Eric is a Professor of Political Science at the University of London. He has done a great deal of work on the demographics that underly social and political phenomena. He is often quoted in the UK and has appeared on TV and even spoken to some committee of the House of Commons. I did an interview on skype with Eric on the subject of Brexit. As soon as we have a transcript of this, the interview will be available as a lesson in our library.
Interesting. It seems to me that Dr Kaufman has a much more calm and balanced view of this whole matter than many of the (so called) experts in the UK media and academia. (I suppose it may be the case that, as a Canadian, he is able to view a situation like this without having his judgment clouded by a personal political interest one kind or another?)
I have to question whether he is slightly underplaying the importance of the sovereignty issue? I am pretty certain that, here in the South of England, the question of sovereignty was THE key issue for many of us who voted to leave. Immigration was very much a secondary thing here - really it was. (It may have been a rather different story in the central, northern and eastern parts of England, however?)
I also suspect (very strongly in fact, from what I’ve heard) that there is going to be considerable resolve to hold firm on the issue of freedom of movement. Thus, if there is to be a Norway style deal, the EU would have to offer some actual and meaningful concessions on this front.
Of course, only time will tell what is going to happen. Interesting times ahead.
Prinz_Schtik wrote:
“I also suspect … that there is going to be considerable resolve to hold firm on the issue of freedom of movement. Thus, if there is to be a Norway style deal, the EU would have to offer some actual and meaningful concessions on this front.”
I don’t think you can get any benefit from “a Norway style deal” because the UK now in the EU has more control over its borders than Norway. Besides this point related to immigration, if you are really interested in the question of “sovereignty”, you should have decision-making power in how EU rules are drafted, or you should leave the EU to go your own way with or without Scotland, whose sovereignty, or rather, autonomy you should respect.
The Norway option: what is it and what does it mean for Britain? http://gu.com/p/4dyx4/stwWhat does membership of the European Economic Area provide?
EEA membership gives Norway full access to the EU’s internal market, allowing it to trade goods with EU states without customs fees, except food and drinks which are subsidised by the EU. Iceland and Liechtenstein are also members of the EEA.
In return for that access Norway is obliged to implement all the EU’s laws relating to the internal market. As a result, Norway has had to implement about three-quarters of all EU legislation, including the working time directive.
What say does Norway have over EU rules?
None. Norway has representatives in EU institutions, but they have no decision-making power in how EU rules are drafted.
The country has been granted participation rights, but no voting rights, in several of the union’s programmes, bodies and initiatives, including the European Defence Agency, Frontex, Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
Is the Norway option cheaper?
Yes, but not by much. In 2012, Norway was paying €340m (£245m) a year into the EU budget – the tenth-highest contributor. The thinktank Open Europe estimates that the UK would pay 94% of its current costs (£31.4bn annually) if it left the EU but adopted a Norway-type arrangement.
What about immigration?
The UK has more control over its borders than Norway, which is part of the Schengen border-free area. As a result, Norway has higher per capita immigration than the UK. However, as a signatory to the agreement, it does have a say in how it operates.
The video was interesting. Steve’s son puts more emphasis on “invisible” elements than demographical or economical elements. In the process of globalisation, is what might be called the “British” way of life in crisis?
I imagine that if you notice a lot of children in your son’s or daughter’s school don’t speak English, some of you might think that something is wrong with the free movement in the EU. Is this one of the situations that influenced the result of the referendum?
Speaking of the English language, I hear that employees in some Japanese companies have to use English in ordinary business-related meetings held in their companies. I feel that this is very weird unproductive practice. I wonder if this kind of feeling of mine can be considered what might be called anti-globalization mentality. I am not sure about this.
"今回のイギリス国民投票は、直接的には、〈移民＝EU＝グローバル化〉を介して高揚したナショナル・アイデンティティと主権＝自決意識が、EUのメンバーシップに向けられたものといえよう。こうした〈ナショナリズム＝民主主義＝国家主権〉の「三位一体」を乗り越える正統性はEUにはない。" "イギリス国内においては、すでにEUとその立法・規制が国の一部になっていた。これから「すでに身体化した一部」を切り離す作業は容易ではない。投票行動のねじれが、政党指導部と草の根の人びとのあいだの乖離、イングランドとスコットランドの溝、その他世代、学歴、階層を隔てたさまざまな亀裂をふたたび際立たせている。" 英国はEU離脱で｢のた打ち回る｣ことになる - 遠藤 乾 教授（北海道大学）のコラム・東洋経済オンライン http://toyokeizai.net/articles/-/124569
According to this article, the result of the referendum reflects heightened national identity and awareness of sovereignty/self-determination that have been influenced by the difficult issues related to “Immigration=the EU=Globalization”. The EU does not have the legitimacy to go beyond the trinity of nationalism-democracy-sovereignty.
The writer of the above article notes that the real process of Brexit is not easy for the UK because the EU legislations and regulations have already constituted the “body” structure of the country. The discrepancies of voting behavior among different social groups reveal the cracks of the country in the process of leaving the EU.
I think that even if the EU is already dead as Emmanuel Todd contends, the process of the UK leaving the EU is not easy by any means.
People don’t know exactly what the “Norway option” would look like for the UK, because the terms agreed would be subject to negotiation with the EU. There are people (political journalists and others) who work on the assumption that the UK would get the exact same deal as Norway. In fact, the UK holds better rather better cards than did Norway.
I assume that the primary aim in these negotiations (from our point of view) is to achieve something similar, but with significant additional concessions on freedom of movement. For example, I could imagine that we would be happy to accept freedom of movement only from those EU countries (France, Germany, Denmark, The Netherlands, etc, etc.) which have roughly similar average income levels as the UK.
If the EU remains intransigent on this point, then plan B would be the messy and drawn out process of negotiating a Swiss style trade deal.
Prinz_Schtik wrote:
“For example, I could imagine that we would be happy to accept freedom of movement only from those EU countries … which have roughly similar average income levels as the UK.”
This “happy” rule is hard to promote and materialize.
“We would be happy to do X” = “we would accept X”
“A source close to Ms May told The Independent: ‘She [Ms May] was saying it’s unwise to promise right now that all EU nationals living in Britain should be able to stay indefinitely. The reason for that is if we did that the same rights would have to apply to any EU national who comes to Britain before we leave the EU.’”
Theresa May refuses to rule out deportation of EU nationals living in UK amid fears of ‘influx’ of migrants http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/AAi2xIi?ocid=st
The above argument is about the matter in a little different context, but it is true that “the same rights would have to apply to any EU national.” If you are in the EU, you cannot choose countries only from which you accept immigration. “To accept freedom of movement only from those EU countries … which have roughly similar average income levels as the UK” is not a happy idea. It is hard to materialize. Politically matured people know this.
Maybe you mean it is political manure…? 
“It seems to me that Dr Kaufman has a much more calm and balanced view of this whole matter than many of the (so called) experts in the UK media and academia.”
Yeah, if there is one thing British people hate, it is experts tellingthem things they don’t want to hear. But you know what they say. You can have the brains of Britian, but you won’t get anywhere without a bit of common sense. To make it clear to non-British people, it means you should just ignore what those egg heads say when it’s convenient.
(I am 99% joking here. My comment applies a lot of the time, though most likely not here.)
I was thinking especially of many media commentators from the British Left. These guys are in a state of near hysteria right now, IMO. (They’re going out on a limb too: they’ll lose a lot of credibility if and when their post-Brexit armageddon doesn’t happen…)
“Mr Burnham, who has three children with his Dutch wife, said: ‘Any uncertainty hanging over their right to be here is tantamount to undermining family life in our country and that does not strike me as a very prime ministerial thing to do.’”
Brexit: Rights of EU citizens living in UK sparks row
Brexit: Rights of EU citizens living in UK sparks row - BBC News
Do you think that Mr Burnham’s comment is nonsense? Is he in a state of what you call “hysteria”? I am sure that his worries are real and he should not be treated as in a state of hysteria. Is he talking about what you call “Armageddon”, which you hope will not happen? I imagine that this kind of word has no bearing on the matter in discussion.
I would like to know what kind of argument you think is hysterical. Who do you think is talking about your favorite “Argameddon” story?
Andy Burnham isn’t a media commentator, he is a well known Labour politician - and BTW a good guy who is well-liked on all sides of the house.
"The extract from the prime minister’s resignation speech ... makes it clear that [the government] is of the view that the prime minister of the day has the power under article 50 (2) of the Lisbon treaty to trigger article 50 without reference to parliament.”http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/08/legal-attempt-prevent-brexit-preliminary-hearing-article-50That decision, it claims, is “ultra vires” – beyond the legitimate powers of the government – because under “the UK’s constitutional requirements”, notification to the European Union council of withdrawal “can only be given with the prior authorisation of the UK parliament”.
The U.K. parliment is responsible for the decision.
Well then, after so many long years (post Maastricht) could the Tory civil war finally be over…?
Could it be true? Is the golden circle now complete?
I’m not formally re-joining the party until article 50 has been triggered - but I’m already happy to be called a May loyalist. Hats off for the lady! 
That’s always the case, and something that makes me sad. It makes wonder if we can, as large nation states, educate and inform the masses of people in a way that they carefully understand the implications of big decisions. I just wonder of the physics of it is too difficult to do. Scientific, analytical approaches to big problems never gain traction and Donald Trump types can people voting for him with simplistic, nonsensical solutions and people seem to be attracted to that.
The number one thing, that I believe people don’t really understand, is the fact that the world we live in is a globalized, highly connected economy. What happens in China’s stock market effect all of us. So many interconnected moving parts are at work here, and many people just seem to have an incomplete picture of that. It’s why people think that A wall stopping immigrants from mexico is the answer… when in fact we have drug policies and laws that are directly affecting the central american states and creating a market for illegal drug cartels on such a big scale in countries where jobs are scarce.
This, Brexit, the EU… are extremely complicated problems and people just don’t seem to have the full picture.
(Brexit has, of course, ZERO to do with Donald Trump or his absurd Mexican wall.)
Of course, I was just talking about the parallels from the sense that objective, level headed, in depth analysis of important, hot button issues tends not to be the norm, especially in the mainstream media where we have simplistic, argumentative “debates” with so called “experts” that often ignore the bigger picture.