Convince me that Brexit wasn't a terrible act of self-harm

[williamjm]

Apparently, there's a new legal case related to Brexit, in this case about whether leaving the EU automatically means leaving the EEA or if that has to be done separately. It's difficult to tell from the article how speculative the case is (the Government's position that we're only part of the EEA because we're part of the EU does sound superficially reasonable), but if they did win it could be bad news for fans of a Hard Brexit. Even if there's a Parliamentary vote on enacting Article 50 I can't see most MPs being willing to vote against it given the referendum result, but they might find it easier to vote against leaving the EEA given that it wasn't explicitly the subject of the referendum.

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

One of the ideas discussed in this thread came up today. Britain is looking to use its superior national security and intelligence as a factor in Brexit negotiations, according to the C4 News.

I'm disappointed this post has been here for three whole hours and nobody has pointed out that if Britain really had superior intelligence we wouldn't have voted for Brexit,

[Jo498]

10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

The ACW kind of proves the point. That only went off because the US was divided into two camps with viable borders (i.e. each bloc was all clumped together) by slavery. Now there is no division between different blocs of states that could lead to a break-up and the rise of different nations/sub-nations.

As an aside, Germany and Italy were not even a single state each until a few years after the American civil war. This does not prove any stability for the US, maybe rather that nations are not always as stable as we tend to think of them (and not only in the Balkan region).

[Which Tyler]

People think of the Balkans as being stable?

Maybe in an Augean manner, but certainly no others.

[SeanF]

16 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

@Chaircat Meow

We carved out London as the financial capital of the world (providing 1/3 of the UK tax take), we influenced trade deals, we benefitted from migration (look at the ONS stats). Our economy is stronger than it would otherwise be, and that gives us a lot of clout on the international stage.

So you're happy to be part of a US hegemony, but not a European one?

Increased centralisation would be beneficial in my opinion: having a common fiscal policy would help discourage tax avoidance and lessen the impact of economic crises. And I don't really see the problem with an 'EU superstate': we could be the New York state to the United States of Europe.

________________

@mankytoes:

All economies depend on confidence, and the vote shook that confidence massively. While I do see your point about the dangers of a self-fulfilling prophecy, the effects of rising inflation (which nobody controls) and reduced consumer choice and hence living standards (as a result of a 'hard Brexit') will dent confidence regardless.

That £350m/week figure has been debunked completely, not least by the (actually independent) ONS. It fails to take into account the UK rebate (which never gets sent off in the first place) and direct investment the UK receives from the EU, such as farming subsidies and university research grants. These are all areas that need subsidies and that we'd have to pay ourselves anyway. A more accurate figure for our net contribution is around £190m/week. This still fails to take into account the benefits we gain from EU membership in terms of free trade and FDI, etc, which although difficult to quantify have been estimated at around £60m/DAY.

The £58bn is an estimate of a worst-case scenario (ie a hard, cliff-edge Brexit) but it is by no means impossible, and looking at the way the government is going it's looking ever more likely.

Based of that Wikipedia page, the vast majority of polls in 2015 show a majority for Remain, 2014 is more even but the trend seems to be for Remain too, 2013 is heavily pro-Leave but I do not that the majority of polls in favour of Leave were conducted by or partly by right-wing eurosceptic papers, while the polls taken by other polling companies were heavily for staying in. The polls in 2012, 2011 and 2010 were all for Leave, although there were only six in total which is hardly enough for a reliable sample. In addition five of them were also influenced by The Sun. This seems to at the very least cast the 'swinging back and forth' claim into doubt: people were mainly won over by the Leave campaign.

Not to do with Europe so much, but I've often thought this comes from the conflict between a relatively socially liberal new leader and Prime Minister, and the party establishment of social conservatives.

This is an issue, and one that all well-developed countries must contend with in some form or another. However, governments have failed to act on things like the UK's productivity gap, the housing crisis, and worker collective bargaining power, instead actively making the situation worse in many cases (ie scrapping the Migrant Impact Fund), which have all contributed to the current situation. Immigration taking jobs would not be such an issue if there was higher 'native' employment in the country. To be sure, you can be concerned about the impact of immigration without being racist, but there's no denying that the Leave campaign was often characterised by xenophobia.

I do know that, and it's the other half of the disgraceful information gap that makes London and the north of the country ignore each other's problems. However as you say there isn't a huge amount of truth to it: London benefits from financial deregulation (in the short term at least) but it still suffers from all the other costs of austerity, notably in terms of housing and a shamefully high poverty rate (I live in one of the most deprived constituencies in the country)

Oh I completely agree; yet another reason to despise the Tories - cuts to aid. However from a selfish economic and social point of view, improving our close neighbours will boost our own economy in the long run.

But we now have proof on concept: Cameron's renegotiation package, while not everything he wanted, was proof that a single country can gain unilateral reform in the face of near-total opposition. We could have built on that precedent and lead the way among Europe's disaffected countries to a more democratic future (and speaking of democracy: we also have an unelected political legislature).

So we have to wait 20 years for the benefits of Brexit to become clear? That's a very long wait for a very uncertain outcome.

Tory philosophies of austerity and economic libertarianism, coupled with vastly reduced tax rates and more expensive borrowing. It won't all go at once, but we're already seeing the damage that creeping privatisation and underfunding causes.

Of course. And no, almost certainly not I'm afraid. Although I would like to thank you for both your civility and the opportunity to put my ideology to the test!

That's the key point.  There is not much appetite in the UK to be New York to the rest of Europe.  There are principled arguments in favour of creating a United States of Europe, among those countries that want to be part of such an entity.  But, the UK isn't one of them.

[Jo498]

No, the Balkans seem to be the textbook example for lack of stability due to ethnic tensions. But the Italian Lega Nord, the Basque, Scottish, Catalan etc. independence movements show that the Balkans might be more the norm than the exception.

[Werthead]

Quote

they might find it easier to vote against leaving the EEA given that it wasn't explicitly the subject of the referendum.

Possibly. I think it's easy to argue that most people voted for Brexit to stop immigration but then a lot of fence-sitters were convinced by the NHS bus argument, so it'd be possible to argue the opposite.

I'm starting to see a pendulum swing in people I know who voted for Leave that a second referendum might be required just to clear up some of the BS, but a second referendum would have to be on the basis of an actual white paper outlining exactly what's going to happen. The question was too vague.

[Maester of Valyria]

22 hours ago, Hereward said:

It's not largely thanks to us. It is opposed by a number of states with principled objections. Others may have a different general view, if you'll forgive the pun, but they have such differing views on what it is for, who runs it and how it is controlled, and such substantial domestic opposition even to the basic idea, that no-one who actually stands for election has ever been willing to use their political capital to start a huge row for such tiny chances of success. Blaming the British opposition is an easy way to avoid all that without forcing anyone else to break ranks.

I'm not saying that we were the only nation against creating an EU army. But we were the only one of the 'Big Three' to be against it. Right now, Germany and France are calling the shots, and I'm sure they'll find some way to convince the various dissenter states (most of which are in Eastern Europe IIRC, and hence vulnerable to Russia). Not only this, but since the primary opposition to an EU army is that it would undermine NATO, given the election of Donald Drumpf it could well be that NATO gets undermined anyway.

21 hours ago, Werthead said:

One of the ideas discussed in this thread came up today. Britain is looking to use its superior national security and intelligence as a factor in Brexit negotiations, according to the C4 News. They called it our national "security surplus", pointing out that no other nation in the EU comes close to our skills in those areas. Whilst I consider it implausible we'd ever withold intelligence from our allies about anything important like terrorism, certainly there's all sorts of areas where there is more scope for varying degrees of involvement.

I completely agree, and I've always found that argument absurd: it doesn't matter how many treaties you withdraw from, at the end of the day on things like national security you are still reliant on intelligence sharing and cooperation. What would happen if we came across infomation, say, of an impending terror attack in Warsaw? Would we just not alert the Polish government, and become guilty via inaction.

21 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So I tried figuring out just how dependent the UK was on the EU (or the reverse).

I found nothing conclusive on this. The UK has a massive trade deficit with the EU, but less than 50% (I've read 44%) of UK's exports go to EU countries and the percentage has actually been falling in the past years. The UK accounts for between 8 and 17% of exports for EU countries and British exports to the EU represent 13-15% of its economy.

Sticking just with imports and exports and ignoring other factors (such as budget payments, FDI, free trade, etc) the UK is far more dependent on the EU than the other way around. Regardless of whether our share of exports to them have been falling, they are still by far our largest export partner, and right now we are relying on exports for medium-term growth. This dwarfs the percentage of EU27 countries' exports which come to us.

I don't quite understand your last sentence: is 'it' the EU or Britain?

21 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Britain is certainly very good at being a surveillance state.

Ugh, true. Goodbye privacy.

21 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Yes, under president-elect Donald J. Trump the US is one of the most cohesive states in the world, far more so than India and, in some ways, China (Tibet and Xinjiang). It was united before Germany and unlike the UK and Spain has no nationalist independence movements of note. It does have a lot of ethnic/racial division but these don't map onto any specific territories with a history of self government (apart from the native American reservations) so are not a crippling problem.

Are you supporting Donald Trump? Because I think that warrants a whole 'nother topic: this one's about the British political and economic disaster of 2016

 

17 hours ago, williamjm said:

I'm disappointed this post has been here for three whole hours and nobody has pointed out that if Britain really had superior intelligence we wouldn't have voted for Brexit,

 

Thank you for that, you just made my day.

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

That's the key point.  There is not much appetite in the UK to be New York to the rest of Europe.  There are principled arguments in favour of creating a United States of Europe, among those countries that want to be part of such an entity.  But, the UK isn't one of them.

I'm not advocating this as an immediate goal. But I do think a United States of Europe would be the logical conclusion to 'ever closer union' and assuming London at least stays in the EU then it would remain the financial capital (for the record I do not necessarily support 'Londependence').

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Possibly. I think it's easy to argue that most people voted for Brexit to stop immigration but then a lot of fence-sitters were convinced by the NHS bus argument, so it'd be possible to argue the opposite.

I'm starting to see a pendulum swing in people I know who voted for Leave that a second referendum might be required just to clear up some of the BS, but a second referendum would have to be on the basis of an actual white paper outlining exactly what's going to happen. The question was too vague.

That's what I find the most infuriating.

Agreed: the LibDems have it right when they say we should have a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

On ‎28‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:24 PM, Maester of Valyria said:

Yes, and then it was largely due to Britain's own influence (Empire), as well as again it being a passage to Europe. We no longer have such significant influence of our own, so we've been able to borrow some from Europe. I agree that London is too dominant within the UK economy, but 1) that won't be solved by leaving the EU, and if anything it will make the situation worse as politicians try their hardest to ensure London's taxes keep subsidising the rest of the country, assuming a hard Brexit.

Increased free trade, in the long run, leads to a stronger economy. Lower growth does affect influence, as it limits the ability of the country to make itself heard internationally, such as through aid and economic and military support. And while I agree that £50bn isn't going to break the economy, it's still a very significant amount of money that will have to be largely cut from other areas of public spending.

The EU is not yet a military alliance, again largely thanks to us. However as the member with the strongest military we exerted considerable influence within the bloc, and hence internationally, when it came to defence affairs. I would argue that given the recent election in the USA it wouldn't be a bad thing at all for Europe to develop its own fully operational and independent defence system.

The United States of America started out as a bunch of states that united to form a single country that was stronger than any of them alone could be. It's not too dissimilar to the EU. And as for unpopularity, well that's true currently, but it's the only logical conclusion to 'ever closer union'. The Overton Window is constantly shifting.

 

I have no expertise wrt the UK's financial industry, but I have my doubts that it depends on the UK have either having a sphere of influence or an amount of influence we can borrow. I didn't say leaving the EU would make the City less important: I only pointed out that the claim London produces 1/3 of the UK's tax take, because of the EU, is not an argument in favour of the EU.

The EU doesn't generate anywhere near enough extra GDP for the UK (assuming it generates any) for the UK to derive any international clout from membership by virtue of a larger GDP. 

The bolded is a pretty big claim. Do you have any actual evidence of this? It seems counterintuitive that the EU gives Britain influence in defence matters when the EU isn't a military alliance.

I was pointing out how much more cohesive the USA is than Europe. Welding together different nations is really really hard. The US states were not nations, they did not have ethnic/linguistic differences and they had few historical rivalries compared to European states, and after their revolt they quickly expanded west of the Appalachians into areas with which they had no historical connections. This is totally unlike Europe. 

[Hereward]

2 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

I'm not saying that we were the only nation against creating an EU army. But we were the only one of the 'Big Three' to be against it. Right now, Germany and France are calling the shots, and I'm sure they'll find some way to convince the various dissenter states (most of which are in Eastern Europe IIRC, and hence vulnerable to Russia). Not only this, but since the primary opposition to an EU army is that it would undermine NATO, given the election of Donald Drumpf it could well be that NATO gets undermined anyway.

No, the dissenter states are not mostly in Eastern Europe, they are generally in favour. I've already listed them, but to recap, the most opposed states are Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Cyprus, because they are all historically neutral. On top of that, you have states that aren't philosophically opposed, but are friendly towards Russia, such as Greece and Bulgaria, who have concerns that an EU would be an aggressive act towards Russia. Without a single foreign policy, the EU Army would be wholly pointless and unusable.

[williamjm]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

Possibly. I think it's easy to argue that most people voted for Brexit to stop immigration but then a lot of fence-sitters were convinced by the NHS bus argument, so it'd be possible to argue the opposite.

I'd imagine immigration is the most popular reason for voting in favour of Brexit, possibly along with the more general sovereignty argument, although maybe among the 52% who voted to Leave there are probably a lot of smaller groups who care passionately about other issues. Most of Britain may be completely indifferent to issues like the Common Fisheries Policy but in some coastal areas that could be the dominant issue.

I'm starting to see a pendulum swing in people I know who voted for Leave that a second referendum might be required just to clear up some of the BS, but a second referendum would have to be on the basis of an actual white paper outlining exactly what's going to happen. The question was too vague.

I'd think anyone who has a particular vision of Britain's relationship with Europe, whether it be close co-operation or a 'Hard Brexit' should have reasons to be nervous about the current situation where we're apparently all at the mercy of what a small number of politicians decide. The advocates of Hard Brexit seem to mostly be arguing that we should let the Government get on with it without much oversight, but if May, Hammond and Boris were to get together and decide that they were going to stay in the EEA there's not much they can do in the short term to stop them except complain loudly. On the other hand, if May lets her dislike of immigration overcome the reasons she backed Remain during the referendum and sacrifices the single market then again there doesn't seem to be much anyone can do about it.

Agreed: the LibDems have it right when they say we should have a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

While I like the idea, I do wonder if tactically it might be better to ask for a referendum on what type of Brexit we have since there's more chance of getting at least some Leave supporters to think a second referendum would be justified.

The other way there could be a mandate for Brexit would be for there to be an election and the winning party having specific manifesto commitments, but it seems it's unlikely that will happen.

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, Maester of Valyria said:

Sticking just with imports and exports and ignoring other factors (such as budget payments, FDI, free trade, etc) the UK is far more dependent on the EU than the other way around. Regardless of whether our share of exports to them have been falling, they are still by far our largest export partner, and right now we are relying on exports for medium-term growth. This dwarfs the percentage of EU27 countries' exports which come to us.

I don't quite understand your last sentence: is 'it' the EU or Britain?

Britain: The UK accounts for between 8 and 17% of exports for EU countries and British exports to the EU represent 13 to 15% of the British economy.

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

The other way there could be a mandate for Brexit would be for there to be an election and the winning party having specific manifesto commitments, but it seems it's unlikely that will happen.

I don't know. At this rate it would be quite easy for the actual Brexit to not take place until after the next election even if it's not until 2020. The Lords delaying Article 50 being passed until after May 2018 would do it, and it'd be easy for them to do it.

[The Anti-Targ]

49 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I'd imagine immigration is the most popular reason for voting in favour of Brexit, possibly along with the more general sovereignty argument, although maybe among the 52% who voted to Leave there are probably a lot of smaller groups who care passionately about other issues. Most of Britain may be completely indifferent to issues like the Common Fisheries Policy but in some coastal areas that could be the dominant issue.

 

While I like the idea, I do wonder if tactically it might be better to ask for a referendum on what type of Brexit we have since there's more chance of getting at least some Leave supporters to think a second referendum would be justified.

The other way there could be a mandate for Brexit would be for there to be an election and the winning party having specific manifesto commitments, but it seems it's unlikely that will happen.

About 90% of Britain's EEZ is adjoining to other EU member states and Norway. And since fish don't stay in one location waiting for someone to come along and catch them there is clearly significant and reasonable common interest in what happens in each other's EEZ. Because some of what Britain does in it's EEZ will affect the fishery in the EZ of other countries. The CFP might have some major problems with it. But like the rest of Brexit, I don;t think the UK can expect absolute sovereignty over its fishery. And of course the UK would want to be able to have some say over what it's EEZ neighbours do with shared and migratory fish stocks.

Playing the "we'll ditch Brexit" general election manifesto card is a dangerous game for [presumably] Labour and the Lib Dems(?). If that's the only policy platform with which a voter agrees, and they are not rabidly in favour of remaining, then it is unlikely the voter will vote Labour or Lib Dem specifically so that the UK remains. Therefore Labour +/- Lib Dems are not likely to gain a parliamentary majority because of a remain manifesto, and may end up losing to the Tories in spite of a majority of Britons now (or in the near future) favouring Remain. And then of course you will have rabid leavers who would normally vote Labour/Lib Dem who might decide to suck up another term of Tories in charge just to see Brexit through. Campaigning for a change of govt on a single issue for the major opposition party is probably a losing approach. The best hope for people who want to cancel (or minimise) Brexit is for a second referendum which properly informs people of what Brexit will definitely achieve, and not achieve, and hope that this causes a 3% swing back in favour of remaining in the EU or having a Clayton's Brexit.

What is the mood on the continent though? Are the continental leaders pushing for a hard Brexit or are they keen, or at least willing, for a soft Brexit?

 

 

[williamjm]

18 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Playing the "we'll ditch Brexit" general election manifesto card is a dangerous game for [presumably] Labour and the Lib Dems(?). If that's the only policy platform with which a voter agrees, and they are not rabidly in favour of remaining, then it is unlikely the voter will vote Labour or Lib Dem specifically so that the UK remains. Therefore Labour +/- Lib Dems are not likely to gain a parliamentary majority because of a remain manifesto, and may end up losing to the Tories in spite of a majority of Britons now (or in the near future) favouring Remain. And then of course you will have rabid leavers who would normally vote Labour/Lib Dem who might decide to suck up another term of Tories in charge just to see Brexit through. Campaigning for a change of govt on a single issue for the major opposition party is probably a losing approach. The best hope for people who want to cancel (or minimise) Brexit is for a second referendum which properly informs people of what Brexit will definitely achieve, and not achieve, and hope that this causes a 3% swing back in favour of remaining in the EU or having a Clayton's Brexit.

I think it would be dangerous for Labour, given how many of their strongholds voted for Leave they could have a lot to lose. On the other hand, I think it makes perfect sense tactically for the Lib Dems, when they only got 7 or 8% at the last election there's a lot of opportunity from targeting some of the 48% who voted Remain. Appealing to the losing side in a referendum can be a great move in a FPTP election if you're the only party doing it and there are multiple other parties splitting the winning side of the vote, look at Scotland where the SNP lost a referendum then a year later were getting 30%+ swings in their favour across the country to win just about every constituency. I don't think the Lib Dems would get the same amount of benefit since they're starting from a much lower base but even if they got a quarter of the Remain voters to back them that would still be a big improvement for them on their post-Clegg slump.

[The Anti-Targ]

That's a fair point about the Lib Dems. Minor parties can often capitalise on a large disaffected voter bloc. If they are the only party that strongly campaign on an overturn Brexit platform they may end up with a larger, and potentially pivotal number of seats. But going into coalition with the Tories would probably make an unBrexit unlikely, and I suspect whatever happens Labour may find itself lacking the numbers for a cohesive coalition.

But the benefit of minor parties being the sole campaigners on one side of an issue which roughly splits the country 50/50 isn't limited to FPTP. Arguably in a PR system that party stands to gain more than it would in FPTP. There's a risk that under FPTP the support for the platform will be diffused throughout several electorates and no one electorate will give them a winning number of votes. Under most a PR systems that diffuse increase of support would translate into an increased number of seats and into a potentially king-making position. In fact it is almost certain the the Lib dems would regularly be in a king-making position if the UK has a PR system. Which some might argue is a good reason for retaining FPTP I suppose.

It would be interesting to see what sort of govt would have been formed after the 2015 GE under a PR system that more or less allocated seats according to vote share. UKIP and the Tories could have formed a majority coalition depending on the exact methodology for allocating seats. While their collective vote share was below 50%, given that all PR systems end up wasting votes for very small parties UKIP and the Tories would have ended up with >50% of the vote share among parties that earned seats in Parliament.

I wonder if the prospect of UKIP being in government and having ministerial portfolios wouldn't make some of the more centrist Tory voters vote for a party other than the Tories. In some ways, if a Tory leaning person wanted a Tory lead government that excludes UKIP a strategic vote for Lib Dem would help to give the Tories options when entering into coalition negotiations.

[Maester of Valyria]

@Chaircat Meow

Quote

I have no expertise wrt the UK's financial industry, but I have my doubts that it depends on the UK have either having a sphere of influence or an amount of influence we can borrow. I didn't say leaving the EU would make the City less important: I only pointed out that the claim London produces 1/3 of the UK's tax take, because of the EU, is not an argument in favour of the EU.

The competitiveness of the UK's financial services sector relies upon many things, but one of the main factors is the fact that firms can set up here and then export barrier-free to the EU market. For example 'passporting' is used by thousands of companies in this country and they rely heavily upon being able to continue doing so in the future. If they can't then in the medium term they may well relocate at least some of their operations, with all the consequences for tax take and jobs implicit.

Disagreeable as London providing such a high figure may be, we are stuck with this arragement for the next decade or two at least, and reducing London's tax take is not a healthy way to correct this imbalance.

 

Quote

The EU doesn't generate anywhere near enough extra GDP for the UK (assuming it generates any) for the UK to derive any international clout from membership by virtue of a larger GDP. 

The benefits of the UK's EU membership have been estimated at around £60m/day. That is far greater than our net budget contribution and other costs associated with membership.

Quote

The bolded is a pretty big claim. Do you have any actual evidence of this? It seems counterintuitive that the EU gives Britain influence in defence matters when the EU isn't a military alliance.

We spend the second most on our military as a percentage of GDP (after Greece, surprisingly), and the highest per capita, we have a proven willingness to get involved militarily if necessary (not that I'm defending recent forays into the Middle East you understand, but the point still stands). On top of that, we are one of only two members with their own nuclear programs. The fact that the EU isn't a military alliance only adds to this: it has no expertise of its own in this area. You only have to look at how please France is now that it'll be leading discussions of this sort in the future.

 

Quote

I was pointing out how much more cohesive the USA is than Europe. Welding together different nations is really really hard. The US states were not nations, they did not have ethnic/linguistic differences and they had few historical rivalries compared to European states, and after their revolt they quickly expanded west of the Appalachians into areas with which they had no historical connections. This is totally unlike Europe. 

I never claimed that the two were identical. Obviously a 'US of E' is a long way off yet. Europe doesn't have a huge amount of ethnic differences either though, and now most people speak English or have access to electronic translation anyway. The historical and cultural barrier is a tricky one, I grant you, but the USA gets on quite well with marked divisions of these sorts between different states.

____________________________

@Hereward

Quote

No, the dissenter states are not mostly in Eastern Europe, they are generally in favour. I've already listed them, but to recap, the most opposed states are Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Cyprus, because they are all historically neutral. On top of that, you have states that aren't philosophically opposed, but are friendly towards Russia, such as Greece and Bulgaria, who have concerns that an EU would be an aggressive act towards Russia. Without a single foreign policy, the EU Army would be wholly pointless and unusable.

Really? I was under the impression that they were the states most opposed to the creation of an EU army because they don't want it interfering with NATO.

Regardless, while I take your point about historically neutral states, opinions could change very quickly if Russia continues to up its aggression in Eastern Europe and the Middle East (not that we seem to care about that little mess we made).

_____________________________

20 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Britain: The UK accounts for between 8 and 17% of exports for EU countries and British exports to the EU represent 13 to 15% of the British economy.

Ok. Taking those facts at face value, it's clear that our economy as a whole is more  dependent on Europe than Europe's is on us (13-15% or our entire economy against 8-17% of the EU's exports (only exports)). This also doesn't include the benefits we gain from other countries because of EU trade deals negotiated at terms we would never be able to gain, and also the FDI we attract because of our single market membership (ie firms wanting access to Europe).

__________________________

17 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It would be interesting to see what sort of govt would have been formed after the 2015 GE under a PR system that more or less allocated seats according to vote share. UKIP and the Tories could have formed a majority coalition depending on the exact methodology for allocating seats. While their collective vote share was below 50%, given that all PR systems end up wasting votes for very small parties UKIP and the Tories would have ended up with >50% of the vote share among parties that earned seats in Parliament.

You might find this link interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32601281

I'm in favour of PR in principle, but at the moment it would make UKIP into kingmakers and that wouldn't be good for anybody apart from the rich and the giant corporations.

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, Maester of Valyria said:

Ok. Taking those facts at face value, it's clear that our economy as a whole is more  dependent on Europe than Europe's is on us (13-15% or our entire economy against 8-17% of the EU's exports (only exports)). This also doesn't include the benefits we gain from other countries because of EU trade deals negotiated at terms we would never be able to gain, and also the FDI we attract because of our single market membership (ie firms wanting access to Europe).

 

Apparently so.

This link summarizes some facts well (though I've done my best to corroborate with other sources):
https://infacts.org/uk-needs-eu-more-than-it-needs-us/

Quote

Britain’s exports to the EU represent 13% of our GDP. The rest of the EU’s exports to Britain represent just 3% of its GDP. Neither side would win from a trade war. But we would be hit proportionately much harder. We need them more than they need us. They could afford to play hard ball. We couldn’t as, if they limited access to the single market which accounts for 44% of our exports, we would be hit badly.

 

[Yukle]

It's time like this that the UK should really consider having a codified constitution. As much as the EU is about "taking control" a surprisingly (and worryingly) large amount of their laws exist in common law and legal precedents.

Furthermore, if they really want to get rid of undemocratic systems, they must trash the House of Lords, which has no place in any society. It undermines their parliament. There's nothing wrong with having two chambers to parliament, but one of them should not be a house of lords.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

Furthermore, if they really want to get rid of undemocratic systems, they must trash the House of Lords, which has no place in any society. It undermines their parliament. There's nothing wrong with having two chambers to parliament, but one of them should not be a house of lords.

Sadly, I suspect Brexit will prevent any realistic hope of serious House of Lords reform in the next decade (not that there seemed to be much prospect of that anyway) because there are enough constitutional issues to deal with without adding that to the list.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

Sadly, I suspect Brexit will prevent any realistic hope of serious House of Lords reform in the next decade (not that there seemed to be much prospect of that anyway) because there are enough constitutional issues to deal with without adding that to the list.

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes reforms happen in rapid spurts, where everyone wants quick overhauls as soon as they have the chance to do so. It depends on the people in power, really.