As Europe’s sceptics cheer Brexit, its enthusiasts mourn

Economist ^ | 24 June 2016

[Lorianne]

The shocked reactions of many European leaders suggested they had not fully absorbed the possibility of a vote for Brexit. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, called a crisis meeting of parliamentary leaders and cabinet members. In Rome, the Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, convened an emergency meeting of ministers and scrapped a scheduled summit of his party’s leaders. France’s president, François Hollande, held a long emergency session at the Elysée. When he emerged his tone was measured (he promised to continue to work closely with Britain), but he added that the EU now needed a “leap forward” to ward off the danger of Eurosceptic populists.

Those Eurosceptic populists, meanwhile, reacted to the vote with elation. Matteo Salvini, the leader of Italy’s right-wing populist Northern League, praised “the courage of the free citizens of Great Britain” and called for an Italian referendum next. (It is not clear whether Italy’s constitution would permit one.) A jubilant Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s anti-European National Front, described the result as a “victory for liberty” and renewed her longstanding call for a referendum on exit for France. “The Europhile elite has been defeated,” crowed Geert Wilders of the Netherlands’ anti-immigrant Party for Freedom. He promised a referendum if he becomes prime minister. That outcome is rated wildly unlikely—but in the aftermath of the Brexit shock, anything seemed possible.

For European leaders, the most pressing question is how to deter contagion. That means making Britain’s exit look like an unattractive option, and preventing it from enjoying the benefits of EU membership once it has left. The idea, as one French minister said before the result, is “not to punish” Britain, but to send a strong signal to others. “We have to prevent copycats now.”

[Army Air Corps]

What will happen when Texas opts to leave the U.S.?

Speaking of that.

[William Tell]

From the article you linked: "The various theories of nullification and secession bandied before the Civil War, by John C. Calhoun and others, were clearly unconstitutional."

Here's a quote from the Articles of Confederation which preceded our Constitution:
"[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;"

I'm not aware of any similar statements in our present Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution became ratified when 9 of the original 13 colonies approved it. How would it be possible for the first 9 to bind the other 4 to a Constitution they didn't approve?

A majority of Kalifornians are unwilling to bear arms in order to protect their own families. What possibility exists that they would bear arms in order to force Texans to stay in the Union?

[Ken H]

Juncker? I thought it was a mean looking Fokker.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

“François Hollande... added that the EU now needed a “leap forward” to ward off the danger of Eurosceptic populists.”

The Great Leap Forward was an economic and social campaign by the Communist Party of China from 1958 to 1961. It ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of deaths, estimated from 18 to 46 million. Coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the foundation of the Great Leap Forward and it motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history.

Being a socialist, François Hollande should be very familiar with what the expression “leap forward” means.

[Army Air Corps]

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has floated the idea of an EU Army to provide, shall we say, “internal order”.

[Army Air Corps]

The author of the linked article asks basically the same question (i.e. If Texas were to make a move to secede, would California or other liberal states take-up arms to prevent such an action).