Coup de théatre ce matin, Boris Johnson ne se présente pas à la chefferie des Conservateurs!!
Je prends les paris que le Royaume-Uni restera au sein de l’UE.
Les pro-Leave conservateurs souhaitaient que le Remain gagne de peu, simplement pour mettre une pression supplémentaire dans les négociations au sein de l’UE (ça a toujours été le jeu des Anglais avec l’UE depuis leur entrée en 73).
Que le futur PM soit Boris Johnson ou Theresa May, aucun des deux ne prendra le risque d’activer l’article 50 car ils savent qu'ils ont beaucoup à perdre. Il ou elle enclencherait une crise économique et sociale majeure, signerait sa mort politique, et resterait dans les livres d’Histoire pour ce fait d’armes.
Je pense qu’on se dirige plutôt vers une crise politique au parlement britannique, de nouvelles élections, et de nouvelles négociations au sein de l’UE.
Coup de théatre ce matin, Boris Johnson ne se présente pas à la chefferie des Conservateurs!!
Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them. - Thatcher 1976.
La granolerie c'est un arrondissement de Montréal! - Marie-France Bazzo au 98.5
Quelle ânerie! Il est le capitaine qui a mené le Titanic à l'iceberg, mais il souhaite maintenant qu'un nouveau capitaine mène le Titanic aux bas-fonds de l'Atlantique.
Brexit Will Put the U.S. Back Atop the World GDP Rankings
Without the U.K., the EU will lose its claim to the world's largest economy
By JOSH ZUMBRUN
Jun 29, 2016 5:30 am ET
When European Union negotiators sit down to talk trade deals, they have long been able to claim to represent the largest economy in the world. With all its member countries, the economy of the EU is larger than the United States and larger than China, by most measures.
Brexit is set to change all that.
Now that voters in the United Kingdom have voted to leave the EU, the common market will soon no longer include the U.K.’s $2.8 trillion economy. And without that, the EU will no longer rival the U.S. in size for the foreseeable future.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The International Monetary Fund‘s estimates and forecasts of gross domestic product , issued in its April World Economic Outlook, tell the story. The size of the economy of the European Union surpassed the U.S. decisively in 2004, when it expanded to add 10 additional nations in Eastern Europe, including Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. By 2008, the economy of the European Union was $5 trillion bigger than the U.S., according to the IMF’s data.
Then Europe struggled to recover from the global financial crisis, and many members of the EU, including Greece, Italy, Ireland and Spain, found themselves embroiled in fiscal crisis. The U.S., by contrast, rebounded more quickly. The U.S. dollar strengthened, meaning the U.S. also gained, relative to the EU, because of the exchange rate. In short, the U.S. was already poised to overtake the EU.
Without the U.K., the EU will fall even more decisively behind. That’s before taking into account any economic damage that could result to the U.K. and the EU from the potentially messy divorce. The IMF’s April report — which didn’t assume Brexit would happen — forecast the U.S. economy would grow to about $18.6 trillion in 2016. The EU countries without the U.K. were forecast to be just $13.7 trillion.
The diminished EU will also be overtaken by China by the end of the decade. With the U.K. still a member, the EU would have remained larger into at least the 2020s. Adding some insult to injury, the U.K. will be passed by India around the end of the decade as well.
Now the most interesting question will be what happens to the U.K going forward. The largest remaining constituent economies of the EU are Germany, France and Italy. Germany is the largest. The U.K. is larger than France by some measures, but not others. A Brexit-caused recession could push it behind France on every measure. If the recession is severe enough, the U.K. could potentially fall behind Italy by every measure, too.
Ouch! En dessous de la France... et de l'Italie?!?!
Dans la comparaison Italie/R-U: la première avait déjà eu, brièvement, l'avance sur le R-U au temps où celui-ci était à son plus bas, avant l'arrivée de Mrs. Thatcher (et la montée du pétrole de la mer du Nord et la renaissance de Londres). Actuellement, le R-U distance nettement l'Italie.
A moyen terme, les différentiels dans l'évolution démographique vont clairement favoriser la France et le R-U au détriment de l'Allemagne et de l'Italie. Ces mêmes différentiels expliquent aussi pour une bonne part l'avantage tendanciel des USA par rapport à l'Europe, nonobstant les différences dans les politiques économiques des uns et des autres.
Croître et s'enrichir ne sont pas antinomiques, mais ils ne sont pas synonymes non plus. Il faut aussi s'intéresser à l'évolution du pib per capita (et à d'autres critères moins primitifs, liés à la qualité de vie--pour faire court).
Personne à l'heure actuelle n'a une idée précise sur les arrangements post-Brexit entre le R-U et l'UE. Mais j'aimerais souligner que même dans le pire des cas, les règles de l'Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC)--en anglais World Trade Organization (WTO), s'appliqueraient. Ces règles font en sorte que les échanges entre les pays sont beaucoup plus «libéralisés» qu'ils ne l'étaient au moment où le R-U avait joint la CEE (ancêtre de l'actuelle UE). Ceci pour dire que parler d'un isolement du R-U est à mon avis insensé.
Je partage parce que je trouve l'idée très intéressante, mais je serais le premier surpris que qui que ce soit n'envisage ça réellement...
Only England and Wales voted to leave the EU. So the UK should let them go
The people have spoken and the UK stands divided. The English and the Welsh voted to leave the EU. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. Big questions arise: will Scotland want to leave the UK and/or be able to stay in the EU? What happens to the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and, for that matter, the entire Irish settlement? How can people be stripped of rights? What about trade? What about migration?
At the time of the referendum on independence for Scotland from the UK in 2014, Scottish people faced a conundrum. If Scotland had left the UK, then Scotland would automatically have been ejected from the EU.
The Scottish nationalists said that their intention would be for Scotland to apply to become a member of the EU, but the indications from Brussels were that Scotland would have to join the queue for membership. Any Scottish application would have to be agreed by all EU states, including Spain, which is reluctant to see breakaway regions being treated kindly, given the threat of secession by Catalonia.
With article 50 looming large and the government keen to avoid lengthy parliamentary debate on the terms of departure, perhaps it’s worth considering another form of Brexit. Why don’t England and Wales leave the United Kingdom? They would be automatically ejected from the EU and Scotland and Northern Ireland would then be the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which would remain in the EU.
Under this arrangement, the UK (by then, the UK of Scotland and Northern Ireland) would not trigger article 50 and would not leave the EU. This would mean that there would be no issue between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in terms of trade and the movement of people across the border. The voters there would get what they voted for. Scotland and Northern Ireland could adopt the euro, if they wished. The EU land border with England would be the border with Scotland.
Scotland would be free of rule by Westminster, without having to leave the UK. Edinburgh’s financial services sector would not have to worry about the loss of “passporting rights” and England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would all keep the Queen as head of state, who would continue to live between London, Windsor and Balmoral.
The home nations would then create a new constitutional arrangement, to cooperate closely and to acknowledge the historic kinship between nations. It could be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As such, the UK would be preserved, but rewired for a post-Brexit world. Financial transfers would need to be agreed between the parts of the UK to preserve stability.
The exit from the EU of England and Wales would allow the Westminster government to negotiate without delay (and in advance) a favourable settlement with Europe without the need for all sides to be constrained by the limitations of article 50. This could include transitional arrangements covering trade, migration and financial contributions. Even the EU would win: there would still be 28 member states, as no member state would have left.
Certain matters would be reserved to the “new” UK on a cooperative basis, including security and the UN seat. English and Welsh citizens should be offered the opportunity to become dual nationals of the UK of Scotland and Northern Ireland, thus preserving their rights to live and work within the EU. The equivalent right could be extended to citizens of Scotland and Northern Ireland, to preserve their right to live in England and Wales. There is a precedent for this in the UK’s arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.
If these measures were taken, then the 48% who voted to stay in the EU would at least feel that their rights as EU citizens were not being stolen.
Only England and Wales voted to leave the EU. So the UK should let them go | Steve McCauley | Opinion | The Guardian
« L'austérité est une vue de l'esprit ! » – Philippe Couillard 05.12.14