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

[mormont]

13 hours ago, Maltaran said:

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

I mean, most of the Shadow Cabinet aren't very prominent figures anyway.

[Maltaran]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I mean, most of the Shadow Cabinet aren't very prominent figures anyway.

Yep, the aforementioned names I recognise can be counted on my fingers.

[Sir Thursday]

Maybe it's Tom Watson? (Do immigrants count as hyper-intelligent shark people?)

ST

[Chaircat Meow]

Really excellent performance from Michael Gove tonight. I didn't think he'd do anywhere near as well. I was very impressed.

[Werthead]

 

Quote

Considering that 350 million pounds a week goes from the UK to the EU,

This doesn't happen.

Quote

with a rebate telling us how to spend it,

Neither does this.

Quote

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

Which wouldn't happen because of the loss of free access to our previous largest foreign trade market.

Quote

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.

Or, more likely under this government, on funding massive tax cuts for the rich.

Quote

maintained by desperately-needed amounts of immigration,

Fixed that for you.

Quote

but we could also have spent that money on development of national industry.

Like what? The Conservatives and New Labour have spent the past 30 years systematically dissolving national industry, with or without the influence of the EU, in favour of developing a service-based economy instead.

If you think that we'll leave the EU and immediately start re-opening coal pits and rebuilding shipyards, I fear you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Quote

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.

Yup. This is something that Remain has been piss-poor on articulating: the Leave campaign keeps painting a picture where the following things happen:

1) We get control of our borders.

2) We get free and unrestrained access to the European Common Market.

Given that, under EU regulations, these are two mutually exclusive positions, it therefore falls to Leave to explain, in detailed plans supported by evidence, exactly how this is going to be achieved. So far this has not materialised.

[Chaircat Meow]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

This doesn't happen.

Neither does this.

Which wouldn't happen because of the loss of free access to our previous largest foreign trade market.

Or, more likely under this government, on funding massive tax cuts for the rich.

Fixed that for you.

Like what? The Conservatives and New Labour have spent the past 30 years systematically dissolving national industry, with or without the influence of the EU, in favour of developing a service-based economy instead.

If you think that we'll leave the EU and immediately start re-opening coal pits and rebuilding shipyards, I fear you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Yup. This is something that Remain has been piss-poor on articulating: the Leave campaign keeps painting a picture where the following things happen:

1) We get control of our borders.

2) We get free and unrestrained access to the European Common Market.

Given that, under EU regulations, these are two mutually exclusive positions, it therefore falls to Leave to explain, in detailed plans supported by evidence, exactly how this is going to be achieved. So far this has not materialised.

It isn't actually true that you need freedom of movement to have no tariffs on certain exports/imports. Turkey, for instance, has long enjoyed tariff free access to the EU for manufactures. For this reason the car example Cameron used is especially bad, as services are far more likely to suffer tariffs than manufactures.

I also think that given the EU wants to lower tariffs with its trading partners, such as the USA, it will not move to re-impose very many on the UK if it leaves, regardless of the UK's position on freedom of movement.

[Commodore]

decentralization/devolving power is always preferable to blanket policies

[Werthead]

10 hours ago, Commodore said:

decentralization/devolving power is always preferable to blanket policies

You would then advocate the dissolution of the United States of America?

[Commodore]

8 hours ago, Werthead said:

You would then advocate the dissolution of the United States of America?

I would be in favor of the right to exit, and would support exit. 

Minorities in any social organization need the ability to exercise voice (to persuade the majority) and exit (to separate from an unpersuadable majority). 

 

 

[SeanF]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 11:40 PM, Werthead said:

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 11:40 PM, Werthead said:

 

This doesn't happen.

Neither does this.

Which wouldn't happen because of the loss of free access to our previous largest foreign trade market.

Or, more likely under this government, on funding massive tax cuts for the rich.

Fixed that for you.

Like what? The Conservatives and New Labour have spent the past 30 years systematically dissolving national industry, with or without the influence of the EU, in favour of developing a service-based economy instead.

If you think that we'll leave the EU and immediately start re-opening coal pits and rebuilding shipyards, I fear you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Yup. This is something that Remain has been piss-poor on articulating: the Leave campaign keeps painting a picture where the following things happen:

1) We get control of our borders.

2) We get free and unrestrained access to the European Common Market.

Given that, under EU regulations, these are two mutually exclusive positions, it therefore falls to Leave to explain, in detailed plans supported by evidence, exactly how this is going to be achieved. So far this has not materialised.

This doesn't happen.

Neither does this.

Which wouldn't happen because of the loss of free access to our previous largest foreign trade market.

Or, more likely under this government, on funding massive tax cuts for the rich.

Fixed that for you.

Like what? The Conservatives and New Labour have spent the past 30 years systematically dissolving national industry, with or without the influence of the EU, in favour of developing a service-based economy instead.

If you think that we'll leave the EU and immediately start re-opening coal pits and rebuilding shipyards, I fear you're going to be sorely disappointed.

Yup. This is something that Remain has been piss-poor on articulating: the Leave campaign keeps painting a picture where the following things happen:

1) We get control of our borders.

2) We get free and unrestrained access to the European Common Market.

Given that, under EU regulations, these are two mutually exclusive positions, it therefore falls to Leave to explain, in detailed plans supported by evidence, exactly how this is going to be achieved. So far this has not materialised.

I'm not sure that the Single Market actually works very well for the UK.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/balanceofpayments/2015-09-30#current-account-with-eu-and-non-eu-countries-table-c

Broadly, the UK's trade with non-EU countries is in balance, whereas there's an enormous deficit with EU Countries.  The Single Market is clearly very good for anyone who's selling into the UK, but not so good for UK exporters.

[The Marquis de Leech]

It's also questionable whether (significant) tariffs would be imposed in response to an exit. Conventional economics and comparative advantage prefer free trade at the theoretical level. While reality is more complicated, the residual EU cutting off trade with Britain would be hurting itself as much as anything else.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I have a question. It appears as if referendum style elections in the UK (Scottish independence, Brexit) appear to look similar to two-party elections in the US. in other words, regardless of the merits of the two sides we never get blowouts, but rather somewhat close elections always. granted we have few case studies from the UK, but I wonder if there is something fundamental about human nature that makes these kinds of two-choice elections never be runaways (in recent years at least).

It probably helps that in these two cases compelling arguments could be made for both sides.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I have a question. It appears as if referendum style elections in the UK (Scottish independence, Brexit) appear to look similar to two-party elections in the US. in other words, regardless of the merits of the two sides we never get blowouts, but rather somewhat close elections always. granted we have few case studies from the UK, but I wonder if there is something fundamental about human nature that makes these kinds of two-choice elections never be runaways (in recent years at least).

It probably helps that in these two cases compelling arguments could be made for both sides.

Not quite true. The last two UK-wide referenda were blow-outs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975 - 67%-33% (Yes wins)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 - 68% - 32% (No wins)

 

[mormont]

53 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

It's also questionable whether (significant) tariffs would be imposed in response to an exit. Conventional economics and comparative advantage prefer free trade at the theoretical level. While reality is more complicated, the residual EU cutting off trade with Britain would be hurting itself as much as anything else.

The reality is indeed more complicated. Not to impose any trade disadvantage to a state leaving the EU would be politically impossible. It would mean there's no barrier to exit, and no benefit to membership. Why give non-EU UK free trade but insist that non-EU Turkey has to jump through hoops to become a member to get the same deal?

It's just not credible to suggest that trade with the EU would continue to be free. Trade will continue - of course it will - but not on the same terms. It can't.

[Commodore]

don't buy the claim that political union is a prerequisite for free trade

[The Marquis de Leech]

But the raison d'etre of the EU isn't economic. It's political. It's why the Euro project continues, despite making no economic sense.

If the EU exists for political reasons, membership (or non-membership) should also be justified in terms of the desirability of ever closer union. Bribing countries to join with trade deals and then punishing them if they leave (especially when the punishment would hurt the EU as well as Britain, and likely cause issues with the WTO) isn't what the European project was supposed to be about. After all, if ever closer union was such an admirable goal, why would anyone want to leave?

[Commodore]

Quote

 the raison d'etre of the EU isn't economic. It's political.

What are the negative political ramifications of exit? 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

The reality is indeed more complicated. Not to impose any trade disadvantage to a state leaving the EU would be politically impossible. It would mean there's no barrier to exit, and no benefit to membership. Why give non-EU UK free trade but insist that non-EU Turkey has to jump through hoops to become a member to get the same deal?

It's just not credible to suggest that trade with the EU would continue to be free. Trade will continue - of course it will - but not on the same terms. It can't.

I agree trade won't continue on exactly the same terms but it isn't true that the abolition of tariffs is the only benefit to membership. By leaving the UK would also lose its seat at the table and all its voting rights.

The opposition to Turkey is mainly due to political/cultural factors, not economic ones. There are fears Turkish membership would make further integration harder, compromise Europe's cultural identity and then there is concern over Turkish democracy/rights etc.

 

[Altherion]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

The reality is indeed more complicated. Not to impose any trade disadvantage to a state leaving the EU would be politically impossible. It would mean there's no barrier to exit, and no benefit to membership. Why give non-EU UK free trade but insist that non-EU Turkey has to jump through hoops to become a member to get the same deal?

It all depends on how beneficial the status quo is to each side. If the arrangement is not beneficial to either side, then it will be renegotiated (from SeanF's post, it's not actually clear that it is beneficial to the UK). If it is mutually beneficial, it is likely to stay more or less the same unless one side needs something of the sort a lot more than the other. Politically, everybody will probably try to spin it as having gotten a much better deal than they had before.

By the way, I'm really, really surprised that leaving has a plausible chance. When I first read about this referendum a while back, I thought that it was basically for show and that the status quo would win by a significant margin.

[Chaircat Meow]

That 'debate' was very boring.