new and radical policy of support for external revolution.
END QUOTE
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/764648.pdfcer
By way of the U.S./the West's such "exercise of empire" activities from 2003 on-wards (many of which might fall under the heading of "support for external revolution?) a number of D.M. Condit-foretold difficulties/negative consequences appear to have come true. (And are still coming true?)
Thus, to take our "lesson learned" here:
a. Not just re: "the exercise of empire" -- as per C.E. Callwell -- ("the great nation which seeks expansion in remote quarters of the globe must accept the consequences")?. But, also,
b. As per D.M. Condit and re: the challenges/the consequences which spring specifically from an "exercise of empire" which falls under the heading of "support for external revolution?"
The U.S./the West needing to understand -- and as per the Brexit, etc., etc., etc., -- BOTH such lessons as it moves forward?
Putin Using Western Values to Destroy Those Values and the West, Moscow Analyst Says
http://www.interpretermag.com/june-26-2016/#14357 …
If you have read much of what I have been posting since Crimea..this is in fact all about values....
No different in fact from the Cold War days.....
Bill..you need to follow us over on the UK thread.....
There is a lot more in play than the US...yes the US could have done more to hinder this even the Russians agree with me that Obama blew it....
But this is something that needs to be watched as it goes to the heart of "globalization problems" and populist movements especially Trump and company....
Global effect of the Leave....
Friday Brexit crash wiped out a record $2.1 trillion. Now what?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/inve...gory=investing …
BUT WAIT...the Leave side on multiple speeches and debates stated what the experts saying would happen was......"rubbish".....WELL "rubbish" was massively correct.
Well it is happening and those very same Leave leaders are running away from they told their own followers.
Populist parties are popular until they are elected......then....the sky falls....
Should some responsibility/credit/blame for the Brexit be placed on the United States and re: its imperial actions to achieve outlying state and societal transformations?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/us-bears-some-r…
For example, and as per our discussions here, on the decision to invade Iraq and transform the Middle East more along modern western, political, economic and social lines?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/08/07/transforming…
This such imperial action being undertaken so as to overcome the "cultural backwardness" (Schumpeter) issues of this region; issues which were/are believed to make the achievement of "normal economic intercourse," and "free trade," dependent on state and societal transformation (as per "colonization" back-in-the-day; as per "nation-building" today)?
These such matters causing/contributing to the reality/the perception of such things as an " immigration crisis;" a matter which is said to have helped push the Brexit vote over the top?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/europe/brexit-britain-immigration-referen…
All this suggesting that the full-reach of the adverse effects from our exercise of "empire," re: the invasion of Iraq cir. 2003, etc. -- and thus "the greatest strategic screw up since Hitler’s invasion of Russia” -- are still unwinding/have not yet fully played out/are, as yet, not yet fully known?
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21694981-mistakes-made-isl…
So, as per C.E. Callwell and his counsel re: the exercise of "empire" back-in-the-day -- likewise today also -- to understand by these such adverse events that "the great nation which seeks expansion in remote quarters of the globe must accept the consequences?"
https://www.amazon.com/Small-Wars-Their-Principles-Practice/dp/14385138… (See Chapter II: The Causes of Small Wars.)
Thus, the Brexit also -- much like the rise of ISIS, the massive instability in the Middle East today generally, the current (and associated) migration crises and increase of terrorism both in Europe and here at home -- ALL these such matters to be understood in these specific, and sage, "those exercising empire must accept the consequences" C.E. Callwell terms?
(This such understanding helping to make the case for Mearsheimer and Walt's suggested move to "offshore balancing" -- as addressed in the current issue of Foreign Affairs -- better understood?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-06-13/case-o…)