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

[Maester of Valyria]

13 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Right now, I think most countries in Europe are content with the situation as it is. Which is a pity, because I feel that with the EU as it is we're getting the worst of both worlds: a neoliberal union of countries, but without the political strength that it should have on the international scene.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure I truly understand nationalism. I mean, I love the culture of my nation and most of its values, but its institutions are definitely not something to be treasured and I'd willingly exchange them in a heartbeat for a single European country based on regional federalism.

What many people don't realise is that the UK was one of the main reasons the EU didn't gain the international political strength that it could and should have. We have been a consistent active barrier to further integration and cooperation.

In my opinion (I know that many people would disagree) nationalism is almost never a good thing: it fosters prejudice, xenophobia and isolationism. Like you, I would love to see a single European country structured along the lines of the USA.

13 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Funnily enough, some people in France rejoiced when Britain left the EU because they thought that there would be a greater chance of fighting neoliberalism on the EU level. There is a feeling in France that Britain and Germany can be partly blamed for the direction that the EU has taken. I doubt it's that simple, but nevertheless, Cameron did show that he could get huge concessions out of the EU...

This is something that was completely ignored by both sides of the debate. Cameron (much as I despise him) did succeed in gaining significant unilateral concessions, in the face of huge opposition from most other member states. People who say the EU can't be reformed should bear in this in mind, and consider what a force for change the UK could be if it lead other members in an effort to fully reform and democratise Europe.

[Altherion]

Is this the current UK Politics thread? Anyway, this article might be relevant given the thread title:

Quote

The jihadists suspected of carrying out the bomb and gun attacks in Paris and Brussels used British benefits payments to fund international terrorism, a court has heard.

...

Zakaria Bouffassil, 26, from Birmingham is accused of handing over the cash which had been withdrawn from the bank account of Anouar Haddouchi, a Belgian national, who had been claiming benefits while living in the West Midlands with his wife.

Kingston Crown Court heard how thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money continued to be paid into Haddouchi's bank account, even after he had left Britain for Syria and had begun fighting for Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (Isil).

Maybe the UK can save some money by not paying benefits to foreign nationals who don't even live in the UK anymore?

[Werthead]

22 hours ago, Notone said:

Football players will probably be the least affected workers in the EU though.  

I assume they will fall into some "UEFA player" category. That is obviously just a guess, and whichever goverment tries to deal with that issue, might fear they will set a precedent for other businesses, but I think there will be sufficient pressure from clubs and fans to make excemptions for the clubs and their "toys". The talent poaching might get a bit more tricky though. And it might affect the coaching staff however, but I don't see that happening either. 

Though I must admit, I get some guilty pleasure out of the image, how a Leave voter (supposition, but follow me down that road), gets mad how his real life political decission, influences the outcome of his video game. I find that pretty funny. 

Of course, I don't know if the gamer in question voted leave, or was even of voting age. 

Maybe FM should have included a Brexit scenario in their previous version.

Something that the EU has made clear is that there will be no "special arrangement" for individual sectors. Everything will be dealt with together.

This was another big problem in the debate. Whenever anyone raised a major issue, like the Northern Irish border, the freedom for British people to move around, the status of Gibraltar and the status of the 1 million + British retirees in Spain, the Leave campaigners just said that some kind of arrangement would be worked out. And it's clear right now that it won't be. Spain has hinted that if Britain doesn't hand back Gibraltar, they might have to take a look at the status of the British people living in Spain. All or even some of them being forced to return to the UK (massively outstripping the impact of remaining in the single market with freedom of movement) would cause a major economic crisis in the country overnight.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

32 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Something that the EU has made clear is that there will be no "special arrangement" for individual sectors. Everything will be dealt with together.

Please correct me, if the next paragraph has a logical flaw, I am not aware of.

But if the British gverment passed a unilateral law, that allows footballers from the EU to play in the EPL without going thourgh the work permit ordeal, then there's very little the EU can do I think. Of course that would mean the transfer of footballers is a one way deal (as the EU is under no pressure to make special accomendations for the huge amount of British players all around Europe).

 

The retirees in Spain is another issue. I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable using people as a lever in negotiations (mildly put). My inner cynic might make a cheap joke involving Farage's Breaking Point poster, but as soon as the realization sets in, that those 1 milion retirees aren't simply a number, but real people. Well, then the joke's pretty much over.

[Hereward]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

This was another big problem in the debate. Whenever anyone raised a major issue, like the Northern Irish border, the freedom for British people to move around, the status of Gibraltar and the status of the 1 million + British retirees in Spain, the Leave campaigners just said that some kind of arrangement would be worked out. And it's clear right now that it won't be. Spain has hinted that if Britain doesn't hand back Gibraltar, they might have to take a look at the status of the British people living in Spain. All or even some of them being forced to return to the UK (massively outstripping the impact of remaining in the single market with freedom of movement) would cause a major economic crisis in the country overnight.

No figures I've seen anywhere suggest that there are 1m British people in Spain. But anyway, I think it highly unlikely that Spain, having not even yet recovered from a massive property price crash, would deliberately put, on your figures, somewhere in the region of 250k-400k homes on the market in a fire sale, as British people were forced to sell as they lost residency. There's economic self harm and then there's economic suicide.

[Commodore]

notice the arguments against Brexit are to avoid EU sticks

"if you want to avoid economic punishment, let us rule over you politically"

 

[Werthead]

Quote

No figures I've seen anywhere suggest that there are 1m British people in Spain. But anyway, I think it highly unlikely that Spain, having not even yet recovered from a massive property price crash, would deliberately put, on your figures, somewhere in the region of 250k-400k homes on the market in a fire sale, as British people were forced to sell as they lost residency. There's economic self harm and then there's economic suicide.

It's seem improbable to me as well, but at least some in the Spanish government would probably risk it if they think they could get Gibraltar back. The majority of the Spanish people my mother knows (she lives there) really don't give a shit about Gibraltar though, so it depends on if the government want to play hardball on that particular issue. British tourism to Spain is a major source of income.

The number of British people who spend part of the year in Spain or own property there seems to be between 750,000 and 1 million. The number of permanent, all-year-round British residents in Spain is between 300,000 and 400,000. Presumably if they grab Spanish citizenship or dual nationality before Brexit there shouldn't be a problem.

Quote

But if the British gverment passed a unilateral law, that allows footballers from the EU to play in the EPL without going thourgh the work permit ordeal, then there's very little the EU can do I think. Of course that would mean the transfer of footballers is a one way deal (as the EU is under no pressure to make special accomendations for the huge amount of British players all around Europe).

That would work, and the value of the UK football market is pretty huge. English players might get extremely annoyed if they are denied the chance to play in Europe though.

Quote

The retirees in Spain is another issue. I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable using people as a lever in negotiations (mildly put). My inner cynic might make a cheap joke involving Farage's Breaking Point poster, but as soon as the realization sets in, that those 1 milion retirees aren't simply a number, but real people. Well, then the joke's pretty much over.

Both the British government and the Spanish (at least) have made it clear they are comfortable using British people living in Europe and European citizens living in the UK are levers during the negotiations. Repeated calls by multiple parties for them to say now, upfront, that people already resident in the other territory right now will be allowed to stay after Brexit have been ignored.

Quote

 

notice the arguments against Brexit are to avoid EU sticks

"if you want to avoid economic punishment, let us rule over you politically"

 

I'm not sure why this argument keeps being presented, as it is self-obviously flawed.

If you're part of a club and pay a large amount of money to that club for the return of benefits, you cannot expect to continue receiving those benefits when you leave and stop paying your membership to that club. The club's argument is that, even if continued goodwill is desirable, they can't let you do that because then everyone else in the club will say, "Hey, if they get that treatment then so can I!", and then everyone leaves the club and it collapses.

It's not punishment, it's simply the withdrawal of the benefits of membership after a you leaves the membership. Punishment would be if the EU turned around and imposed economic sanctions on Britain afterwards for shits and giggles.

The other issue, of course, is that when you are a member of the club you also get a say in its running, policy and operations (so you're part-ruling over yourself politically, and part-ruling others) which you don't when you leave, but those decisions still affect you every single day because of its sheer size and proximity.

[Commodore]

47 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I'm not sure why this argument keeps being presented, as it is self-obviously flawed.

If you're part of a club and pay a large amount of money to that club for the return of benefits, you cannot expect to continue receiving those benefits when you leave and stop paying your membership to that club. The club's argument is that, even if continued goodwill is desirable, they can't let you do that because then everyone else in the club will say, "Hey, if they get that treatment then so can I!", and then everyone leaves the club and it collapses.

It's not punishment, it's simply the withdrawal of the benefits of membership after a you leaves the membership. Punishment would be if the EU turned around and imposed economic sanctions on Britain afterwards for shits and giggles.

The other issue, of course, is that when you are a member of the club you also get a say in its running, policy and operations (so you're part-ruling over yourself politically, and part-ruling others) which you don't when you leave, but those decisions still affect you every single day because of its sheer size and proximity.

the argument that political union is necessary for free trade is disproven by real life examples where that is not so

the EU premise is, "submit to our courts and our laws (and give us cash), relinquish your sovereignty, or else member states will impose tariffs on you"

 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Commodore said:

the argument that political union is necessary for free trade is disproven by real life examples where that is not so

the EU premise is, "submit to our courts and our laws (and give us cash), relinquish your sovereignty, or else member states will impose tariffs on you"

To put it that way you must start by presenting free trade as the natural order of things. Except it isn't. And all free trade agreements involve some kind of give&take ; if they don't, they will heavily favour the most industrialized/developed party. The EU is just an extreme version of a free trade agreement that has political and legal ramifications... Which is good because it almost offsets the fact that free trade is actually shite.

In a nutshell, the EU is about more than free trade. That's the way it is and this is why Britain ended up leaving it. Not the EU's problem. Deal with it.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

English players might get extremely annoyed if they are denied the chance to play in Europe though.

UK players. There are quite a few Scots and Welsh abroad at present. But as a rule UK players (especially English players) don't go to the continent nearly as often as the other way around: they're notoriously bad travelers. On the other hand, there are powerful voices in the English leagues that have been demanding limits on non-UK players for years, they will see Brexit as an opportunity.

[Werthead]

Quote

the argument that political union is necessary for free trade is disproven by real life examples where that is not so

the EU premise is, "submit to our courts and our laws (and give us cash), relinquish your sovereignty, or else member states will impose tariffs on you"

No it isn't, and the semantic and mental hoops you have to jump through to get there must be exhausting.

Political union is not necessary for free trade, and you can have free trade with the EU without being a member (like Norway and Switzerland do, and now Canada). However, you have to give something else in return. That's just deal-making. You don't get something for nothing and it's naive to think you can.

In the case of Britain, a huge amount of our political and economic power rests on being part of the EU (the primary driver of the UK economy is the City of London, which is much more attractive as an EU hub than it is as not), and outside of the EU we are a diminished force with relatively little to offer. We benefitted from being members of the EU and it helped inflate our importance and influence on the world stage in the post-Empire era. There are ways we can make up for that in the long term, but in the short-term we are going to take a hit, and a lot of people who voted both against and for Brexit knew that. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't, or didn't believe it, and are now getting a cold, sharp reality check.

[Maester of Valyria]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Political union is not necessary for free trade, and you can have free trade with the EU without being a member (like Norway and Switzerland do, and now Canada). However, you have to give something else in return. That's just deal-making. You don't get something for nothing and it's naive to think you can.

Norway is a member of the EEA, and as such gets free trade with the rest of the bloc, but has to accept EU regulations and laws with no say in drafting them, and has to pay into the EU budget, etc. Switzerland participates in the free market in exchange for adopting many EU laws. In these cases political union was necessary. Canada's trade deal is not fully comprehensive (although it's close) and took years to sort through.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

In the case of Britain, a huge amount of our political and economic power rests on being part of the EU (the primary driver of the UK economy is the City of London, which is much more attractive as an EU hub than it is as not), and outside of the EU we are a diminished force with relatively little to offer. We benefitted from being members of the EU and it helped inflate our importance and influence on the world stage in the post-Empire era. There are ways we can make up for that in the long term, but in the short-term we are going to take a hit, and a lot of people who voted both against and for Brexit knew that. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't, or didn't believe it, and are now getting a cold, sharp reality check.

This is an extremely important point. The only reason we are internationally significant anymore is because of our membership of the EU. This is why I got so annoyed at all the people saying we could return to the days of the Empire: that's complete bs. We saw from May's India trip that the Commonwealth ('which we will reopen glorious trading relationships with') isn't interested unless we offer significant concessions.

[Chaircat Meow]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

In the case of Britain, a huge amount of our political and economic power rests on being part of the EU (the primary driver of the UK economy is the City of London, which is much more attractive as an EU hub than it is as not), and outside of the EU we are a diminished force with relatively little to offer. We benefitted from being members of the EU and it helped inflate our importance and influence on the world stage in the post-Empire era. There are ways we can make up for that in the long term, but in the short-term we are going to take a hit, and a lot of people who voted both against and for Brexit knew that. Unfortunately, a lot of people didn't, or didn't believe it, and are now getting a cold, sharp reality check.

The EU is responsible for a huge amount of our economic power? There is not much evidence for this. At best the EU membership would improve the UK's growth rate by a small amount. That's not what you call a huge amount of our economic power.

Also, how did this alleged inflated influence benefit us? The big decision, German Re-Unification, was ultimately arbitrated between the US, W. Germany and France. Furthermore, the big thing we did (starting with the SEA), wrt the EU, was to push for fewer trading barriers and EU expansion, which has proven, in retrospect, to be a colossal own goal, because the public don't want the consequences of EU expansion and we are now more dependent on the single market than we might have otherwise been.

The EU does not much influence either, because it is too divided and depends on the USA for security. The big decisions, especially wrt the EU's eastern border, have been taken in Washington. Unless the EU does a lot of centralizing, abolishes scores of vetoes and takes a much bigger slice of tax revenues, it won't be able to have much influence internationally.

[Seli]

On 25-11-2016 at 1:39 PM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

But which countries actually want this ever closer union? I don't see many willing to give up their national sovereignty 

For a similar reason people give up their individual sovereignty to live in a country. Together it is easier to actually use sovereignty rather than be pushed around by bigger powers. National sovereignty is rather useless when your big trading partners can just dictate their terms, just for starters.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

18 hours ago, Commodore said:

the argument that political union is necessary for free trade is disproven by real life examples where that is not so

the EU premise is, "submit to our courts and our laws (and give us cash), relinquish your sovereignty, or else member states will impose tariffs on you"

General comment/observation.

Can you at least be somewhat consistent ideoligically. Here and in the RIP Fidel Castro thread you are pro free markets and pro free trade. At the same time you show that sickening admiration for your "God Emperor" Trump. Who is all against free trade and for isolationism.  

Thank you.

[Hereward]

Counter-intuitively, I have a feeling that the EU is going to be a lot less cohesive with the UK gone. Looking at comments from free trade states like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and even Germany, and more conservative members like Poland, Hungary and the Baltics, I think that a lot of EU states that cynically relied on the UK veto while voting to demonstrate European solidarity are going to have to stick their heads above the parapet.

[mankytoes]

On 25/11/2016 at 6:03 PM, Maester of Valyria said:

@mankytoes

The Remain campaign DID exaggerate the immediate risks, I don't deny that. However the predictions of recession were not that extreme given that there were so many unknowns: is appears consumer spending held up fairly well, but that could well not have been the case. It is possible that we will escape recession; however with rising prices (higher inflation is a given) and falling investment our economy WILL be considerably poorer and less resilient (for example to another major financial crisis, or a Trump/China trade war) in any event.

That figure was one of Leave's two flagship promises: they made a such a big deal of it that they put it on the side of a bus! Numbers like that don't register because they're so big, but it doesn't mean they aren't important. And it was a lie that we would make net budget savings: see that £58bn cost.

Yes, they did. With respect, it is ludicrous to think that the campaign wasn't the most significant factor in the vote: this is shown by the continually narrowing margins in the months before.

I am extremely aware of the deprivation that exists in much of the country. This is a national disgrace, but it is not due to the EU but rather successive government's policies. It started when Thatcher began deindustrialisation, and it was never checked by meaningful efforts to start up new industries in the region, or even to retrain the people there or provide decent benefits. Globalism doesn't fail because of free trade - it fails because of governments.

I am also aware that London is a very different beast to the rest of the country. However given that around a third of the UK's tax comes from London, the city's voice and needs seem to have been ignored in the last few months.

I don't see why we (rich Western European countries who can easily afford it) should be complaining about helping the development of our poorer neighbours. Eastern Europe benefits from more than just subsidies (as do we) and they seem to appreciate the value of common direction just as much as they should.

Agreed: the Greek crisis was not handled as it should have been. However this is an example of a case where reform could have had a real impact. I will also mention that the UK has been extremely reluctant to contribute towards bailout funds.

Ok so...you're willing to see two decades of economic stagnation (if we're lucky) in the hope that what we get at the other end will be better than what we started with? Even if we manage to develop a German-like economy, entire generations will have been blighted by years of wasted development. Also, bye-bye NHS.

Indeed: it makes a nice change from facebook comment wars! If I may inquire, what do you do for a living? (no need to answer if you don't wish to).

When this topic dries up, I would be very happy to continue this over PM?

My main concern is that as the economy is so dependant on confidence, the constant Remainer doom mongering will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

You keep calling it a lie, but that is how much we send the EU. Whereas a number like the 58 billion is pretty much pulled out of someone's arse, I mean you can't possibly predict with any degree of accuracy. It's interesting to see the contrasting attitude to the two numbers.

I don't see any evidence to indicate that. Have a look at these opinion polls since 2010- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

You'll see there have always been loads of polls indicating most people want to leave. It swings back and forth- in spring 2015 Remain was solid, but two years before, it looks like Leave would have definitely won. The polls just before the vote actually indicated that Remain was winning, hence it was such a shock.

And it was a real shock to me. I thought the Leave campaign got the whole tone wrong, just like the "Nasty Party" tactics that got the Tories destroyed in 1997. If social conservatism won the popular vote, we wouldn't have a Tory party that embraced gay marriage. I think Leave won because the EU has been a failure.

There's a lot of reasons, but immigration, while raising the GDP overall, has kept wages down for the poorest. I've lived in Hull, and while there isn't really a social tension between locals and Eastern Europeans, there is an awareness that, in a poor area with low academic success and high unemployment, having thousands of unskilled workers come in isn't helping the situation. And being called stupid or bigoted for saying that drives people nuts.

It's interesting you feel that way. Are you aware that outside of London, most people have the exact opposite feeling, that London's interests are put above everyone else's? I don't think that's true exactly, people really don't understand how much poverty there is in London, but it emphasises how big the divide is.

For me, if we are going to help countries it should be done on their needs, not if they're on our continent. I would rather help poor countries than medium wealth ones (which all the Eastern Europeans fall into).

I would love to believe in reform, but people have been telling me reform will happen for years and years. I think there has to be an end to patience on the matter. Why would we want to contribute? We rejected the financial union.

No, I don't think we'll have two decades of stagnation, just that we won't see the biggest benefits in that time, it might be about the same. Why would this be the end to the NHS? That's a lot older than the EU...

Sure, I work for The Caravan Club in head office.

I'm happy to, if there are specific issues of contention. I'm not really sure we're going to get anywhere though, we can be civil but there is such a gap in our perceptions. 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 24/11/2016 at 11:37 AM, mormont said:

Can't be done. Brexit was and is a disaster. The government have no idea how to square the circle of free trade but no free movement, let alone deal with ancillary problems such as the Irish land border. Fools that they were, they went into a referendum with no plan for one of the outcomes. This is the major reason Leave won, IMO: Leave campaigners could say anything they liked, because there was no white paper realistically setting out what Leave actually meant.

Indeed, the only good free trade is when goods, services, capital AND labour are all able to move with equal freedom. So that makes the EU the only good free trade agreement in existence. So whichever way you slice it, Brexit was an economically bad decision if it actually means breaking up those movement freedoms. Retaining all movement freedoms except Labour is not good for the EU, though probably not actually all that bad economically, the potential fall out of other countries going the same way if they see the UK getting a sweet deal and thus ending the whole EU thing is bad for Europe. So the EU won't allow that outcome. Retaining all of the movement freedoms is economically good, but politically bad for the Brexiters and renders the whole Brexit thing meaningless to the economic and social situation in the UK. 

And of course the thing a lot of people are afraid of isn't the economic costs of a complete break up of the EU, but rather the security costs. Part of the reason for forming the EU was to avoid another continent-wide war. A lot of the EU member states still don't like each other very much, but they are part of this thing which has quite a few mutual benefits, so they play nice for as long as the benefits of being a "united" Europe continue to flow. Particularly among some of the Eastern members the trans-boundary dislike remains strong. So if the UK gets too good of a deal, and other economically strong and increasingly nationalistic member states decide to leave then another European war is definitely on the cards within a decade or two of the EU breaking up. I think the EU leaders know this, and they will bend over backwards to make the UK exit package as unattractive and painful for the UK as possible. Not because of sour grapes, but because peace and security in continental Europe is at stake.

[Yukle]

From the perspective of an Australian, I still find it weird that you'd want to sacrifice participation in a trading bloc that you still want to trade with.

Australian products have to conform to EU legislation in order to be sold there. It's exactly the same as trade with every single other country on Earth.

The difference in this instance: Australia cannot vote on EU laws, and its negotiation power is heavily limited. The UK hasn't extricated itself from EU laws, because it has to still comply with them for trade purposes. All its done is removed its ability to have a say in those laws.

Granted, it can prevent immigration - but that's at the cost of restricting all of its trade from now on by the fact that it cannot participate in adjusting laws that doesn't suit it.

[Wrl6199]

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

From the perspective of an Australian, I still find it weird that you'd want to sacrifice participation in a trading bloc that you still want to trade with.

Australian products have to conform to EU legislation in order to be sold there. It's exactly the same as trade with every single other country on Earth.

The difference in this instance: Australia cannot vote on EU laws, and its negotiation power is heavily limited. The UK hasn't extricated itself from EU laws, because it has to still comply with them for trade purposes. All its done is removed its ability to have a say in those laws.

Granted, it can prevent immigration - but that's at the cost of restricting all of its trade from now on by the fact that it cannot participate in adjusting laws that doesn't suit it.

yep.