Theresa May: UK must leave European single market(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Theresa May: UK must leave European single market
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38641208
321 comments
Was it for real or isn't that just a politician trying to sell something (which it sounds remarkably like)? One of the reasons Brexit is happening (at least it's argued) is due to bureaucracy.
Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
Oh, I think it was very real - one of the great things about the EU is the fact that it doesn't matter whether I buy from or sell to france, austria, germany, portugal or hungary. No customs fees, delays or complicated export documents and a common return policy.
As someone who knows both sides, this ease of access is great for sellers and buyers alike.
Frankly, I'd love to do the same with goods to and from the US, but since it comes with a lot of barriers, I simply don't buy from there. And at work we don't sell our physical goods to non-EU countries. So, yes, it's makes a difference.
Frankly, I'd love to do the same with goods to and from the US, but since it comes with a lot of barriers, I simply don't buy from there. And at work we don't sell our physical goods to non-EU countries. So, yes, it's makes a difference.
no, its immigration, and the lack of jobs for "locals"
much has been made of "bureaucracy" but in fact, most of that is hidden from the UK.
The basic fact is that large parts of the UK have been left to rot, suffering terribly from the lack of decent jobs to replace the decline of manufacturing. This has been blamed on immigration, correctly or not. That is why large swathes of the country voted to leave.
Now we won't have that excuse any more.
much has been made of "bureaucracy" but in fact, most of that is hidden from the UK.
The basic fact is that large parts of the UK have been left to rot, suffering terribly from the lack of decent jobs to replace the decline of manufacturing. This has been blamed on immigration, correctly or not. That is why large swathes of the country voted to leave.
Now we won't have that excuse any more.
But brexit isn't going to make life any better for those areas. Most likely it will be worse as the country as a whole will be probably poorer and less able to support deprived areas. But I expect they will still put the blame for this on someone else rather than the total failure of successive UK governments to spread wealth around the country.
Just to be clear, are you doubting the existence of a single market for EU members? Because if you are, reality is very persuasive.
there is certainly a single market for goods, services is far from complete
it makes the statement "four freedoms are indivisible" somewhat hollow, because there has never been full freedom of services
it makes the statement "four freedoms are indivisible" somewhat hollow, because there has never been full freedom of services
I ~~have been~~ was a consultant in the EU for about 3 years w/ clients in 7 different countries. All I (additionally) had to do was mark a checkbox on my income tax statements.
If that checkbox was all that held me from "full freedom", then I concede your point.
If that checkbox was all that held me from "full freedom", then I concede your point.
Can confirm on that the single market for services is far from reality.
Today, if I'm a consultant and have a consultancy company registered in EU country X, if I come to EU country Y to provide my services there, it's pretty likely that I will have to set up a separate company in Y or Y's tax people will be after me (that's currently the situation in UK for example).
Today, if I'm a consultant and have a consultancy company registered in EU country X, if I come to EU country Y to provide my services there, it's pretty likely that I will have to set up a separate company in Y or Y's tax people will be after me (that's currently the situation in UK for example).
I cannot confirm that. I found the tax agreements within the EU to be relatively easy in the EU & UK. Of course you deal with two authorities, so there is an additional benefit, but recognizing taxes paid in the UK with another country was not that hard.
Yes, there is no double taxation - but you essentially need to involve yourself with the tax authority of every country you are doing business in.
In a real single integrated market, I'd have company registered in country X, serve customers across entire Europe, but file taxes on the entire income in X only. I'm thinking they don't allow that because it would open doors to all kinds of tax optimization for the little people - ex. say UK workers would register themselves as companies in countries with very low taxes, and continue to work ("provide services") in UK. This kinds of schemes are allowed for the megacorps, but not for us regular folk.
In a real single integrated market, I'd have company registered in country X, serve customers across entire Europe, but file taxes on the entire income in X only. I'm thinking they don't allow that because it would open doors to all kinds of tax optimization for the little people - ex. say UK workers would register themselves as companies in countries with very low taxes, and continue to work ("provide services") in UK. This kinds of schemes are allowed for the megacorps, but not for us regular folk.
"involve yourself" in this case is present the tax income declaration to the tax authority in the 2nd (3rd, etc.) country.
Hardly a cumbersome experience.
Hardly a cumbersome experience.
In practice, you need to learn the tax code to find most suitable form of conducting business. For example, in the UK if you know what you're doing, you'll pay ~20% tax on your income as a contractor. If you don't, you can easily end up paying something like 30+%.
Also, there are perpetual costs of having a company registered (such as monthly payments to an accounting company which handles paperwork, health care contributions etc.), so if you move around regularly between a couple different countries, you'll probably need to maintain a legal presence in each one, and thus have these costs multiplied.
Also, there are perpetual costs of having a company registered (such as monthly payments to an accounting company which handles paperwork, health care contributions etc.), so if you move around regularly between a couple different countries, you'll probably need to maintain a legal presence in each one, and thus have these costs multiplied.
> In practice, you need to learn the tax code to find most suitable form of conducting business.
That has not been my experience.
That has not been my experience.
Not yet, anyway. There's still a lot of talk about it. I'm particularly interested in the ongoing talk about a single market for digital goods.
You can agree with the existence of a single market but find most of that quote flowery political rhetoric.
> Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
What Thatcher was talking about was literally a single market i.e. where one could buy and sell goods without tariff and other protectionist restrictions.
What we have now with the EU is most definitely not that. We have free movement of people, a much expanded EU with qualified majority voting, significant social (as against economic) legislation, and the Euro.
None of these were really evident in '88 and Thatcher was dead against all of them. Fundamentally, she was a supporter of a wide ranging trade agreement and not very much else.
If you read May's bullets, she has non-tariff market access as one of priorities. She is effectively using the term Single Market to a much wider scope than Thatcher but still attempting to keep the basis of what was originally envisioned, at least in the UK, on the table.
Can't imagine the EU agreeing to this as it's moved well passed that stage but you never know.
What Thatcher was talking about was literally a single market i.e. where one could buy and sell goods without tariff and other protectionist restrictions.
What we have now with the EU is most definitely not that. We have free movement of people, a much expanded EU with qualified majority voting, significant social (as against economic) legislation, and the Euro.
None of these were really evident in '88 and Thatcher was dead against all of them. Fundamentally, she was a supporter of a wide ranging trade agreement and not very much else.
If you read May's bullets, she has non-tariff market access as one of priorities. She is effectively using the term Single Market to a much wider scope than Thatcher but still attempting to keep the basis of what was originally envisioned, at least in the UK, on the table.
Can't imagine the EU agreeing to this as it's moved well passed that stage but you never know.
>We have free movement of people,
A single market includes the free movement of labour, as well as goods and services. Hence, restricting immigration is equivalent to leaving the single market. If we're to have tarriff-free trade with the EU but barriers on migration, that's surely a "protectionist restriction" on British jobs.
A single market includes the free movement of labour, as well as goods and services. Hence, restricting immigration is equivalent to leaving the single market. If we're to have tarriff-free trade with the EU but barriers on migration, that's surely a "protectionist restriction" on British jobs.
EU has free movement of labour and goods but does it have free movement of services I didn't think it did (that's a genuine rather than rhetorical question)
Pretty sure it does, it's one of the "four freedoms": http://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/
I got the link from the Wikipedia article, more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
I got the link from the Wikipedia article, more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market
No way. Brexit was primarily caused by xenophobia in combination with lack of education about how the EU works. Most people don't even know how many unanimous votes of all member states were necessary to get to the contemporary EU in the first place.
Had there been a simple test of 10 questions about how the EU works, drawn from 100 previously published questions, that needed to be answered in order to qualify as a voter, then the Brexit would never have happened. Likewise, if there hadn't coincidentally been a bloody civil war in Syria with many refugees looking for a new future at the time of the Brexit, then the Brexit would also never had happened.
Coincidence and lack of knowledge have determined the fate of the UK and Europe as a whole for the next fifty to hundred years or so. But you could say the same about many other historic decisions and events.
Had there been a simple test of 10 questions about how the EU works, drawn from 100 previously published questions, that needed to be answered in order to qualify as a voter, then the Brexit would never have happened. Likewise, if there hadn't coincidentally been a bloody civil war in Syria with many refugees looking for a new future at the time of the Brexit, then the Brexit would also never had happened.
Coincidence and lack of knowledge have determined the fate of the UK and Europe as a whole for the next fifty to hundred years or so. But you could say the same about many other historic decisions and events.
In the end it was all about immigration. Without immigration, people wouldn't have voted against the EU. Other reasons (judges in Luxembourg, EU regulation) are used as placeholders so that others won't think you're xenophobic. But most discussions with Brexit voters sooner or later end up being about immigration (esp. from Eastern Europe).
[deleted]
Actually you don't know at all how Brexit was 'primarily caused' if indeed there was a primary cause. Plenty of cosmopolitan EU-savvy intellectuals supported 'Leave' with excellent arguments. An opinion is one thing; the pretense of having a penetrating analysis to the extent of proving it with a virtual quiz plus results (wow - it agrees with your prediction!) is another.
Okay, your opinion. I still know that it was primarily caused by these two factors, and even know that I know it.
I also have not heard a single excellent argument for Brexit so far - not a single one, and as a well-informed and educated person I've heard many if not all of them. "Plenty of" is too vague to be of any value as a statement, but I also wouldn't agree that there were "plenty of" EU-savvy intellectuals who supported 'Leave', unless you're willing to count people like Boris Johnson to this group. You and the rest of the 'Leave' is being dishonest or simply deluded / misinformed.
Please don't bother discussing this topic with me (or Trump supporters or climate change denial, for what it's worth). I'm sick of it and the UK. What I would like to ask you and your kind is to urge your politicians to exit the EU swiftly and then shut up and never blame the EU for anything that happens to the UK again. Bye!
I also have not heard a single excellent argument for Brexit so far - not a single one, and as a well-informed and educated person I've heard many if not all of them. "Plenty of" is too vague to be of any value as a statement, but I also wouldn't agree that there were "plenty of" EU-savvy intellectuals who supported 'Leave', unless you're willing to count people like Boris Johnson to this group. You and the rest of the 'Leave' is being dishonest or simply deluded / misinformed.
Please don't bother discussing this topic with me (or Trump supporters or climate change denial, for what it's worth). I'm sick of it and the UK. What I would like to ask you and your kind is to urge your politicians to exit the EU swiftly and then shut up and never blame the EU for anything that happens to the UK again. Bye!
>It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real.
Actually it was a bureaucratic plan all along, and badly managed.
And you still can have great access to the same 320 million market even outside of it (like e.g. China or Japan have) -- with the extra benefit that you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary policy.
Actually it was a bureaucratic plan all along, and badly managed.
And you still can have great access to the same 320 million market even outside of it (like e.g. China or Japan have) -- with the extra benefit that you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary policy.
> you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary policy.
The UK had its own currency and central bank from the get go. What are you're referring to exactly here?
The UK had its own currency and central bank from the get go. What are you're referring to exactly here?
It's funny how Brexiter arguments usually come from the same collection of "misunderstandings" and lies
What double standards! So, trade tariffs and custom agreements: bureaucracy; restrictions on free movement [1] - that's just the will of the people!
Populism is going to cost the UK dearly. And not just in terms of money. The UK is heading headlong into a kind of society taken straight out of the pages of "V for Vendetta".
________________
[1] "Controls on immigration"
Populism is going to cost the UK dearly. And not just in terms of money. The UK is heading headlong into a kind of society taken straight out of the pages of "V for Vendetta".
________________
[1] "Controls on immigration"
> The UK is heading headlong into a kind of society taken straight out of the pages of "V for Vendetta".
I call "Godwin by Proxy".
There's many reasons to fear current trends but it's a touch premature to predict we're about to become a fascist dictatorship.
I call "Godwin by Proxy".
There's many reasons to fear current trends but it's a touch premature to predict we're about to become a fascist dictatorship.
What gpderetta said, and also Teresa May pushed aggressively for RIPA, and has spoken about getting out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR.
"funnily enough" [1], it seems the only obstacle to government mass surveillance and privacy invasion in UK is the ECJ...
[1] as in, not funny at all
[1] as in, not funny at all
> And you still can have great access to the same 320 million market even outside of it (like e.g. China or Japan have) -- with the extra benefit that you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary policy.
Yes, but if you are officially retailing in the EU you are obliged to adhere to EU warranty regulations, to EU safety regulations (flame retardation etc.), you must charge VAT (and pay it to the EU), etc. etc.
Yes, but if you are officially retailing in the EU you are obliged to adhere to EU warranty regulations, to EU safety regulations (flame retardation etc.), you must charge VAT (and pay it to the EU), etc. etc.
That's very optimistic thinking. First, Japan and China are both more heavyweight economically than the UK, and second, the EU will want to set a precedent: If you leave, it's gonna be painful. They really don't have another choice.
Any examples of monetary policies imposed by the ECB on the BoE? Given the different currency, I'm curious about it.
I understand there are a few arcane rules concerning the BoE not being allowed to purchase govt bonds directly from the govt. But that's not what most people would understand by control of monetary policy.
Similarly with fiscal policy, whilst the UK is supposed to "endeavour" to follow the Stability and Growth Pact rules on keeping deficits down, it can and does cheerfully ignore those rules without risk of penalty.
Similarly with fiscal policy, whilst the UK is supposed to "endeavour" to follow the Stability and Growth Pact rules on keeping deficits down, it can and does cheerfully ignore those rules without risk of penalty.
"you still can have great access"
Well, that is quite a statement considering what has been the tenor of EU officials thus far. And keep in mind that the only chance for Europe to keep the freedom of movement will probably be to make it extraordinarily difficult for Great Britain to get access to the free market. It does not really stand up for debate that Britain's economy will suffer quite a bit, and less rules by the EACH will not make up for that.
"I want my money back!"
Margret Thatcher at the European Union summit in Dublin in 1980
"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magnitude."
Margret Thatcher from her book Statecraft published in 2003
... just pointing out that Margaret Thatchers views on Europe were nuanced at best. Probably best explained by this segment from Yes Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
Margret Thatcher at the European Union summit in Dublin in 1980
"That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European superstate was ever embarked upon will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain, with her traditional strengths and global destiny, should ever have been part of it will appear a political error of historic magnitude."
Margret Thatcher from her book Statecraft published in 2003
... just pointing out that Margaret Thatchers views on Europe were nuanced at best. Probably best explained by this segment from Yes Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE
There's a difference between a free trade area and a political union.
Thatcher was thoroughly against the centralisation of power and monetary policy in Europe, but all for free trade.
Thatcher was thoroughly against the centralisation of power and monetary policy in Europe, but all for free trade.
Yes. There's also a difference between a free trade area and a customs union. A lot of Americans in particular seem to think the EU works something like NAFTA when it comes to trade.
[deleted]
Right, which is why the UK, very successfully, blocked every attempt at EU integration and secured opt outs out of Euro and Schengen for itself.
As a European, I believe I'm not alone in thinking it's great that the biggest obstacle to EU integration is leaving the EU, we're just all very puzzled as to why considering the UK had the best deal possible in the EU.
As a European, I believe I'm not alone in thinking it's great that the biggest obstacle to EU integration is leaving the EU, we're just all very puzzled as to why considering the UK had the best deal possible in the EU.
Thing is, and it took me all too long to learn this, Schengen is not what enables foreign workers to enter another EU member nation. It just makes it easier.
The Brexit yes came overwhelmingly form the old industrial areas of UK. From the towns and such that has seen their quality of life stagnate or deteriorate while the jobs gets done by foreigners that come by the busload.
Damn it, i don't live in UK but i have seen the phenomena myself. A local wharf some years back had a boom year, and the the peak there were perhaps twice as many foreigners working there as locals.
The Brexit yes came overwhelmingly form the old industrial areas of UK. From the towns and such that has seen their quality of life stagnate or deteriorate while the jobs gets done by foreigners that come by the busload.
Damn it, i don't live in UK but i have seen the phenomena myself. A local wharf some years back had a boom year, and the the peak there were perhaps twice as many foreigners working there as locals.
All EU's fault obviously.
Minimum wage, union nagotiated wages, restricting benefits for non working immigrants, IDs to combat illegal immigration, unused emergency brakes for immigration, none of that matters it's the damn EU's fault and most definitely not the UK government.
I promised myself I will only post one comment and not get dragged into any discussions so I this is my last one.
Minimum wage, union nagotiated wages, restricting benefits for non working immigrants, IDs to combat illegal immigration, unused emergency brakes for immigration, none of that matters it's the damn EU's fault and most definitely not the UK government.
I promised myself I will only post one comment and not get dragged into any discussions so I this is my last one.
Wherever a scapegoat is needed it always seems to be the foreigners and immigrants first to be fingered.
Can't just blame post-industrial areas, SE England voted to leave too.
And I'm not the only resident of Germany who wishes that we would follow Britain's example.
I likely have a biased sample, but amongst my colleagues and friends, I don't know anyone who wants further European integration, and most want out completely.
Anecdata cuts both ways.
I likely have a biased sample, but amongst my colleagues and friends, I don't know anyone who wants further European integration, and most want out completely.
Anecdata cuts both ways.
If I may ask what are your reasons of wanting to get out of EU?
I'm interested if possible in an overview of short term and long terms objectives and gains/advantages.
I don't want to write a thesis here, but hopefully a bullet-pointed list will suffice:
* The EU is not only undemocratic in the sense that the powerful European Commission is unelected, but is in fact antidemocratic in the sense that one generally has to have lost a democratic election in one's own country to be appointed to it.
* The EU places an enormous regulatory drain on its member states, issuing a stifling number of pro-corporate, anti-free-market regulations every year
* Policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Clinical Trials Directive, and the Port Services directive are extremely illiberal policies, introduced to satisfy special interests.
* The EU is in the process of exporting draconian, crushing German-style data protection law to the rest of the continent.
* The European Court of Justice is not only activist, but also highly incompetent, lacking the institutional jurisprudential experience of proper supreme courts, such as those found in the UK.
* The Common Market is not a free trade agreement, it is a customs union. Combined with the EU's inability to negotiate free trade agreements (held up by Italian tomato growers, French vintners, and just about every other special interest wanting protection), this means that export-focussed economies such as Germany's are hampered from engaging with faster-growing economies - and just about every other continent's economy is growing faster than Europe's.
As I said, I don't want to write a thesis here, but these are just a few of the many reasons why I believe that Germany - and almost every other country in Europe - would be better off making its own laws by a democratic process, trading and cooperating freely with its friends and allies, rather than being part of an antidemocratic, supranational bureaucracy.
* The EU is not only undemocratic in the sense that the powerful European Commission is unelected, but is in fact antidemocratic in the sense that one generally has to have lost a democratic election in one's own country to be appointed to it.
* The EU places an enormous regulatory drain on its member states, issuing a stifling number of pro-corporate, anti-free-market regulations every year
* Policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy, the Clinical Trials Directive, and the Port Services directive are extremely illiberal policies, introduced to satisfy special interests.
* The EU is in the process of exporting draconian, crushing German-style data protection law to the rest of the continent.
* The European Court of Justice is not only activist, but also highly incompetent, lacking the institutional jurisprudential experience of proper supreme courts, such as those found in the UK.
* The Common Market is not a free trade agreement, it is a customs union. Combined with the EU's inability to negotiate free trade agreements (held up by Italian tomato growers, French vintners, and just about every other special interest wanting protection), this means that export-focussed economies such as Germany's are hampered from engaging with faster-growing economies - and just about every other continent's economy is growing faster than Europe's.
As I said, I don't want to write a thesis here, but these are just a few of the many reasons why I believe that Germany - and almost every other country in Europe - would be better off making its own laws by a democratic process, trading and cooperating freely with its friends and allies, rather than being part of an antidemocratic, supranational bureaucracy.
Weird that you as a German actually want data protection laws relaxed. I would have though given your history you would want more of it. I certainly do.
German data protection laws do not offer as much privacy as you think, not when it comes to the state in fact many of them mandate data collection and retention requirements even when it's not needed or wanted.
They also offer very little visibility to what is collected.
Sure data cannot be easily shared or exported but this doesn't increase privacy as much as you think of at all, in fact it can hinder it.
They also offer very little visibility to what is collected.
Sure data cannot be easily shared or exported but this doesn't increase privacy as much as you think of at all, in fact it can hinder it.
I live in Germany, but I'm not German.
That yes minister clip really does seem to reflect what has happened here.
> global destiny
Does this mean what it sounds like it means?
Does this mean what it sounds like it means?
People in the UK haven't quite gotten over that whole global empire thing. Every now and then they make documentaries about how they brought civilization to India or something.
Empires were certainly established for the benefit of the empire builder but India also gained in many ways via British social reform - abolition of Sati (burning to death of widows) and child marriage for instance, construction of the railway system, roads, canals, mines, sewers, plantations and the establishment of English law and <language> and the idea of democracy.
I haven't checked but if the BBC still make documentaries on colonization by the British they almost certainly focus on its undoubted sins along with corruption within the East India Company.
I haven't checked but if the BBC still make documentaries on colonization by the British they almost certainly focus on its undoubted sins along with corruption within the East India Company.
Source, or is that just some generalised opinion based on simplistic historical foreign parody?
Not about documentaries, but May talked today about the Commonwealth and the importance for UK trade. They hope to get better deals just because they've occupied the country a century ago.
Anecdotal, but many do hold that view.
Similarly anecdotal, whilst in India met many Indians who held the same view.
Similarly anecdotal, whilst in India met many Indians who held the same view.
I mean, the East India Company is still a going concern. It's worrying on numerous levels.
It's hard to convey just how incredibly huge and powerful was the East India Company. For example, they used to donate their used time-served warships to the Royal Navy as an act of charity!
The closest parallel today would probably be something like a merger between Halliburton and Academi, the varied enterprises of which profit hugely from foreign adventurism of their host state and which have autonomous military potential in excess of that of many countries. But even that would fall well short in terms of revenue. Perhaps throw Apple into that mix as well and you'd get close.
The closest parallel today would probably be something like a merger between Halliburton and Academi, the varied enterprises of which profit hugely from foreign adventurism of their host state and which have autonomous military potential in excess of that of many countries. But even that would fall well short in terms of revenue. Perhaps throw Apple into that mix as well and you'd get close.
Yup, and as a Brit I have to facepalm every time I recognise this in the people around me.
Yes, and it's something the Brexit crowd are relying upon in their visions of our prosperity after leaving the EU.
I happen to think it's a load of hogwash, but I really don't want to see them proven wrong because I'll still have to live through it.
I happen to think it's a load of hogwash, but I really don't want to see them proven wrong because I'll still have to live through it.
Well, it's a marketing prop that tries to refocus the attention on a conceivably positive aspect.
Exceptionalism.
We all know how well that turns out.
We all know how well that turns out.
Wow, this is coming from the woman herself, the icon of modern conservatism in the 20th century.
Capitalism proves to be not self-sustainable and now it's self-cannibalizing which is a good thing as we move gradually to the next stage in history according to Karl Marx to socialism and away from capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#Stage...
Capitalism proves to be not self-sustainable and now it's self-cannibalizing which is a good thing as we move gradually to the next stage in history according to Karl Marx to socialism and away from capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history#Stage...
Read him by all means; he had one or two interesting ideas. Sadly though, you will find that Marx did not even understand how wealth was created which is a bit of problem when you're creating grand economic plans for the rest of us.
I'd remind you that the last 20 years has seen the greatest reduction in world poverty ever in the history of mankind. That was achieved by people trading with each other not by socialism.
I'd remind you that the last 20 years has seen the greatest reduction in world poverty ever in the history of mankind. That was achieved by people trading with each other not by socialism.
Nice words and I agree with the message. The implementation however is often still deeply flawed. Quite often it's nothing but some aloof bureaucrat's plan (or shall I say pipe dream?).
A prime example of this is VAT regulations in the EU, which supposedly have been harmonised and simplified some time ago yet with every iteration, with every 'simplification' they just got worse, less harmonious and more unwieldy to handle for companies buying or selling goods or services in other EU countries.
A prime example of this is VAT regulations in the EU, which supposedly have been harmonised and simplified some time ago yet with every iteration, with every 'simplification' they just got worse, less harmonious and more unwieldy to handle for companies buying or selling goods or services in other EU countries.
"Ideas are cheap, execution is what matters" is a standard startup advice. I think it is even more relevant to politics and in terms of execution the EU did not do too well. My 2c.
I don't think it relates purely to the EU, but to politics in general. I'm all too often hearing quick-fix solutions mouthed by politicians when what's plain to the eye is a profoundly unsexy root-and-branch analysis is necessary.
The problem is, you can't harmonise VAT without harmonising the tax bases. And if you don't harmonise the tax bases, companies will try to set up mechanisms to avoid tax.
The problem is not about the different VAT rates in different countries. The problem is the process for claiming VAT paid in another EU country. That process is so ridiculously complex that up to a certain amount even accountants have largely given up on it because it's not worth the bother.
indeed, I simply stopped selling services to the rest of the EU as it was not worth the effort in dealing with the new EU VAT regime, even though my small operation is below the threshold for VAT registration in my home country
I'd hope it's easier to sell to other EU companies within the EU than trying to export into the EU from outside, despite the VAT regime, in which case the bureaucracy is a net positive in that regard.
Sometimes I honestly wonder: If I would set up a US subsidiary to sell digital services through, and not comply with EU VAT laws, would I get into trouble?
A stupid example: buying a .com domain (as an individual) through an EU registrar will set you back $10 + VAT. If I buy it from a US company, I pay $10. Why would I buy from an EU registrar?
A stupid example: buying a .com domain (as an individual) through an EU registrar will set you back $10 + VAT. If I buy it from a US company, I pay $10. Why would I buy from an EU registrar?
I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern.
We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her.
I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the mandate of the people.
We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her.
I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the mandate of the people.
To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and is (partially) free of the baggage of party alliegance.
Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer mandate from a new one.
It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else is evidently not delivering the will of the majority.
(before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as that)
Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer mandate from a new one.
It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else is evidently not delivering the will of the majority.
(before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as that)
clear mandate to what exactly? Hard brexit? Why would you assume that would be the preferred outcome of a majority of the population?
Clear mandate to achieve the aims campaigned on. A large part of the the brexit campaign revolved around control of immigration.
Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market.
I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is)
EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market.
I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is)
EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
> To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election
It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.
It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.
but the implementation of "control the borders" (a key brexit tenet) requires leaving the single market, the EU has made it crystal clear that you can't remove the right to freedom of movement whilst remaining in the union.
EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
> a key brexit tenet
A majority of a majority is not necessarily itself a majority, which is why a referendum -- especially one narrowly approved -- provides no mandate beyond the question asked, including on "key tenets" of the campaign for the position that wins that are, themselves, not included in the question asked.
A majority of a majority is not necessarily itself a majority, which is why a referendum -- especially one narrowly approved -- provides no mandate beyond the question asked, including on "key tenets" of the campaign for the position that wins that are, themselves, not included in the question asked.
Let me ask you a question, do you honestly believe that control of immigration wasn't a key reason that people voted for the leave campaign?
I believe that it was a key factor for many voters, as, for many of those same voters, was the belief that it could be done while retaining the benefits of the common market.
quite possibly, but of course that is, and always has been an impossiblity (the EU were never going to budge on what is a fundamental freedom)
I have voted in a great many referendums here in Ireland. They typically arise when a constitutional amendment is required, and the language in them is pretty clear and unequivocal.
You are presented with the actual literal constitutional changes and whether they are acceptable or not. Usually (but far less so than I would like) there is a public debate about the pros and cons of the proposed changes. The discussion isn't merely polarised, sometimes you will have people who agree with the general principle of the change, but object in terms of the actual proposed amendment. Perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps on the grounds that the specific wording leaves open other dangerous consequences.
As far as I understand it, the Brexit poll presented voters with the options "Remain" and "Leave". There wasn't any definitive statement on what "Leave" means. Of course it literally means "Hard Brexit" but I don't believe this is what most people had in mind, nor were they adequately briefed on the consequences.
The connection to Article 50 of the EU constitution as a means to "Leave" seems to have been made post hoc.
If you dispute that most British people made this decision knowingly I urge you to read Dominic Cummings' gleeful account of how he believes he captured and manipulated the Brexit vote [0] (it's a fascinating read by the way, and I do have a huge amount of respect for the guy, though his underlying motives seem somewhat veiled).
I agree it seems unlikely at this stage a second referendum would yield a different result. We are definitely in one of these "it's going to get worse before it gets better" situations.
However, you do have an unelected government interpreting the meaning of "Leave" and presenting a vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like, and that in particular is what's worrying.
[0] https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe...
You are presented with the actual literal constitutional changes and whether they are acceptable or not. Usually (but far less so than I would like) there is a public debate about the pros and cons of the proposed changes. The discussion isn't merely polarised, sometimes you will have people who agree with the general principle of the change, but object in terms of the actual proposed amendment. Perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps on the grounds that the specific wording leaves open other dangerous consequences.
As far as I understand it, the Brexit poll presented voters with the options "Remain" and "Leave". There wasn't any definitive statement on what "Leave" means. Of course it literally means "Hard Brexit" but I don't believe this is what most people had in mind, nor were they adequately briefed on the consequences.
The connection to Article 50 of the EU constitution as a means to "Leave" seems to have been made post hoc.
If you dispute that most British people made this decision knowingly I urge you to read Dominic Cummings' gleeful account of how he believes he captured and manipulated the Brexit vote [0] (it's a fascinating read by the way, and I do have a huge amount of respect for the guy, though his underlying motives seem somewhat veiled).
I agree it seems unlikely at this stage a second referendum would yield a different result. We are definitely in one of these "it's going to get worse before it gets better" situations.
However, you do have an unelected government interpreting the meaning of "Leave" and presenting a vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like, and that in particular is what's worrying.
[0] https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-refe...
oh no I'm not suggesting that people knew what they were getting into in full, but then given that this is entirely unchartered territory I don't see how that could have worked really. This has never been done before and therefore no-one knows what it means.
Both sides of the campaign, in my view, heavily had the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt angles playing, but then that's no different to most/all UK elections (just look at the scottish referendum for another example)
However what I do think is that the leave campaign rhetoric (which won) largely revolved around border control and immigration, and any outcome that didn't involve a change here wouldn't be respecting the "will of the people". It's been clear since the vote that the EU (rightly in my opinion) won't budge on this point so the PM had to either do what she's done or basically disregard the result of the referendum.
I will disagree with one point you've made. The current government isn't unelected. In the UK we vote for a party not a person, and reshuffles and changes of PM without a general election have been a factor of UK political life for a very long time.
I'd love to see that change, but it's the system we currently have, and under that system this government is as elected as any other.
Both sides of the campaign, in my view, heavily had the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt angles playing, but then that's no different to most/all UK elections (just look at the scottish referendum for another example)
However what I do think is that the leave campaign rhetoric (which won) largely revolved around border control and immigration, and any outcome that didn't involve a change here wouldn't be respecting the "will of the people". It's been clear since the vote that the EU (rightly in my opinion) won't budge on this point so the PM had to either do what she's done or basically disregard the result of the referendum.
I will disagree with one point you've made. The current government isn't unelected. In the UK we vote for a party not a person, and reshuffles and changes of PM without a general election have been a factor of UK political life for a very long time.
I'd love to see that change, but it's the system we currently have, and under that system this government is as elected as any other.
It's completely my fault, using the terms incorrectly, but you've misunderstood my point. Thus neatly illustrating how slippery language can be.
From a legal and constitutional standpoint your current government is indeed "elected" (as is the present "minority government" here in Ireland). However I would posit that from a moral standpoint there should be another election.
The public mandate imparted by Brexit is murky at best and necessitates a return to the polls. The most obvious means to that is a general election.
I think taking the campaign rhetoric as some kind of instruction is undemocratic in the extreme. Also taking opinion polls is obviously flawed. They are instructive but if you're taking them into account, how can you ignore more recent polls that show a gradual drift towards "Remain"?
I suppose you "could" have a second referendum where the specific terms of "Leave" were specified ... but I can't see that going down too well as a suggestion.
From a legal and constitutional standpoint your current government is indeed "elected" (as is the present "minority government" here in Ireland). However I would posit that from a moral standpoint there should be another election.
The public mandate imparted by Brexit is murky at best and necessitates a return to the polls. The most obvious means to that is a general election.
I think taking the campaign rhetoric as some kind of instruction is undemocratic in the extreme. Also taking opinion polls is obviously flawed. They are instructive but if you're taking them into account, how can you ignore more recent polls that show a gradual drift towards "Remain"?
I suppose you "could" have a second referendum where the specific terms of "Leave" were specified ... but I can't see that going down too well as a suggestion.
Ah well any discussion of morals and politics (as practiced in most countries) is unlikely to go well ;o)
The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one derived from the referendum.
A general election would mess the EU issue in with things like labour's infighting and legacy issues with the lib dems (a lot of their traditional vote don't seem to trust them after their deal with the previous tory government)
The reality is that a general election campaign would involve more campaign rhetoric and politicians would be just as tied as they usually are to keeping promises after the fact (i.e. not at all)
For me, whilst the precision of what was being voted for is unclear, the idea that a result after a win for the leave campaign wouldn't involve some kind of change to immigration policy is just unbelievable and because of the binary nature of the decision, todays outcome was inevitable.
The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one derived from the referendum.
A general election would mess the EU issue in with things like labour's infighting and legacy issues with the lib dems (a lot of their traditional vote don't seem to trust them after their deal with the previous tory government)
The reality is that a general election campaign would involve more campaign rhetoric and politicians would be just as tied as they usually are to keeping promises after the fact (i.e. not at all)
For me, whilst the precision of what was being voted for is unclear, the idea that a result after a win for the leave campaign wouldn't involve some kind of change to immigration policy is just unbelievable and because of the binary nature of the decision, todays outcome was inevitable.
Indeed, such an election could not be seen as an interpretation of the will of the people purely on Brexit. But Brexit does represent such a seismic event in recent British history that the British people do deserve a say in the government that leads them on from it.
You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly to do with Brexit but might give piece of mind as you move onward into the abyss.
Of course with the actual state of all the other parties at the moment (SNP excluded) it's hard to imagine a wildly different result to what you have right now, but I guess in a way it's "the principle of the thing".
You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly to do with Brexit but might give piece of mind as you move onward into the abyss.
Of course with the actual state of all the other parties at the moment (SNP excluded) it's hard to imagine a wildly different result to what you have right now, but I guess in a way it's "the principle of the thing".
I guess it's the problem of unprecedented events, that there are no systems in place to deal with them, which leads to a bad fit as people try to make the event fit existing options.
At the moment, I just can't get past the fact that without leaving the single market, they can't address the core concerns of the winning side (at least as I see those core conerns, and here we're back to the problem that these were never really accurately articulated past political rhetoric), so this path seems inevitable.
I'd love to see political reform in the UK to get a more representative form of government, but I fear absent a major resurgance in the fortunes of the Lib Dems, that doesn't seem like a likely prospect...
At the moment, I just can't get past the fact that without leaving the single market, they can't address the core concerns of the winning side (at least as I see those core conerns, and here we're back to the problem that these were never really accurately articulated past political rhetoric), so this path seems inevitable.
I'd love to see political reform in the UK to get a more representative form of government, but I fear absent a major resurgance in the fortunes of the Lib Dems, that doesn't seem like a likely prospect...
A general election in the near future isn't going to pose any practical obstacle to May, since the opposition parties (except in Scotland) are in total disarray and the public has very little information to judge whether May's vague aspirations are actually realistic and desirable. And all the available evidence suggests they actually trust her more than the PM whose government they reelected.
A post-negotiation referendum might be more of a mandate, but pitching the idea that "the referendum obliges the government to attempt to negotiate the best Leave settlement it can; it doesn't guarantee the outcome of those negotations will actually be more popular than the EU so that deal shoud also be put to referendum" required considerably more unity and political skill on the part of the remains of the Remain campaign to make the idea stick.
A post-negotiation referendum might be more of a mandate, but pitching the idea that "the referendum obliges the government to attempt to negotiate the best Leave settlement it can; it doesn't guarantee the outcome of those negotations will actually be more popular than the EU so that deal shoud also be put to referendum" required considerably more unity and political skill on the part of the remains of the Remain campaign to make the idea stick.
27.8% chose not to have a say in it then. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and a majority voted for that.
It's not too late for the UK - if you do have a general election, and one party promises to not follow the Brexit referendum, and they win, I guess the EU will stay. But then people will moan about government not following the voice of the people, as expressed by the referendum.
It's not too late for the UK - if you do have a general election, and one party promises to not follow the Brexit referendum, and they win, I guess the EU will stay. But then people will moan about government not following the voice of the people, as expressed by the referendum.
The desire for a Norway-style agreement was voiced frequently before and after the referendum by various Leave politicians (e.g. Hannan and Boris). Since Leave isn't a party, it didn't and doesn't have any policies.
> Leaving the EU means leaving the single market
That's actually not correct. It's possible to be in the European Free Trade Area without being a member of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland have this arrangement.
That's actually not correct. It's possible to be in the European Free Trade Area without being a member of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland have this arrangement.
But we need the £400mln per week we'd pay for that to fund the NHS! /s
> Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and a majority voted for that.
Stop this revisionism.
Stop this revisionism.
I'm confused why my comment has been downvoted.
Theresa May was not voted into government.
Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit.
Quite a disappointing response.
Theresa May was not voted into government.
Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit.
Quite a disappointing response.
Further proof many, many people don't understand democracy and think you're not allowed a voice.
People, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Quite the opposite actually.
People, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Quite the opposite actually.
It is not the tyranny of the majority, because a modern democracy protects and respects minorities, and the concerns of the majority are also into account. At least, that's how it should be.
Yes, in an ideal world.
However, "modern democracies" like Switzerland implement tyranny:
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160609/immigrant-family-denied-swis...
http://www.thelocal.ch/20170109/annoying-anti-cow-bell-campa...
(There are more sources for both, in case you don't trust this one)
Direct democracy is good, but we still don't seem to know how to implement it right or make a responsible use of it.
However, "modern democracies" like Switzerland implement tyranny:
http://www.thelocal.ch/20160609/immigrant-family-denied-swis...
http://www.thelocal.ch/20170109/annoying-anti-cow-bell-campa...
(There are more sources for both, in case you don't trust this one)
Direct democracy is good, but we still don't seem to know how to implement it right or make a responsible use of it.
My suggestion to make direct democracy (plebiscite) work is to turn it into a mild form of technocracy. You'd have to pass an easy test made of a small random selection of Q&A's about a limited number of published facts similar to the theoretical part of drivers license tests, before you can cast your vote. So participation would require some effort and some dedication, though not any higher education or a lot of time investment.
This suggestion is unpopular among people who deny that there are facts and reality. These people exist both on the left (e.g. `social constructivism about science') and the right (e.g. recent trends among some Trump supporters) side of the political spectrum. Anybody who has no trouble with reality and has passed a drivers license should have no problems with it, though.
This suggestion is unpopular among people who deny that there are facts and reality. These people exist both on the left (e.g. `social constructivism about science') and the right (e.g. recent trends among some Trump supporters) side of the political spectrum. Anybody who has no trouble with reality and has passed a drivers license should have no problems with it, though.
I don't think it does matter though.
Clever, wise and motivated people can also be arseholes and vote against you having local passport because you usually wear a tracksuit, are vegan or think cowbells not right.
Clever, wise and motivated people can also be arseholes and vote against you having local passport because you usually wear a tracksuit, are vegan or think cowbells not right.
how does democracy protect the minority? (not saying the minority does not have a voice, but how does it help, if they'll always be voted out?)
And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
> how does democracy protect the minority? (not saying the minority does not have a voice, but how does it help, if they'll always be voted out?)
With separation of powers and the rule of law.
> And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
1- Everywhere I've lived in, my vote has had less power than the average of the state / region. I'm OK with that because otherwise all policies will only favour the overpopulated areas.
2- I don't know all the US election details, but apparently you've got a big issue with corruption that in this case reflects on gerrymandering.
3- If the situation was the opposite, Hillary winning despite less votes, I guess you wouldn't consider it legit? Don't answer me, that's easy; answer internally to yourself. Be sincere.
4- Your problem with Trump is that your "left" candidate is so to the right, that there's no room for human decency at her right. Just think about it, what's a more right-wing policy that doesn't go against climate change, equality/equity, worker's rights, military intervention, radicalisation of your police force, for profit prison system, stupid healthcare system, ... Should I keep going?
> Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
There are always outcries when there's a strong division on a topic. We need to make sure our values stand every single time, whether our opinion wins or we loses.
With separation of powers and the rule of law.
> And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ?
1- Everywhere I've lived in, my vote has had less power than the average of the state / region. I'm OK with that because otherwise all policies will only favour the overpopulated areas.
2- I don't know all the US election details, but apparently you've got a big issue with corruption that in this case reflects on gerrymandering.
3- If the situation was the opposite, Hillary winning despite less votes, I guess you wouldn't consider it legit? Don't answer me, that's easy; answer internally to yourself. Be sincere.
4- Your problem with Trump is that your "left" candidate is so to the right, that there's no room for human decency at her right. Just think about it, what's a more right-wing policy that doesn't go against climate change, equality/equity, worker's rights, military intervention, radicalisation of your police force, for profit prison system, stupid healthcare system, ... Should I keep going?
> Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
There are always outcries when there's a strong division on a topic. We need to make sure our values stand every single time, whether our opinion wins or we loses.
The point is there WAS a vote. A democratic vote. I'm looking at it from the outside and don't care either way - except that the way some very vocal ones of the so-called "remainers" dislike democracy and voting as soon as they don't get what they want disgusts me. Remember your attitude when some day - inevitably - it will be the other way around, you won a vote and the other side comes up with the same arguments.
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation.
Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU.
It think it's wholly reasonable to question a decision of such huge magnitude being made on the basis of a referendum in those circumstances.
Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU.
It think it's wholly reasonable to question a decision of such huge magnitude being made on the basis of a referendum in those circumstances.
However the majority of the people who voted (and remember here that the turnout was higher than most UK elections) voted to exit which clearly included border controls.
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
The was no reference to border control in the referendum ballot.
it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign, so unless you were watching some other referendum campaign the suggestion that border control had nothing to do with it is disingenuous at best.
In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
In case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
> it was a key stated pledge of the leave campaign
Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway?
Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
Which leave campaign? There was a few of them and they didn't give a consistent message. None actually have any power to implement anything so how can they make pledges anyway?
Also, that link has the picture of the bus as the first image... a 'pledge' completely based on lies that was dropped literally minutes after the vote.
[deleted]
Let me ask you a question. Do you honestly believe that a big part (if not the key part) of the leave campaign (pick any one you like) wasn't about immigration and border control?
I'll tell you what, we can talk about the efficacy of the various leave campaigns when the NHS gets its 350 million a day and we have 'Sovereignty'.
I note that I'm afraid you didn't even attempt to answer my extremely straightforward question.
See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
See I'm not a brexiter/leaver/whatever (Personally I think it's a terrible idea), but it's blindingly obvious to me that a lot of leave voters (maybe even the vast majority) thought the main issue was immigration and that Mrs May had a choice either exit the single market, or basically ignore the result of the referendum, she chose the former and not the latter.
Soft brexit (i.e. EEA-like access) plus spend the next 10 years figuring out a better exit deal would have been an option.
UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream.
It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
UK spent 40 year entangling with the EU, disentangling cleanly in 2 years is a pipe dream.
It is still a possibility though; declaring for hard brexit could very well be a negotiating tactic (as in 'nothing left to lose') as May hinted to the possibility of a transitional agreement.
Maybe you've misunderstood how democracy works with a dictatorship. Just because your "side" lost the vote does not mean you cave in and blindly follow down a blind alley.
By your reasoning, the other opposition parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats et al) should just sit idly by and not question or argue against any Tory policies for that term of Government?
I agree with you that the vote has been cast, the UK is leaving the EU. But to state people are not allowed to have a voice on the terms of leaving is naive at best. Had the result of the vote been the other way (48% leave, 52% remain) would be be having a "hard remain" and telling the leavers to shut up?
By your reasoning, the other opposition parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats et al) should just sit idly by and not question or argue against any Tory policies for that term of Government?
I agree with you that the vote has been cast, the UK is leaving the EU. But to state people are not allowed to have a voice on the terms of leaving is naive at best. Had the result of the vote been the other way (48% leave, 52% remain) would be be having a "hard remain" and telling the leavers to shut up?
Maybe you've misunderstood how democracy works with a dictatorship. Just because your "side" lost the vote does not mean you cave in and blindly follow down a blind alley
But that is exactly what Remain would expect Leave to do, had Remain won, and everyone knows it.
But that is exactly what Remain would expect Leave to do, had Remain won, and everyone knows it.
When the vote is as close add it was, there is no high ground. It's a win/loss by a tiny majority. If remain had won I would like to think that people would have had enough sense to know that almost half the population is disgruntled and done something to make them happier instead of throwing insults everytime "they complained".
I guess no one will truly now know.
I guess no one will truly now know.
Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unelected Prime Minister serving out a term won on a mandate to protect UK interests in Europe. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Which election had "I want David Cameron as PM" on the ballot?
I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
On the leadership of the party I concede, strictly, your point. We don't vote for a PM, although clearly people knew who they were voting to be the PM.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
Almost as though we don't directly get to elect the people who administer the whole thing.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.
Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2].
[1] Have been told
[2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.
You can twist and turn it any way you like, there WAS a vote, it was democratic, and you just keep complaining and whining about democracy when you don't like the outcome.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.
Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate.
And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
Why do you have to take such a tone? Can we not disagree and argue without adhominem attacks?
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here.
Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate?
If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote?
This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
> If that is so go to the courts
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.
They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.
I will add that there are two current legal challenges and I suspect there will be more.
> Theresa May was not voted into government.
She was voted into government by her party, just like the leaders of every UK government.
She was voted into government by her party, just like the leaders of every UK government.
Agree completely. An ambiguous referendum that gave no guidance. An unelected PM who has taken it upon herself to define the most egregious future path. The only ethical stance is to set out definite terms (which I guess she is now doing) and hold a general election (which I am 100% sure she will not).
> An unelected PM
She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
Not the same.
While on the surface this is correct, Cameron subsequently ran as the face of the party in a general election before assuming office, thereby receiving a public mandate (albeit a weak one first time round due to the hung parliament).
May did not.
While on the surface this is correct, Cameron subsequently ran as the face of the party in a general election before assuming office, thereby receiving a public mandate (albeit a weak one first time round due to the hung parliament).
May did not.
That assumption is just that.
And just like Corbyn. That's the way it's always worked in the UK - we don't have a "president". Amazing how many people don't understand this.
We need a second referendum on what is finally agreed with the EU. The people are allowed to change their mind.
Yeah, but article 50 doesn't work like that, does it?
It just says you're out after two years, which will be very interesting if some regional parliament decides to block the deal the EU makes with the UK. And I'm sure there will be a parliament which is unhappy with the deal.
In what way? Article 50 can be revoked once triggered:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
"[...] probably unilaterally by the UK. However, in the latter case the UK would find itself having to defend a very uncertain legal and very troubling position.” senior academic claims (emphasis and ellipses mine).
We could be in a "very troubling position" if we stay or try to remain.
Anyway no one listens to "senior academics" anymore :(
Anyway no one listens to "senior academics" anymore :(
The agreement with the EU could be made contingent on a referendum by its express terms, I suppose; with a fallback term in the agreement of a further negotiation period without leaving the EU. But that seems unlikely.
I couldn't agree more, and I wonder why you're being downvoted so hard.
Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.
Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.
How did you arrive at this conclusion other than pure conjecture? The in-out vote was a binary choice, as I remember?
It's a less radical conclusion to assume that of the 52% of the leave voters there were at least some who didn't intend for this hard of a split, versus assuming that every last voter did.
Also, you and I both know very well a lot of people that voted had no clue what it meant to leave.
Or in some cases, what the EU even is, frighteningly.
Also, you and I both know very well a lot of people that voted had no clue what it meant to leave.
Or in some cases, what the EU even is, frighteningly.
No idea what individual voters thought they were voting for, but it's worth remembering that the official Leave campaign said that the UK would be staying in the free-trade zone.
That may be impossible to reconcile with the other things they said, but there it is.
(Source: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html - "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it")
That may be impossible to reconcile with the other things they said, but there it is.
(Source: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html - "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it")
There were polls before and after the event on exactly this question, as well as considerable discussion of the Leave options from Leave campaigners and the press.
So I conclude what I originally said from those data points.
So I conclude what I originally said from those data points.
I would suggest that a large percentage of that 52% voted based on "control the borders" rhetoric.
That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to satisfy that requirement which was voted for by the UK population in a referendum...
Now I'd agree that if you actually spelled out the reality of "hard brexit" people might be given pause and really they should have listened to "project fear" as it was dubbed by the brexit crew, but the fact remains that the brexit campaign was on border control and to deliver this the UK has to leave the single market
That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to satisfy that requirement which was voted for by the UK population in a referendum...
Now I'd agree that if you actually spelled out the reality of "hard brexit" people might be given pause and really they should have listened to "project fear" as it was dubbed by the brexit crew, but the fact remains that the brexit campaign was on border control and to deliver this the UK has to leave the single market
> I would suggest that a large percentage of that 52% voted based on "control the borders" rhetoric.
are you suggesting that (as long as that percentage is less than 95%) the majority of total voters were against 'border control?'
are you suggesting that (as long as that percentage is less than 95%) the majority of total voters were against 'border control?'
no as should be clear I'm suggesting that the government is implementing one of the key elements of the leave campaign, which the UK voted in favour of. To deliver that, the UK has to leave the single market.
Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment of parent, I believe the downvotes are for failing to understand how mandate works in our parliamentary democracy.
We, the voting public in the UK, never vote directly elect our government. We give a mandate to our local MP and then they decide who forms the government.
Further, we vote for our local MP knowing ahead of time that they could change who they decide will form the government at anytime before the next general election.
Even if we don't like the current government, they do have a democratic mandate.
We, the voting public in the UK, never vote directly elect our government. We give a mandate to our local MP and then they decide who forms the government.
Further, we vote for our local MP knowing ahead of time that they could change who they decide will form the government at anytime before the next general election.
Even if we don't like the current government, they do have a democratic mandate.
Europe is not a single market at all. Simple thinks like making sure your invoice is paid from a customer who is based in another european country is practically impossible.
I know because I am the CEO of a staffing company in Germany: national as well as international businesses book exhibition staff and other temporary employees for events in Germany and Austria through our platform.
If one of our german customers does not pay, we can easily use the german legal system to ensure that we get our money. If we have to sue, our legal system makes sure that we are reimbursed if we win in court. But if for example an Italian business is using our service and they don't pay our invoice, we have no way to get our money. We technically could appeal to a court in Italy, get a lawyer in Italy, translate all documents to Italian and sue in Italy. But this would cost at least 20.000 EUR in total which are not reimbursed even if we win in court.
That is why businesses who are not based in Germany have to pay upfront. I cannot call the EU a single market, if my business has to treat a customer from EU the same like any other customer around the world.
So, maybe the UK will have some disadvantages if they are not part of the EU anymore. But they are not leaving a "single market" because the EU never was a single market. I guess they will be just fine without the EU.
I know because I am the CEO of a staffing company in Germany: national as well as international businesses book exhibition staff and other temporary employees for events in Germany and Austria through our platform.
If one of our german customers does not pay, we can easily use the german legal system to ensure that we get our money. If we have to sue, our legal system makes sure that we are reimbursed if we win in court. But if for example an Italian business is using our service and they don't pay our invoice, we have no way to get our money. We technically could appeal to a court in Italy, get a lawyer in Italy, translate all documents to Italian and sue in Italy. But this would cost at least 20.000 EUR in total which are not reimbursed even if we win in court.
That is why businesses who are not based in Germany have to pay upfront. I cannot call the EU a single market, if my business has to treat a customer from EU the same like any other customer around the world.
So, maybe the UK will have some disadvantages if they are not part of the EU anymore. But they are not leaving a "single market" because the EU never was a single market. I guess they will be just fine without the EU.
> Europe is not a single market at all.
Oh, it’s already a lot better than it was before. But you are right, a fuckton of work is required to make it even slightly competitive with the US, China, or India.
But we should work towards that – and not split it up even further.
Oh, it’s already a lot better than it was before. But you are right, a fuckton of work is required to make it even slightly competitive with the US, China, or India.
But we should work towards that – and not split it up even further.
Isn't one of the issues with the EU government that it's recalcitrant to reform? Brussels feels like they have a cozy little cocoon. Any attempts to make them work for the people in a meaningful way get rebuffed.
They actually work a lot for the people. The reason the EU is often unpopular with businesses is due to laws protecting people (labor laws, customer protection, minimum standards, ...). I'd argue that is politic for the people, just not for businesses.
Oh, the EU parliament works all the time for the people
The problem is that all national governments have to approve each EU directive before it becomes law in the EU council. The national governments then usually, due to lobby pressure, add loopholes to net neutrality, reduce consumer protections, or demand TTIP.
If you get rid of the EU, you’re only left with this council – and then you get zero net neutrality but instead TTIP and all the other bullshit.
The problem is that all national governments have to approve each EU directive before it becomes law in the EU council. The national governments then usually, due to lobby pressure, add loopholes to net neutrality, reduce consumer protections, or demand TTIP.
If you get rid of the EU, you’re only left with this council – and then you get zero net neutrality but instead TTIP and all the other bullshit.
This is an interesting aspect. I guess transnational enforcement of contracts is a thorny issue.
Not sure how easy would that be in the USA or Canada (transprovincial) as well
Not sure how easy would that be in the USA or Canada (transprovincial) as well
Yes, but you can sell in Italy, right? I mean, the customers have to pay upfront, but they can pay and you can service.
Compare this with the need to incorporate in Italy, have people hired there, an office presence, and so on. The barrier is not 0, but it's not even remotely as it is outside EU.
Compare this with the need to incorporate in Italy, have people hired there, an office presence, and so on. The barrier is not 0, but it's not even remotely as it is outside EU.
But this is mainly a language issue. If you had a common language, you'd probably have it easy to sue people in other countries as well. And you can sue as a non-Italian without any problems.
The EU will never have the level of integration the US has, simply because there are different languages at play. But that's no fault of EU politicians.
The EU will never have the level of integration the US has, simply because there are different languages at play. But that's no fault of EU politicians.
For anyone not familiar with British political etiquette, the phrase:
"the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean not leaving the EU at all"
can be interpreted as:
"I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access and no immigration and they laughed at me".
"the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean not leaving the EU at all"
can be interpreted as:
"I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access and no immigration and they laughed at me".
Which is funny because if the EU is to survive, immigration controls will have to be put in place. Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. So when that happens, the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. They could've just waited.
There are currently such controls for the EU, actually, and done on the French side of the channel. Those may go as well.
The Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between two countries and has nothing to do with the EU.
Only at Calais are they on the French side. They're on the UK side elsewhere.
Why the downvote?
With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival after disembarkation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival after disembarkation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
"control the borders!!!11" are one of the catch-phrases that make absolutely no sense for people with only a modest understanding of how it actually works
But I'm sure to some Brexiters brown people at the streets is the fault of the EU somehow
But I'm sure to some Brexiters brown people at the streets is the fault of the EU somehow
>brown people at the streets
You mean those of Indian descent that have been there 5 generations?
You mean those of Indian descent that have been there 5 generations?
Ah those that speak better English than the natives and their kids have higher scores at school? Haven't you heard immigration ruins the country ;)
I believe if the UK could have chosen to control immigration from A8 countries, Brexit would have never happened.
I don't think it would have mattered if the UK actually did restrict immigration or not, it's more about not having the power to choose to restrict it.
I don't think it would have mattered if the UK actually did restrict immigration or not, it's more about not having the power to choose to restrict it.
Maybe, and not necessarily a direct control
For example, not giving unemployment benefits for those that just had arrived (though it seems this applies to all kinds of immigration)
For example, not giving unemployment benefits for those that just had arrived (though it seems this applies to all kinds of immigration)
> unemployment benefits for those that just had arrived
Is/was that really the case in the UK? From day one? I hop on a plane today, take a taxi from the airport to the unemployment office, get in line, and I'll have unemployment benefits paid to me starting in February?
Is/was that really the case in the UK? From day one? I hop on a plane today, take a taxi from the airport to the unemployment office, get in line, and I'll have unemployment benefits paid to me starting in February?
You don't have to hate brown people (as you said up there) to understand that a system that gives benefits to people who have never contributed to it is not sustainable in the long term. And citizens from A8 countries are barely brown, anyway. ;P
I believe political correctness triggered Brexit, and will eventually kill the EU (not only because of immigration, though)
I believe political correctness triggered Brexit, and will eventually kill the EU (not only because of immigration, though)
> You don't have to hate brown people to understand that a system that gives benefits to people who have never contributed to it is not sustainable in the long term
Of course
Of course
The UK is not talking about non-EU migration. The concern is EU migration. And that's very different to other EU countries. Germany and France are not concerned keeping people from Poland out.
Many countries are "demanding" that, because it's probably the easiest way for politicians to get more popular (right after "being tough on crime"). There's literally no need for inner border checks, as long as the outer borders are secure.
[deleted]
And for anyone not familiar with what's likely going on behind the scenes: it's about lowering the corporation tax in the UK. I don't know whether this is a new idea or not, but it would give the UK the leverage it needs in negotiations; will persuade many multinational corporations to stay and will even attract new ones.
However, there will be a lot of pain for ordinary people in the interim. Not for corporations though. it seems.
However, there will be a lot of pain for ordinary people in the interim. Not for corporations though. it seems.
> will persuade many multinational corporations to stay and will even attract new ones
No. To have access to the EU single market, your company MUST have its main base of operation be in a EU member state.
No. To have access to the EU single market, your company MUST have its main base of operation be in a EU member state.
This is not true in many industries, due to supranational regulation. MAT insurance (a huge financial product the UK exports to the EU) is exempt from this rule due to WTO regulation.
Furthermore, 'main base of operation' is pretty vague, and I don't believe it accurately reflects EU requirements. A subsidiary can be based in an EU country and provide you with all the access you would like. This isn't an option for smaller companies, but for larger ones its just an extra cost.
Furthermore, 'main base of operation' is pretty vague, and I don't believe it accurately reflects EU requirements. A subsidiary can be based in an EU country and provide you with all the access you would like. This isn't an option for smaller companies, but for larger ones its just an extra cost.
Leaving the single market doesn't mean no access at all, it's just tariffs and some bureaucracy. Not that I support all this, but the Govt. seems to be hoping that becoming a tax haven will compensate all that.
Yes, because becoming a tax haven has always done wonders for shifting money from the uber rich to the working class people. /sarc
The UK really needs to sort out it's internal policies and spread the wealth around the country and the not just keep pushing "the London agenda"
The UK really needs to sort out it's internal policies and spread the wealth around the country and the not just keep pushing "the London agenda"
Northern Ireland is set to lower its rates to 12.5% [1] to compete with the Republic, I can see the entire UK following suit at some point during May's term with abolishing all corporate tax rates before 2025.
[1] - http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Projecte...
[1] - http://www.arthurcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Projecte...
Not likely now that we've dissolved our government.
Again.
Again.
I think both the Netherlands and Ireland will be happy to compete with that. And they have single market access.
Not sure the UK has the cost structure that'd allow being a true tax haven. Lower corporate tax alone won't make everyone move/stay.
Not sure the UK has the cost structure that'd allow being a true tax haven. Lower corporate tax alone won't make everyone move/stay.
Except reality, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-banks...
That article is from 23 October 2016. The tax haven talks are relatively new. I first heard about it as being part of the plan just a few days ago, from British media.
This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is.
I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides
I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides
>This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is.
Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up. The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best, and despite appearances of heavy-handedness, nobody tried to force us to leave, which would have been the end of us.
If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the union.
You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition.
Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing, everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit together and learn how to rule a country.
Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes.
___________
[1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.
If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the union.
You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition.
Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing, everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit together and learn how to rule a country.
Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes.
___________
[1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.
>I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up.
"Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call "thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing aside) was in its worst condition ever.
For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time, The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports, lackluster even before, collapse completely.
>The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best
Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy, plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money from the European public to the financiers).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l...
Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country.
>Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks
The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks".
It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek politicians where profiting just the same.
"Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call "thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing aside) was in its worst condition ever.
For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time, The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports, lackluster even before, collapse completely.
>The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best
Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy, plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money from the European public to the financiers).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l...
Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country.
>Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks
The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks".
It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek politicians where profiting just the same.
>> Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European country.
Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the internet.
As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. Our living standards rose with alacrity, so much so that a British family friend who had been visiting the country for a long time once remarked that the cats get fatter every time she sees them (though, to be fair, they have nothing on the British ones, I should say).
Also, no, people are not automata, and they do make imperfectly rational decisions- as evidenced by the Brexit vote, for instance. Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not? Everyone's rational self-interest was to kick us out. Oh, but- I forget. The whole of the Eurozone economy was so hung up on the few millions they got out of the bailout, that they thought they couldn't live without us. Gods! We dodged a bullet, innit!
Of course you might disagree with me. As a Greek I'm used to everyone knowing what went down with the crisis, and Grexit, except me and other Greeks.
Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the internet.
As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. Our living standards rose with alacrity, so much so that a British family friend who had been visiting the country for a long time once remarked that the cats get fatter every time she sees them (though, to be fair, they have nothing on the British ones, I should say).
Also, no, people are not automata, and they do make imperfectly rational decisions- as evidenced by the Brexit vote, for instance. Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not? Everyone's rational self-interest was to kick us out. Oh, but- I forget. The whole of the Eurozone economy was so hung up on the few millions they got out of the bailout, that they thought they couldn't live without us. Gods! We dodged a bullet, innit!
Of course you might disagree with me. As a Greek I'm used to everyone knowing what went down with the crisis, and Grexit, except me and other Greeks.
>Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the internet.
I doubt that. Besides, it's still true. Countries prosper or decline all the time. Losing 5% of your young educated population to brain drain, a huge hit on your economy, a continued debt burden, and a supervision program struggling development for the long term future, and a 30% or more income loss over the last decade, are all signs of a country in free fall. Heck, the unemployment alone is close to Weimar republic levels... And let's not go to the health of the banking system, or the welfare system (pension funds, etc).
It's like those persons walking off of cliffs in cartoons, until they realize they are on air, and suddenly fall. Some people just haven't realized it yet.
>As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. *
It's easy to "prosper" on borrowed money (that the state distributes) or easy access to finance (that banks lend as if there's no tomorrow). Even so, the Greek people show a steep decline in job prospects post 2004 or so, and their "prosperity" was not based on anything remotely looking like a viable economic progress. There was an actual rise on living standards in Greece since the 70s or so, and the euro era is the period when that rise was put to a hold, and private loaning and credit card debt went on the rise.
>Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
Going to war can have several important benefits for a country. That's how most countries made their colonies, controlled trade routes, built empires, secured cheap resources, or expanded on the expense of nearby countries. Going to war is abhorrent and murderous, yes, but not really irrational, that's how much of the western progress was funded.
As for "adopting communism", you're thinking with hindsight. At the moment there was not much for countries to not adopt communism, and for some it was even seen as an improvement on the previous situation (being colonial slaves and protectorates mostly). For some countries, communism was the engine that managed to bring them to the 20th century pronto, including Russia/USSR (they would be cannon fodder for Nazi Germany without the forced industrialization done by the communists) and China (which the new regime organized, united, and brought to the 21st century quite the winning power -- besides, after Mao they use their own version capitalism that has little to do with any historical form or dogma of communism apart from the party rule).
>The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not?
Because they could still pretend-give money to Greece that's siphoned from the European people to the German and other banks.
This way, Greece nominally pays their debt, the fat cats at the European banks are getting money, German banks are secured from their frivolous lending, the Greek state assets (e.g. profitable airports) can be sold for a penny and Greek economy controlled in order to continue the "bailout". Furthermore, they can all pretend that there's an EU and that the euro experiment has not failed (well, if it wasn't for a similar crisis lurking in most other EU countries, the Brexit, Italy and so on).
I doubt that. Besides, it's still true. Countries prosper or decline all the time. Losing 5% of your young educated population to brain drain, a huge hit on your economy, a continued debt burden, and a supervision program struggling development for the long term future, and a 30% or more income loss over the last decade, are all signs of a country in free fall. Heck, the unemployment alone is close to Weimar republic levels... And let's not go to the health of the banking system, or the welfare system (pension funds, etc).
It's like those persons walking off of cliffs in cartoons, until they realize they are on air, and suddenly fall. Some people just haven't realized it yet.
>As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people also did. *
It's easy to "prosper" on borrowed money (that the state distributes) or easy access to finance (that banks lend as if there's no tomorrow). Even so, the Greek people show a steep decline in job prospects post 2004 or so, and their "prosperity" was not based on anything remotely looking like a viable economic progress. There was an actual rise on living standards in Greece since the 70s or so, and the euro era is the period when that rise was put to a hold, and private loaning and credit card debt went on the rise.
>Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and so on.
Going to war can have several important benefits for a country. That's how most countries made their colonies, controlled trade routes, built empires, secured cheap resources, or expanded on the expense of nearby countries. Going to war is abhorrent and murderous, yes, but not really irrational, that's how much of the western progress was funded.
As for "adopting communism", you're thinking with hindsight. At the moment there was not much for countries to not adopt communism, and for some it was even seen as an improvement on the previous situation (being colonial slaves and protectorates mostly). For some countries, communism was the engine that managed to bring them to the 20th century pronto, including Russia/USSR (they would be cannon fodder for Nazi Germany without the forced industrialization done by the communists) and China (which the new regime organized, united, and brought to the 21st century quite the winning power -- besides, after Mao they use their own version capitalism that has little to do with any historical form or dogma of communism apart from the party rule).
>The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without us. It didn't happen. Why not?
Because they could still pretend-give money to Greece that's siphoned from the European people to the German and other banks.
This way, Greece nominally pays their debt, the fat cats at the European banks are getting money, German banks are secured from their frivolous lending, the Greek state assets (e.g. profitable airports) can be sold for a penny and Greek economy controlled in order to continue the "bailout". Furthermore, they can all pretend that there's an EU and that the euro experiment has not failed (well, if it wasn't for a similar crisis lurking in most other EU countries, the Brexit, Italy and so on).
The Greek bailout wasn't a bailout of Greece, it was bailout of the German and French banks…
The losses of Greek and French banks were socialised onto the Greek state by the terms of the bailout so the Greek people suffered rather than people who'd invested in the bank losing.
Now Greece did over borrow but when banks lend they take a risk and sometimes that risk doesn't pay off.
The losses of Greek and French banks were socialised onto the Greek state by the terms of the bailout so the Greek people suffered rather than people who'd invested in the bank losing.
Now Greece did over borrow but when banks lend they take a risk and sometimes that risk doesn't pay off.
> heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured.
Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose their will in smaller ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... for details).
The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured.
Additionally, the voting process in the European council is structured so that bigger countries cannot just impose their will in smaller ones (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E... for details).
>The opposite is usually lamented in the heavier countries, e.g. here in Germany it is often lamented that a German voters vote is less important than that of a voter in a small country like Luxembourg due to the way EU representation is structured.
All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.
All sides can lament, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Correct, here is what the numbers say:
'The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state's population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
'The apportionment of seats is not proportional to each state's population, nor does it reflect any particular mathematical formula; however, it is stated in the treaties that distribution of seats should be "degressively proportional" to the population of the member states. The process can be compared to the composition of the electoral college used to elect the President of the United States of America in that, pro rata, the smaller state received more places in the electoral college than the more populous states.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
Only the European Parliament doesn't take the real decisions.
There's the EC and bureaucratic ad-hoc groups that nobody appointed like the Eurogroup (an informal assembly of eurozone fin-mins with super powers that's not legitimized anywhere officially), the council of the EU (composed by state leaders and making decisions where strong countries like Germany and France have disproportionate influence using lackey satellite countries or debtors they control), etc.
Here's another Wikipedia link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Euro...
There's the EC and bureaucratic ad-hoc groups that nobody appointed like the Eurogroup (an informal assembly of eurozone fin-mins with super powers that's not legitimized anywhere officially), the council of the EU (composed by state leaders and making decisions where strong countries like Germany and France have disproportionate influence using lackey satellite countries or debtors they control), etc.
Here's another Wikipedia link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_Euro...
>We just allowed for easy border access
Do you realize you used 'just', talking about countries that were at war with each other for their entire history? When I said "we don't realize", I was talking about you
Do you realize you used 'just', talking about countries that were at war with each other for their entire history? When I said "we don't realize", I was talking about you
Except that's absolutely incorrect and repeating these things won't make it any more true.
That's hardly an argument. Sounds more like 'lalala' hands in the ears denial. Germany has been pushing peripheral countries around and controlling central aspects of European policy for decades, even bullying France into compliance.
And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
Ooh Germany the "big bad bully boohoo"
The funny thing is Germany is more contained inside the EU than outside it.
The funny thing is Germany is more contained inside the EU than outside it.
I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that? The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.
Of course I don't expect you to be able to explain it, because if anything the EU has given voice and veto power to small EU countries.
the veto's power has grossly exaggerated, since the Treaty of Lisbon most decisions are now made using Qualified Majority Voting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
this is how the spectacularly unpopular migrant relocation was forced through against Eastern Europe's objections
Thanks for sharing!
Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto.
Nothing is black or white indeed.
Some might argue that lessens small countries' power to streamline the decision making. Those would be the same that criticised the EU during the CETA negotiations and the whole Wallonia potential veto.
Nothing is black or white indeed.
>I am yet to understand how the EU makes it easier for bigger countries to step on the small ones. Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that?
Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
>The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
>The lack of an existing legal framework agreed upon all actors would mean there's no deterrent for an escalation if, let's say, France or UK decided to side with their Eastern colleagues and get serious about it.
Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
The distribution of seats in the EP clearly favors smaller countries. The smallest country, Malta, has one seat for every 70,227 people. Germany has one seat for every 838,789 people.[1]
Even if Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain decided to vote together, the others can still win a vote against them. (Also, the EP is split according to political ideologies, not nationalities, so this scenario is unrealistic.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
Even if Germany, France, the UK, Italy and Spain decided to vote together, the others can still win a vote against them. (Also, the EP is split according to political ideologies, not nationalities, so this scenario is unrealistic.)
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_...
With all due respect to coldtea (heresy! :)), but it is like the most hardcore Brexiters know very little about the EU.
Who's to blame? Hard to say, but no one's free of guilt here.
Who's to blame? Hard to say, but no one's free of guilt here.
> Those countries themselves -- and any other state actor, that is not tied by a bureaucracy they don't control but Germany does.
That doesn't answer the question, what are you on about?
That "bureaucracy" is an actual agreement between each of those countries, up to 27 members. A one sided aggression has no legal framework of defense and it gives full advantage to the bigger bullies.
> Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
So smaller countries have way more to lose than bigger countries.
> Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
You are able to push any agenda more effectively, with the "minor" detail that the agenda has to be agreed and voted by the representatives of 27 different countries.
Would you want to try again at answering my original question? If international law is not your forte (it's certainly not mine), do you mind just answering the example questions?:
> Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that?
That doesn't answer the question, what are you on about?
That "bureaucracy" is an actual agreement between each of those countries, up to 27 members. A one sided aggression has no legal framework of defense and it gives full advantage to the bigger bullies.
> Only then it would mean war or close, and the aggression and control would be evident (and costly).
So smaller countries have way more to lose than bigger countries.
> Whereas within a "existing legal framework" under your control (including controlling several lesser states to always vote for your interests), and with you controlling the centralized "purse" of Europe as well as its monetary policy, you get to push your agenda more effectively.
You are able to push any agenda more effectively, with the "minor" detail that the agenda has to be agreed and voted by the representatives of 27 different countries.
Would you want to try again at answering my original question? If international law is not your forte (it's certainly not mine), do you mind just answering the example questions?:
> Do you think Germany wouldn't be able to throw its weight around to push Poland, Czechia or Slovakia to do whatever they want to? Who would legally put an opposition to that?
Consider; just because it hasn't worked out perfectly doesn't mean that the issues that lead to the formation of EU didn't exist, or don't exist now.
Is breaking apart so that each little insignificantly economic nobody can be bullied by the rest of the world a better solution?
What's your solution to the problem?
It's pretty easy to complain, but coming up with actual solutions is way way harder.
Is breaking apart so that each little insignificantly economic nobody can be bullied by the rest of the world a better solution?
What's your solution to the problem?
It's pretty easy to complain, but coming up with actual solutions is way way harder.
While I agree with what you said, I believe the UK never acted as a heavier country during all these years. I understand why if the reason is purely political and based on winning elections but winning in the short terms led us to where we are now. I'm sure Cameron got himself a nice surprise.
> a shared set of values is.
except they never had this - the richer countries see their contribution as a drain (e.g., the almost collapse for the greeks), unlike the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.
except they never had this - the richer countries see their contribution as a drain (e.g., the almost collapse for the greeks), unlike the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.
> the american state, which distributes the federal taxes somewhat more "evently", and there's no "Us vs Them" mentality.
The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.
The level of naïveté displayed in this comment is shocking.
In threads about the EU/Brexit, I've seen repeated arguments about how the EU can't function like the United States because of how much more unified Americans are now and historically. It all quite laughably ignores how all of our stability has only come from increased federal authority whenever we've had similar crises. I guess Europeans are as ignorant of American history as we are of their's.
Not really — that's the exact crux of the argument for many British and Germans, etc: "Is the EU a full federal project, with all of the responsibilities and expectations that encompasses?". In both countries and the likes of Greece, the answer has been a resounding "NO!" which leads to the inevitable and existing impasse the continent currently faces.
America is politically able to let, for example, Detroit, die a lingering death. For obvious reasons the Greeks would rather a similar fate wasn't in store for their country.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" as a famous early 90s child philosopher put it.
America is politically able to let, for example, Detroit, die a lingering death. For obvious reasons the Greeks would rather a similar fate wasn't in store for their country.
"Damned if you do, damned if you don't" as a famous early 90s child philosopher put it.
The US was not a fully federal project at its outset either, and has had to repeatedly renegotiate the terms of its union towards increased federal authority in order to avoid collapse and takeover by outside powers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
States, despite all this fanciful nostalgia, do not exist in a vacuum and their continued sovereignty today is dependent on belonging to a larger unions. It's the only way to protect themselves from the imperialism of powerful federal unions like the US, Russia, and China. If any European state thinks that it can exist independently of a federal (or worse) arrangement, it has misunderstood 20th century history.
And I would also argue the election of Trump demonstrates that you actually can't allow Detroit and similar regions to wither without significant political repercussions. The Democrats tried that and it cost them the election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
States, despite all this fanciful nostalgia, do not exist in a vacuum and their continued sovereignty today is dependent on belonging to a larger unions. It's the only way to protect themselves from the imperialism of powerful federal unions like the US, Russia, and China. If any European state thinks that it can exist independently of a federal (or worse) arrangement, it has misunderstood 20th century history.
And I would also argue the election of Trump demonstrates that you actually can't allow Detroit and similar regions to wither without significant political repercussions. The Democrats tried that and it cost them the election.
That's not true at all. There is a lot of conflict in the US relating to federal spending in "blue states" versus "red states." Red states tend to be poorer, have more agriculture, and have more military bases, so they get disproportionately more federal spending relative to their taxes paid.
I'm not sure that is quite correct ( http://www.businessinsider.com/the-states-the-most-and-least... , http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/03/27/which-states-take-... ) are just a few of many references that show where the tax dollars are distributed in the United States. Here, states that tend to be more fortunate/productive subsidize the other ones (note: most of the charts specify return on their own tax dollars, and are likely sourced from same data). This has come up in several recent elections, blogs, etc. Not to the point of the EU debates, however it is definitely a source of animosity to some. I don't have data to back up why each state is the way it is (a very complex web to unravel). We can speculate all we want (I'd rather not since political ideology invariably trumps factual discourse, pun intended)...however, if somebody has a definitive answer, they should definitely write a paper :).
I don't understand why you would compare "having a shared set of values" and "bitching about contribution and payback". Yes, the feeling of "being a European" has gotten weaker every year, especially since the financial crisis, but this is not what I was talking about.
The shared attachement to democracy, peace, to solidarity versus exacerbated nationalism, refusing death penalty, of some version of social democracy in the broad sense of the term, is much stronger than what divides us.
The shared attachement to democracy, peace, to solidarity versus exacerbated nationalism, refusing death penalty, of some version of social democracy in the broad sense of the term, is much stronger than what divides us.
A clean cut is certainly in both sides best interest, and the UK is clear they want that, but EU is not so clear about it, because they depend on implied threats to keep some of the other members from leaving too.
Free trade is fantastic, but a unified monatory policy is a disaster - it cannot work- not even on paper.
Free trade is fantastic, but a unified monatory policy is a disaster - it cannot work- not even on paper.
Where do you draw the line for a common monetary policy?
Would regions like Madrid or Barcelona, easily at e.g. Dutch level, have to share monetary policy with Andalucia or Extremadura - two of the poorer regions in Europe?
Are there studies pointing to when or where a common monetary policy stops making sense?
Would regions like Madrid or Barcelona, easily at e.g. Dutch level, have to share monetary policy with Andalucia or Extremadura - two of the poorer regions in Europe?
Are there studies pointing to when or where a common monetary policy stops making sense?
[deleted]
> I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is.
And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail.
Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.
And that's precisely why it is failing, and will continue to fail.
Imagine combining Canada and the USA into a single country.
The EU is not "a single country", obviously. I have no trouble imagining a close EU-like relationship between the US and Canada; until recently, you didn't even need a passport to travel between the two. They're very similar countries which could work together on almost everything.
> The EU is not "a single country"
That's certainly the endgame. What couldn't be achieved by world wars, is being achieved by the EU project.
> US and Canada... very similar countries
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here. And if not, don't you think it's pretty disgusting to suggest the culture of Canadians and Americans is pretty similar? Don't you think that culture is something to cherish and protect, rather than pretend doesn't exist?
That's certainly the endgame. What couldn't be achieved by world wars, is being achieved by the EU project.
> US and Canada... very similar countries
I'm going to assume you're being sarcastic here. And if not, don't you think it's pretty disgusting to suggest the culture of Canadians and Americans is pretty similar? Don't you think that culture is something to cherish and protect, rather than pretend doesn't exist?
This is almost certainly a collosal act of self-harm, and deeply short-sighted.
I was desperately hopeful that the whole Brexit situation could be salvaged in some way, and that some way forward for liberalism might be figured out such that the rising tide of populism could be countered. I'm less and less confident about that.
I was desperately hopeful that the whole Brexit situation could be salvaged in some way, and that some way forward for liberalism might be figured out such that the rising tide of populism could be countered. I'm less and less confident about that.
Parliament has to vote on it... might be hope
But isn't this in many ways actually even more risky?
When Parliament gets its vote, the two year exit period will almost certainly be almost over and a vote of Parliament will not be able to stop the exit. Instead it will be a vote on the new arrangements with the EU. So either they just have to rubberstamp whatever gets put to them or - if they vote down these new arrangements - Britain will be left outside of the EU without any new deal in place.
When Parliament gets its vote, the two year exit period will almost certainly be almost over and a vote of Parliament will not be able to stop the exit. Instead it will be a vote on the new arrangements with the EU. So either they just have to rubberstamp whatever gets put to them or - if they vote down these new arrangements - Britain will be left outside of the EU without any new deal in place.
The two year exit period can't start until parliament votes, because May doesn't have the authority to trigger Article 51 without parliament
My understanding is that there are two distinct parliamentary votes – one on the triggering of Article 50, and one on the final settlement with the EU. The former starts the mandatory two-year withdrawal process.
I assume you're talking about the triggering of Article 50 - the decision of the Supreme Court case which we are still waiting for on whether Parliament needs to vote before it can be triggered or the Prime Minister can trigger it using Executive Powers.
So possibly, but there is talk of Teresa May rewording the Bill and forcing it through. Democracy eh!
So possibly, but there is talk of Teresa May rewording the Bill and forcing it through. Democracy eh!
At the moment, the opposition in the UK is in total disarray and making rather a hash of things. It's likely that a substantial number would back the government's plans.
I'm sorry to say it's false hope. Such an outcome would likely lead to greater ruin.
Just like Trump and the electoral college, if we project the vote into MP constituencies Brexit got 60% [0].
This means that most MPs voting 'No' to Brexit would anger their constituents for Subverting Democracy - one of Theresa May's favorite talking points[1]. This would likely lead to a more extreme/populist government in the next election, and perhaps some internal strife and riots in the meantime.
Who would you rather have at the helm?
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/nomura-2-charts-show-why-rema... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=subverting+democracy
Just like Trump and the electoral college, if we project the vote into MP constituencies Brexit got 60% [0].
This means that most MPs voting 'No' to Brexit would anger their constituents for Subverting Democracy - one of Theresa May's favorite talking points[1]. This would likely lead to a more extreme/populist government in the next election, and perhaps some internal strife and riots in the meantime.
Who would you rather have at the helm?
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/nomura-2-charts-show-why-rema... [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=subverting+democracy
There is no opposition(labour). No one with balls(to stand up and fught for what they all believe. only 1/4 MPs are probrexit). It'll be a rubber stamp, even if it involves replacing the the house of lords with a rubber stamp. Because thats how we bring back parliamentary sovereignty.
I think, regardless of where she intends to end up, she always had to start from the perspective of the UK being completely out of the EU. Showing that the UK is prepared to stand on its own two feet. If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided.
It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.
It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.
Exactly - you can't show nervousness like Switzerland did. May is taking the only starting position possible, when performing hostile negociations.
When Switzerland was faced with a similar issue (after citizens voted to restrict EU immigration) it was clear their Government knew straightaway they needed the deals with the EU, so it was impossible to negotiate anything of value.
Britain is politically and economically very important to continental Europe, so May does have some bargaining chips.
When Switzerland was faced with a similar issue (after citizens voted to restrict EU immigration) it was clear their Government knew straightaway they needed the deals with the EU, so it was impossible to negotiate anything of value.
Britain is politically and economically very important to continental Europe, so May does have some bargaining chips.
"If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided."
Exactly that, and it's pertinent timing given the noises that Trump is making regarding import taxes, and the implications of those taxes for EU exporters.
Exactly that, and it's pertinent timing given the noises that Trump is making regarding import taxes, and the implications of those taxes for EU exporters.
Agreed. Look at what happened with the recent Canadian EU deal, which was nearly derailed by Wallonia, the French speaking half of Belgium [1]. A UK EU trade deal will require unanimity from the EU 27. Given the current political climate, that just won't happen. So "hard Brexit" is inevitable. Theresa May is just making a virtue of a necessity. She does have one very powerful negotiating lever: London is Europe's financial capital. When the debt management office of any Eurozone state issues new govt bonds to the primary market the bidders are primary dealer trading desks in London. The ultimate measure of Eurozone govt financial stability is whether an individual govt can attract bids for 100% of a new issue, and at what price. Since 2010 there have been occasions Italy and Greece have failed to get bids for new debt. When that happens Germany and the ECB have to step in.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reache...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reache...
This might be a negotiating lever with the actual trade negotiators, who care about these things and know about such intricacies. But note that every deal with the UK will also have to pass through all the national parliaments in the EU. And there (as in the general public) you won't find much love for banks in general and British investment banks in particular. When Philip Hammond talks about retaining access to "hedging" and "derivatives", to most people those are not things to safeguard but evil market speculation that should be eliminated.
I have the feeling that (from the EU perspective) the opportunity to punish banks with a difficult Brexit will actually make negotiations for the UK harder, not easier.
I have the feeling that (from the EU perspective) the opportunity to punish banks with a difficult Brexit will actually make negotiations for the UK harder, not easier.
The banks are already making their plans to relocate into other EU cities prior to Brexit. Hard Brexit is inevitable, unless we just don't leave.
But May won't do that, because she's decided it's the unanimous will of the people that we storm out and slam the doors closed behind us and then barricade them and lay some mines just for good measure.
But May won't do that, because she's decided it's the unanimous will of the people that we storm out and slam the doors closed behind us and then barricade them and lay some mines just for good measure.
I think Britain will eventually come out of this stronger. However, it's clear in the interim period (which could be 5-10 years I think) there could be huge transitional issues. Whether that pain is worth suffering, only time will tell.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The WTO exists for trade and I would much prefer it to be the vehicle for trade, rather than groups of geographically close-knit countries.
Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The WTO exists for trade and I would much prefer it to be the vehicle for trade, rather than groups of geographically close-knit countries.
It chimes with UNIX philosophy for me. Organisations like the WTO which do (approximately) one thing and one thing well are preferable to those that try and do a bit of everything. It keeps the politics to a minimum.
Likewise, subject to the outcome of the negotiations, I imagine after a period of uncertainty and perhaps some turmoil it will be for the best. The timing may be unfortunate for some though.
Likewise, subject to the outcome of the negotiations, I imagine after a period of uncertainty and perhaps some turmoil it will be for the best. The timing may be unfortunate for some though.
Agree that the ideal situation is to have several WTO-like entities enforcing policies in different areas, but integrated into a global organization (call it the UN).
The EU is a good way to reach that final, ideal state.
The EU is a good way to reach that final, ideal state.
> Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs.
The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe. That's a good enough pro to cancel out all the other cons on my list. But hey, it's been three generations since our last big war, we are probably overdue on a reminder of why fully-industrialized total war is not such a great idea.
The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe. That's a good enough pro to cancel out all the other cons on my list. But hey, it's been three generations since our last big war, we are probably overdue on a reminder of why fully-industrialized total war is not such a great idea.
Honestly, I think the war argument is a bit outdated, and not relevant currently.
I like the EU for what it offers me: a market where I can buy and sell things knowing that some minimum rules are being respected, an area which allows me, as a person the freedom that I think every human being has, to move and work wherever he wants (although this is currently limited to EU citizens), and lots of other advantages.
Peace is good collateral effect.
I like the EU for what it offers me: a market where I can buy and sell things knowing that some minimum rules are being respected, an area which allows me, as a person the freedom that I think every human being has, to move and work wherever he wants (although this is currently limited to EU citizens), and lots of other advantages.
Peace is good collateral effect.
Are you sure about that?
Have we had no wars in Europe since WW2 because of the EU, or because the generations before us were sick of war?
Also the EU didn't stop a war in the Balkans…
Have we had no wars in Europe since WW2 because of the EU, or because the generations before us were sick of war?
Also the EU didn't stop a war in the Balkans…
The Balkans were not in the EU. The EU gives economic incentives to its members not to go to war. It does not magically prevent wars all around the world.
The original quote was "The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe."
Last time I checked the Balkans were within Europe!
Look I voted to remain and I'm probably going to leave the UK as I don't want to live in the UK post Brexit.
That said there's as many crazy claims for the success of the EU as there were for the UK leaving.
As an institution the EU is very much out of touch with the needs of the common people, and you've only got to look at how they treated Greece as an example (and the whole stupid thing of moving MPs to Strasbourg once a month)
Last time I checked the Balkans were within Europe!
Look I voted to remain and I'm probably going to leave the UK as I don't want to live in the UK post Brexit.
That said there's as many crazy claims for the success of the EU as there were for the UK leaving.
As an institution the EU is very much out of touch with the needs of the common people, and you've only got to look at how they treated Greece as an example (and the whole stupid thing of moving MPs to Strasbourg once a month)
When someone says "Europe" in the context of the EU, I thought it would be obvious that they are referring to the member states. How would the EU prevent non-members from wars? That does not make sense.
The UK was never really committed to the EU and yet it got special treatment time and time again. I say this as an EU outsider.
The "common people" usually want all upsides with no downsides. No one can deliver that, buy the populist politicians depend on it and promise people the moon (see "closed borders and common market"). Good luck with the Tories and IndyRef 2.
The UK was never really committed to the EU and yet it got special treatment time and time again. I say this as an EU outsider.
The "common people" usually want all upsides with no downsides. No one can deliver that, buy the populist politicians depend on it and promise people the moon (see "closed borders and common market"). Good luck with the Tories and IndyRef 2.
I began 2016 knowing (and hoping) Remain would win the referendum, and Clinton would win the presidency. So I'm not going to make any predictions at all.
Despite this speech, we still have absolutely no idea what conversations are being had in private, or how anything is going to work out.
Despite this speech, we still have absolutely no idea what conversations are being had in private, or how anything is going to work out.
The EU is going to slaughter the UK. That's basically their public position, and there's little reason to suspect they hold different private positions. It's the only thing that makes political sense.
An agreement needs to be reached about EU citizens already living in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU. That's maybe the only critical issue where they have common ground. In every other respect, the UK is going to take decades to recover from radical economic upheaval. It's a ludicrous self-imposed crisis.
An agreement needs to be reached about EU citizens already living in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU. That's maybe the only critical issue where they have common ground. In every other respect, the UK is going to take decades to recover from radical economic upheaval. It's a ludicrous self-imposed crisis.
Please stop the victim playing. The EU is not going to "slaughter the UK". The EU is simply going to uphold the value of EU membership.
EU membership is something different that non EU membership. UK is opting for non EU membership, and even for a deal completely different than any other country has. We will reach that kind of deal.
But please do not pretend that the expected agreement is "the UK gets unfettered access to the EU market without having to compromise in other areas like all EU members do", and that any other agreement is unfair.
I am perfectly fine with the UK's starting position to be that one. The EU's starting position is "We want access to the city, free access to the UK market, payment for 40 years of deal making and market uniformization (which is going to be adopted on day one as British law), infrastructures, research, patents owned by British companies paid with EU funds, investments in UK culture and economy, unfettered access to UK's market". Anything less than that would be totally unfair to the EU, right?
Now let's compromise.
EU membership is something different that non EU membership. UK is opting for non EU membership, and even for a deal completely different than any other country has. We will reach that kind of deal.
But please do not pretend that the expected agreement is "the UK gets unfettered access to the EU market without having to compromise in other areas like all EU members do", and that any other agreement is unfair.
I am perfectly fine with the UK's starting position to be that one. The EU's starting position is "We want access to the city, free access to the UK market, payment for 40 years of deal making and market uniformization (which is going to be adopted on day one as British law), infrastructures, research, patents owned by British companies paid with EU funds, investments in UK culture and economy, unfettered access to UK's market". Anything less than that would be totally unfair to the EU, right?
Now let's compromise.
All because people think 3.5% of the population (immigrants) is 20% of the population. No one - no matter what they may claim today - voted for this. At the time they were saying "we'll get access to the single market because we're special".
I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times more difficult.
I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times more difficult.
Where did your 3.5% come from?
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-born_population_of_the...)
I made a mistake, it's 3.6%
I made a mistake, it's 3.6%
I don't understand how we got here. I understand that the media picked up a massive campaign to leave, because the various super-rich owners of the popular press decided Brexit was the thing to support. I understand that there were a lot of lies told and that people believed enough of those told by the Leave side that they decided to vote that way.
I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.
I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.
The left is in disarray, the only threats to May are from the further right in her party and outside (mainly UKIP). Since they're the only threats they're the only groups worth appeasing to maintain her job.
The same way a slender minority forced just about the worst possible President on the American people.
As with Brexit so with Trump, the one side only won because the alternative was only barely, if at all, better.
Hopefully this time everyone will remember how difficult bad things are.
If we remember anything from history it should be that we don't remember. :(
It'll be interesting to see how the UK handles this. I suspect they will fail, but they should be applauded for trying. A single market is not an unmitigated good. The single market that exists within the U.S. is the major reason why federalism has failed. When governments can't exercise control over commerce with external entities, it becomes impossible to really chart a destiny distinct from the larger union. Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders. Companies could relocate over the border and still access the rich Massachusetts market; people can move to Massachusetts only when they get sick; etc.
The American single market is why state socreignty is such a farce, and the U.K. has wiser up to that reality.
The American single market is why state socreignty is such a farce, and the U.K. has wiser up to that reality.
[deleted]
In the EU we have extremely different countries. What is exactly your point?
And the EU will either end up with a bunch of very different people unhappy about being forced into the same polity, or it will end. America proves you cannot have Democratic sovereign states tied together by an overarching union.
America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into the same polity with each other--voting in the same elections and being governed by the same laws.
America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into the same polity with each other--voting in the same elections and being governed by the same laws.
> Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders
In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to your comment.
In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to your comment.
All of the pre-2000s EU members have robust welfare states. It's an open question whether the EU will continue to exist with all the new members (or whether it would have continued to exist taking on countries like Turkey like it was originally on course to do).
> taking on countries like Turkey like it was originally on course to do
Pushed by the UK and the US
Pushed by the UK and the US
The US single market and stronger federal controls are the only reason that states have ANY form of sovereignty. The United States was originally established as a confederacy with weak federal powers, more similar to the political arrangements of the EU than what we have today. The result was an unmitigated economic and foreign relations disaster, such that we risked imploding and being taken over again by the British.
We only achieved stability and continued sovereignty by establishing a greater degree of federal authority over the union. What we today have as our Constitution is a direct response to the failed model of a union of autonomous states. And even this has had to be renegotiated in the direction of increased federal power in order to protect and expand democratic rights (ending slavery and it's political legacy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...
The UK (and soon the US) are shaking the world up. The winners of this shake up will be those who are, both, able to drop old assumptions quickly and enjoying a good deal of luck. It's a bit like organizing the world by chance while hoping for the best.
Agree. We have entered the "Era of the Bully": don't ask permission, not even forgiveness. Whatever you can do, just do it. Don't care who you hurt. The only principle guiding you should be "to maximize your own benefit", assuming that the other players are doing the same. In the EU, we had left this behind long ago, compromising between us in order to get some minimal standards for granted.
This will work very well for those strong enough to fight the fight - and the UK could very well be one of the winners of this new period. But this will be at the expense of hurting the rest.
That's why the EU should be extremely careful about what role the UK is going to play in the near future. We should recognize and punish any hostile act for what it is, for example the already official threat of creating a tax heaven in our backyard.
This will work very well for those strong enough to fight the fight - and the UK could very well be one of the winners of this new period. But this will be at the expense of hurting the rest.
That's why the EU should be extremely careful about what role the UK is going to play in the near future. We should recognize and punish any hostile act for what it is, for example the already official threat of creating a tax heaven in our backyard.
Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"?
Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them. Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them. Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
> Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"?
We had left it. In the EU.
> Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them
We are competing with China and Russia. To do that we need to be strong. That's one of the reasons why EU membership is important. Thanks for pointing that out.
> Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
We are not punishing Britain. Britain is leaving the EU. Any deal we get is a new deal. Nothing can be taken for granted, by the EU or by the UK. If the UK does not get access to the EU market, it is because it is
a) either not in the interest of the UK to accept compromises offered by the EU
b) or not in the interest of the EU to accept what the UK is proposing
We had left it. In the EU.
> Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them
We are competing with China and Russia. To do that we need to be strong. That's one of the reasons why EU membership is important. Thanks for pointing that out.
> Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
We are not punishing Britain. Britain is leaving the EU. Any deal we get is a new deal. Nothing can be taken for granted, by the EU or by the UK. If the UK does not get access to the EU market, it is because it is
a) either not in the interest of the UK to accept compromises offered by the EU
b) or not in the interest of the EU to accept what the UK is proposing
Shame if this happens (Amazon.co.uk has been good; Amazon.de doesn't speak English), but UK must do what they think what's good for them. Doing customs declarations in Finland has turned into a hassle since the convenience of EU trade.
Just FYI, Amazon.de introduced English interface and customer support some while back (most product listings are still only German of course).
Thanks for heads-up. Sounds like I must try it out the next time I need something from there!
why do you need to do customs declarations in Finland? Where are you based? Where are you buying from?
Buying from any other EU country should free you from customs declarations.
Buying from any other EU country should free you from customs declarations.
Mainly because I'm a sucker for Amazon, and the other Amazon warehouses in EU area didn't support English to my knowledge. I'm glad if they do.
There's also been the possibility to hack with GBP/EUR rates.
There's also been the possibility to hack with GBP/EUR rates.
...and now off to re-build the British Empire...?
Many here in the UK might actually be hoping for just that!! Fingers crossed it doesn't turn into a mess!
I think you are onto something personally. Many in the UK had an inflated view of the importance / strength of the country harking back to the empire (admittedly final days pre WWII). Which was in fact more todo with to being close to the US who propped the country up and kept it at the top table, because we would always agree as opposed to the actual merit of the country.
That combined with an island mentality and a fear mongering, sensationalist press.
Case in point, my mother complaining of immigration, although she lives in an out of the way town where they had never seen a brown person (apart from at the hospital in the next town) until probably the late 90s.
Now she insists there are too many eastern Europeans, however she swears blind she would never get an Englishman builder / plumber because the Polish ones (catchall, means any Eastern euro) are cheaper, more reliable and just better.
But she wants to make Britain "great" again, "like it used to be". Pressing her when, she cannot answer. Asked if we should invade a "brown" country and get rich of plundering their resources and ruling via the military like we used to do, "no no no we shouldn't do that". "err mother you do realise why we used to be great and rich don't you"
and she voted remain!
That combined with an island mentality and a fear mongering, sensationalist press.
Case in point, my mother complaining of immigration, although she lives in an out of the way town where they had never seen a brown person (apart from at the hospital in the next town) until probably the late 90s.
Now she insists there are too many eastern Europeans, however she swears blind she would never get an Englishman builder / plumber because the Polish ones (catchall, means any Eastern euro) are cheaper, more reliable and just better.
But she wants to make Britain "great" again, "like it used to be". Pressing her when, she cannot answer. Asked if we should invade a "brown" country and get rich of plundering their resources and ruling via the military like we used to do, "no no no we shouldn't do that". "err mother you do realise why we used to be great and rich don't you"
and she voted remain!
An Anglo free-migratory superstate combining Canada, NZ and AUS has been proposed to fill the shortage of labour once your continental plumbers leave.
As an Aussie, I have no desire to return to the island my ancestors fled 160 years ago but if it enables me to retire to a piece of land in Quebec or the Maritimes, I'm all for it!
As an Aussie, I have no desire to return to the island my ancestors fled 160 years ago but if it enables me to retire to a piece of land in Quebec or the Maritimes, I'm all for it!
I think we should replace politicians and obviously flawed democratic process with a top down style economy run by Economists.
Obviously we will have to have some kind of mechanism for choosing between these Economists, as some have shown to be pretty far off in their predictions.
Some sort of system based on the casting and counting of votes perhaps.
Obviously we will have to have some kind of mechanism for choosing between these Economists, as some have shown to be pretty far off in their predictions.
Some sort of system based on the casting and counting of votes perhaps.
A world run by economists sounds even harsher than the one we have now.
There's the court ruling and now Parliament too would have a say in the matter and could probably derail the decision and put an end to the mess that the Leavers made and that's why FX markets are reacting possibly to this news.
Current title is slightly different: "Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May"
Don't know if the article title has changed or submission title was slightly edited.
Don't know if the article title has changed or submission title was slightly edited.
> Maintaining the common travel area between the UK and Irish Republic Tariff-free trade with the EU A customs agreement with the EU Continued "practical" sharing of intelligence and policing information "Control" of immigration rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't these the things they get by being members of the EU? That is why they paid fees to have all this stuff that benefits them, right?
Honestly, when did the world start getting run by petulant children in the form of old white people? Over here we have The Golden Tariff that is destroying stocks because they pissed him off.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't these the things they get by being members of the EU? That is why they paid fees to have all this stuff that benefits them, right?
Honestly, when did the world start getting run by petulant children in the form of old white people? Over here we have The Golden Tariff that is destroying stocks because they pissed him off.
The UK is simply trying to divide the EU, by cosying up to some members.
Of course the UK has control of borders: they are not even in Shengen! Besides, only EU citizens are allowed to move around the EU.
It is unfortunate that the EU has allowed the UK to amass that much financial and intelligence clout, and something that I hope will be corrected in the near future, by distributing the financial center around the EU member states, and by building up a world class intelligence service.
Of course the UK has control of borders: they are not even in Shengen! Besides, only EU citizens are allowed to move around the EU.
It is unfortunate that the EU has allowed the UK to amass that much financial and intelligence clout, and something that I hope will be corrected in the near future, by distributing the financial center around the EU member states, and by building up a world class intelligence service.
Britain is ok, everything is fine!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI
It is unfortunate that the spotlight is in the UK, and that the EU is not able to bring across the benefits and compromises that membership has and implies.
I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived, and can bring about its own demise.
For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing in lots of different areas.
May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious: whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar strength, often much bigger.
And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not willing to dilute the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house: being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules. Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that.
Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences:
- the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will break it whenever it wishes
- there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on the table. Brexit it is.
- any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure.
May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for your future failures?
I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived, and can bring about its own demise.
For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing in lots of different areas.
May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious: whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar strength, often much bigger.
And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not willing to dilute the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house: being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules. Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that.
Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences:
- the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will break it whenever it wishes
- there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on the table. Brexit it is.
- any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure.
May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for your future failures?
The UK is so selfish that it's the second largest net contributor to the EU budget!
Adjusted per GDP?
You are the sixth (seventh?) economy of the world, you are expected to pay more. Did you expect Austria to contribute more than the UK? The EU has some associated costs, which need to be paid, and there is budget for investing in depressed areas (many in the UK).
But don't worry, you will get 30 different trade deals which do not cost any penny in supervising or enforcing, because that just happens automagically: you sign in the bottom of a paper, and all written rules are respected, enforced, supervised and updated. Isn't that sweet?
You are the sixth (seventh?) economy of the world, you are expected to pay more. Did you expect Austria to contribute more than the UK? The EU has some associated costs, which need to be paid, and there is budget for investing in depressed areas (many in the UK).
But don't worry, you will get 30 different trade deals which do not cost any penny in supervising or enforcing, because that just happens automagically: you sign in the bottom of a paper, and all written rules are respected, enforced, supervised and updated. Isn't that sweet?
Really not sure how you read that as "UK is the second largest net contributor to the EU budget!"...
No one can stab another country in the back by being a tax haven. If a country allows companies to use tax havens, it's up to that county to adjust its laws.
So you are basically saying: if the tax heaven succeeds, it is the fault of the country allowing the "tax-heaving", not the country offering the tax heaven.
Do you also think that it is the fault of the drug user and not the fault of the drug dealer? Or the fault of the shooted person, and not the fault of the shooter?
Whatever. It does not really matter how you describe it. There is one country "doing the tax-heaving" or the other "allowing it". But mind you: controlling your companies to exploit tax-heavens, specially if they are based in globally relevant economies with presence in lots of international bodies is not easy matter.
That's why the EU must be extremely firm in this area, and not allow the UK-offered tax heaven to flourish at the expense of the EU. Any trading done from tax-heaven Britain with the EU must be forbidden or punished with extremely high custom taxes.
I assume you agree with me that would be part of the "adjust its laws" comment.
Do you also think that it is the fault of the drug user and not the fault of the drug dealer? Or the fault of the shooted person, and not the fault of the shooter?
Whatever. It does not really matter how you describe it. There is one country "doing the tax-heaving" or the other "allowing it". But mind you: controlling your companies to exploit tax-heavens, specially if they are based in globally relevant economies with presence in lots of international bodies is not easy matter.
That's why the EU must be extremely firm in this area, and not allow the UK-offered tax heaven to flourish at the expense of the EU. Any trading done from tax-heaven Britain with the EU must be forbidden or punished with extremely high custom taxes.
I assume you agree with me that would be part of the "adjust its laws" comment.
I wouldn't dare pretend to know what'll be the result once it's all said and done.
I'm not sure why everybody is hammering jamesdempsy with down votes, I disagree with them as well but they are making rational, and disputable, arguments.
Debate, don't censor.
Debate, don't censor.
Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people.
Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.
It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real."
Margaret Thatcher 1988