UK Politics MCMXXXIX: Should I stay or should I go now?

[The Marquis de Leech]

16 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Given that the UK isn't part of the monetary union how much trouble would the "Brexit" create for the EU?

The biggest problem is symbolic. The EU is supposed to be about ever closer union - and no country has ever left. Breaking the taboo suddenly up-ends the EU's reason for existence, and sets a powerful precedent.

[mormont]

On 28/05/2016 at 10:28 PM, A wilding said:

After all, if it will be so beneficial to us all, why exactly have they been so desperate to keep the whole thing as secret as possible and to try to get it through under the radar?

Under the radar? Secret? TTIP's been public knowledge for ages. It's not in the papers every day, but trade deals never are, because even when they're important to the everyday lives of voters, they're hard to explain, a bit technical and dull, and their impact is difficult to correctly predict. The early negotiations were confidential, but that's normal for any international trade agreement. Short of David Cameron taking out newspaper ads about it, I'm not sure what else you think the government should be doing. 

I don't like a lot of the things that are in TTIP and I would probably vote against it, but I think this notion that 'it must be bad for people because they were trying to keep it secret!' is a pretty terrible argument.

However, getting back to the point, I agree with Wert that it's not a reason to vote for Brexit. If you want a trade deal with either the EU or the US after an exit, guess what: that'll be on the same terms as TTIP, whether we get it immediately or in ten years' time.

[SeanF]

On ‎5‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 3:26 PM, Werthead said:

For a new trade deal after Brexit, yes. Any deal that is made with the EU before we leave, we will have to lap up and accept, and our kind Tory government has already made it clear that they are willing to accept a deal at almost any cost, and a greater cost than the rest of the EU.

If we accept TTIP, we will be permanently poorer because we will be allowing American corporations unacceptable power and influence over European markets, politics and institutions, and giving them the right to sue anyone who objects.

The fact that those in favour of Brexit, who like to pretend sovereignty is an issue, seem willing to cede our sovereignty to Washington rather than Brussles is interesting.

UKIP have always opposed TTIP on grounds of loss of sovereignty.

[Maltaran]

Somehow I doubt that Carswell on his own in the Commons would make much difference to its passage.

[A wilding]

On 30/05/2016 at 10:56 AM, mormont said:

Under the radar? Secret? TTIP's been public knowledge for ages. It's not in the papers every day, but trade deals never are, because even when they're important to the everyday lives of voters, they're hard to explain, a bit technical and dull, and their impact is difficult to correctly predict. The early negotiations were confidential, but that's normal for any international trade agreement. Short of David Cameron taking out newspaper ads about it, I'm not sure what else you think the government should be doing.

Well maybe. However:

TTIP is not just a "trade" deal, its "investor state dispute settlement" clauses as they stand will result in a significant loss of national sovereignty that is designed to be effectively irreversible. Yet all those politicians so keen to talk about the UK's loss of sovereignty to the EU have been conspicuously silent about it.

The main reason why people have ever heard of TTIP and the issues with it is because of grassroots protest. It was only later that it started getting even mentioned by mainstream news organisations and the occasional politician.

The security precautions round the draft text remain extreme. Even the politicians who are expected to vote it into law are not allowed proper access to it. I find the "ongoing negotiation requires secrecy" argument unpersuasive, given that the corporations who stand to do so well out of it do have unfettered access.

[SeanF]

24 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

Somehow I doubt that Carswell on his own in the Commons would make much difference to its passage.

Yes, I think that the Parliamentary Conservative majority would vote in favour of TTIP, in the event of a Brexit vote.

It's an interesting example of where UKIP's views diverge from those of the Conservative Right.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, A wilding said:

TTIP is not just a "trade" deal, its "investor state dispute settlement" clauses as they stand will result in a significant loss of national sovereignty that is designed to be effectively irreversible. Yet all those politicians so keen to talk about the UK's loss of sovereignty to the EU have been conspicuously silent about it.

True. But, as I say, that's partly because it's a harder sell: you can make the 'loss of sovereignty' argument re: the EU work because it's a simple human story with a personal dimension* (foreigners stealing our jobs!) rather than a more complicated one about international companies taking legal action against governments. The latter is no less important, mind you - in fact, it's probably more so - but it's all about stuff happening in a courtroom, which turns a lot of voters off.

It's also true that many of those politicians are being inconsistent, of course, but you'd have to ask them about that. I don't get the difference either.

Anyway, the point is that TTIP isn't talked about enough, for sure: but it's not really reasonable to argue that the government have desperately been trying to keep it secret, therefore it must be bad.

I feel dirty now, defending Cameron.

*I'd argue this is actually the only way the 'loss of sovereignty' argument really gets any traction. Most voters aren't that bothered about abstract concepts.

[SeanF]

Spoiler

 

Unusually,  a telephone poll now has Leave ahead.  ICM has Leave 45%, Remain 42%, which amounts to 52/48% excluding don't knows.

[Commodore]

decentralization and disruption are popular buzzwords these days, but leftists generally balk when they are applied to political power

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Commodore said:

decentralization and disruption are popular buzzwords these days, but leftists generally balk when they are applied to political power

Life, as usual, is a bit more complicated than that. For example, in places like Scotland and the Basque country, major left-wing parties are in favour of both the EU and independence, while other left-wing parties in the same places take a different view on either or both issues.

It's almost as if generalising about 'leftists' were a foolish thing to do.

[Commodore]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Life, as usual, is a bit more complicated than that. For example, in places like Scotland and the Basque country, major left-wing parties are in favour of both the EU and independence, while other left-wing parties in the same places take a different view on either or both issues.

It's almost as if generalising about 'leftists' were a foolish thing to do.

That's why I used the "in general" qualifier. 

The interesting dynamic at play here is that many leftists don't think the power centers are leftist enough. But rather than try and take them over as is traditional, they want to separate.

My guess is Scotland/Basque realize it would be disaster to separate from their sugar daddy, while other leftists in favor of separation can't understand that. 

[mormont]

I think your understanding of European politics is lacking, but I've no desire to educate you today.

[Commodore]

just saying, if you believe in forcible wealth redistribution, separating from the source of wealth might be unwise

[Werthead]

Quote

separating from the source of wealth might be unwise

Well, that's true in general regardless of the situation, unless the source of wealth is itself actively harmful to society.

In the case of the EU, it itself is the source of much of the UK's wealth, and separating from it or placing significant barriers to that wealth is certainly highly unwise.

[Chaircat Meow]

Two things.

1. Latest ICM poll showed 40% of labour voters back Brexit. This could be a real problem for them, given so few labour MPs (I think about seven) are in favour of Brexit.

However,

2. Labour Leave say

Labour Leave‏@labourleave 7h

Next week we will be announcing support from a senior figure from the Labour front bench who supports a vote to leave the EU! Stay tuned!

So, any ideas who it is?

[Maltaran]

I'm looking at the Shadow Cabinet list, and all the names I recognise are I believe already publically on the remain side, so either I'm misremembering or else it's a not very prominent figure

[Chaircat Meow]

Yeah, they said frontbench, not shadow cabinet, so I'm guessing it is some very minor shadow minister.

[The Killer Snark]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Well, that's true in general regardless of the situation, unless the source of wealth is itself actively harmful to society.

In the case of the EU, it itself is the source of much of the UK's wealth, and separating from it or placing significant barriers to that wealth is certainly highly unwise.

Considering that 350 million pounds a week goes from the UK to the EU, with a rebate telling us how to spend it, and considering the massive boost in national employment that would result if we were forced more into reliance on our own large and small industries, I don't see how that argument can be made. The massive lost quantities of money to the UK through being in the EU could have spent not only on our own health, welfare and housing systems, routinely strained by forced quotas of over-immigration, but we could also have spent that money on development of national industry.

[The BlackBear]

45 minutes ago, The Killer Snark said:

with a rebate telling us how to spend it

Sorry where? We don't pay then get the money back, the rebate we get is deducted from our amount to pay. No where about the UK rebate have I heard us being told how to spend the money (which we keep anyway.)

[The Anti-Targ]

On 30/05/2016 at 9:56 PM, mormont said:

Under the radar? Secret? TTIP's been public knowledge for ages. It's not in the papers every day, but trade deals never are, because even when they're important to the everyday lives of voters, they're hard to explain, a bit technical and dull, and their impact is difficult to correctly predict. The early negotiations were confidential, but that's normal for any international trade agreement. Short of David Cameron taking out newspaper ads about it, I'm not sure what else you think the government should be doing. 

I don't like a lot of the things that are in TTIP and I would probably vote against it, but I think this notion that 'it must be bad for people because they were trying to keep it secret!' is a pretty terrible argument.

However, getting back to the point, I agree with Wert that it's not a reason to vote for Brexit. If you want a trade deal with either the EU or the US after an exit, guess what: that'll be on the same terms as TTIP, whether we get it immediately or in ten years' time.

Actually I would imagine the EU and the USA would simply tell Britain to become a 3rd signatory to TTIP, or bugger off. And that's really the problem with Brexit. If the UK wants to do business in the EU with the degree of freedom it wants, then it will effectively have to sign a treaty with the EU signing up to just about all the stuff the Brexiters are complaining about. But being on the outside means you have less chance at influencing the formulation of these things to which you will have to agree.

Aside from feeling like they have their autonomy back I'm not sure there will be a substantial benefit to Brexit. In theory Brexit might be better for New Zealand because hopefully Britain might become a bit more Commonwealth centric and thus be more open to trade with its former colonies, and perhaps even be more slightly more relaxed about people coming to work for a few years in Britain from said former colonies. So based on self-interested potential benefit I could be for the Brexit. But I'm inclined to think Britain will pay no more mind to its Commonwealth friends than it does currently. For my country I think there is a net downside because suddenly we will have to negotiate trade with a significant former member of the EU and still have to maintain focus on what remains of the EU. And we would definitely be against the idea of the EU falling apart completely because then we are into having to negotiate trade with 28 countries instead of one region. And we have some really significant agreements with the EU that gives us a lot of relaxed access conditions which would disappear in favour of much tougher trade access conditions over night. I'm guessing the USA has very much the same attitude. It wants to have a single set of trade access conditions to a 500 million person market, not 28 trade access conditions that all differ to a greater or lesser extent with no single market being more than 80 million. If Brexit is the thin edge of an EU disintegrating wedge then pretty much all of the EUs significant external trading partners will be hoping Brexit loses.