EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[rory_20_uk]

So would you be up for removing sovereignty from Parliament? If so, who should be the decision making body? Since you're equally against the analyses of economic experts where they relate to the economy.

BTW, the above analysis was done by DExEU, the department in charge of Brexit.

No I would not be since I can not think of a better system to replace it, depressing though that might be.

So you believe all economic analysis is completely accurate and should be followed unswervingly? Why on earth would I care which group came up with analysis? Are there some with perfect visions of the future? Who are these modern day magicians? Or is it that the analysis is going to be biased by the group that created it, that they pick whichever numbers and assumptions fit their narrative? in which case it is all so suspect I wonder why you decided to post it as if it meant something.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

For comparison, Furunculus reckons we will attain steady growth rates of 1-1.5% which will be acceptable to his eyes.

Are you my personal troll, running round misrepresenting my views at every turn?

The economic cost of brexit is important, as one half of the power equation is compound growth over time, realtive to your peers.
UK growth has declined from ~2.5-3.5 percent in 1970 to 1.5-2.5 percent today... pretty much like every other post industrial western society with an inverted population pyramid.
"Over time", means long-term growth, and I see no reason for brexit to change the fundamental economic potential of the UK economy....
...as long as UK policy public policy responds to changed circumstances (something a lot of the referendum doom-casts explicitly did not do).

What is the horizon of these forecasts?
What accommodation do they make for policy response to changed circumstances?

Pah! If we wanted 2,800,000 million fewer jobs then we could simply adopt a highly regulated labour market. Like France, for instance...

[Pannonian]

And a former NI secretary supports the ending of the Good Friday Agreement, with other Brexiteers piping up with their own support. Well this would end the impasse over the Northern Ireland border, but goodness knows what this will do to the UK's (aka England's) credibility on their willingness to follow multilaterally agreed treaties.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU wants a customs border. Their member, Ireland doesn't - they can't even agree with themselves. The UK doesn't want an internal customs border, unsurprisingly.

How, exactly, is this a failing of the UK?

~:smoking:

[Sir Moody]

The EU wants a customs border. Their member, Ireland doesn't - they can't even agree with themselves. The UK doesn't want an internal customs border, unsurprisingly.

How, exactly, is this a failing of the UK?

~:smoking:

Because we are forcing their hand - the EU has been completely open about their reasoning.

In order to not have a custom border we need to remain in the single market - we however are constantly insisting we want to leave the customs union and instead negotiate access to the single market, something that will require a border - we cant have it both ways.

[Fragony]

Interesting, the Netherlands refuses to pay more to close the gab for schnaps it seems at the moment. It will knowing our overhead(joke for Dutchies)

[rory_20_uk]

Because we are forcing their hand - the EU has been completely open about their reasoning.

In order to not have a custom border we need to remain in the single market - we however are constantly insisting we want to leave the customs union and instead negotiate access to the single market, something that will require a border - we cant have it both ways.

So... the system completely works as long as no one asks them to change anything from what they want.

Leaving aside the wants of the the main island, as is so often the case it is Ireland that is causing problems on both sides - Ireland scared of loosing business and Northern Ireland wanting to remain part of the country they are y'know, part of.

That the EU has clearly explained their position doesn't make it any more sensible - "the EU wants this, but when we get the countries to vote on it, at least one member state refuses anything but you accepting an internal border in your state. All good?"

Rather like the EU saying they are frustrated in the UK not being clear in what they want. The UK was clear. The EU said no. The EU was clear. The UK said no. Then there is this process called negotiation where both sides have to compromise. Or else the EU should have just said "Vae victis - Tony screwed you in the 1990's with the Treaties he signed which totally didn't need any agreement by the people"

~:smoking:

[Husar]

So... the system completely works as long as no one asks them to change anything from what they want.

It's not the EU's fault that the UK is a weird semi-feudal remnant of the past that includes half-conquered nations and internal strife from colonial oppression.
If Poland wanted to leave, it wouldn't have the same weird internal border issues that you do, that's entirely down to the weird way you formed your "nation"...

[rory_20_uk]

It's not the EU's fault that the UK is a weird semi-feudal remnant of the past that includes half-conquered nations and internal strife from colonial oppression.
If Poland wanted to leave, it wouldn't have the same weird internal border issues that you do, that's entirely down to the weird way you formed your "nation"...

Ah, blame the sovereign state. One has to laugh when Germany criticises the border issues of others... These inconvenient issues were due to the population asked what they want. You would have thought we'd learn to only offer democracy when people understand what they are supposed to do.

If the EU didn't have such a weird voting system the Irish could be overruled and there would be no issue - having a system of negotiating that is reminiscent of the USSR where the suit at the desk is but a puppet for 27 puppeteers.

What about overseas territories that are owned by EU countries? These all seem to have exemptions and odd rules.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Ah, blame the sovereign state. One has to laugh when Germany criticises the border issues of others... These inconvenient issues were due to the population asked what they want. You would have thought we'd learn to only offer democracy when people understand what they are supposed to do.

If the EU didn't have such a weird voting system the Irish could be overruled and there would be no issue - having a system of negotiating that is reminiscent of the USSR where the suit at the desk is but a puppet for 27 puppeteers.

What about overseas territories that are owned by EU countries? These all seem to have exemptions and odd rules.

~:smoking:

You want a third party to overrule a bilateral agreement? Didn't you have a problem with the ECJ supposedly having jurisdiction over British affairs? Or is it only applicable when it suits you?

[Husar]

Ah, blame the sovereign state. One has to laugh when Germany criticises the border issues of others... These inconvenient issues were due to the population asked what they want.

The Scottish people wanted to be invaded by the English and the Irish voted for a land border in Ireland?
The EU also didn't vote for a customs border with the UK, so... :dizzy2:



What about overseas territories that are owned by EU countries? These all seem to have exemptions and odd rules.

That's also weird, but not a problem as long as they don't vote to leave the EU. Perhaps not even then because overseas territory usually hints at there not being a land border anyway.

[Pannonian]

BTW, the main problem isn't Ireland being afraid of losing business, or indeed anything EU-related. One of the problems is the change to the status quo which Brexit has decreed. And that change is necessitated by WTO rules, not EU rules. It's something that Holland has done something about, and which the Dutch have noted the British have done next to nothing about. I've mentioned the problem a few times already in this thread, as a colossal waste of money.

[rory_20_uk]

The Scottish people wanted to be invaded by the English and the Irish voted for a land border in Ireland?
The EU also didn't vote for a customs border with the UK, so... :dizzy2:

That's also weird, but not a problem as long as they don't vote to leave the EU. Perhaps not even then because overseas territory usually hints at there not being a land border anyway.

The English invaded Scotland, the Scottish England. The Scottish clans fought each other. But the Scottish king took the English throne. James VI / James I? Pre-the EU I know, so probably not relevant. After Braveheart. Forget I mentioned it.

Yes, Ireland did vote whether they wanted to be part of Northern Ireland or part of the South. Some areas moved to the south, some elected to remain. So... having a grasp of history helps.

The land boarder is not the issue more than there being a border. There are other areas that are not land borders. Like Corsica. If you have a quick peek at a map there are quite a few. I was referring to the territories owned by countries in the EU but are not in the EU.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

The English invaded Scotland, the Scottish England. The Scottish clans fought each other. But the Scottish king took the English throne. James VI / James I? Pre-the EU I know, so probably not relevant. After Braveheart. Forget I mentioned it.

Yes, Ireland did vote whether they wanted to be part of Northern Ireland or part of the South. Some areas moved to the south, some elected to remain. So... having a grasp of history helps.

The land boarder is not the issue more than there being a border. There are other areas that are not land borders. Like Corsica. If you have a quick peek at a map there are quite a few. I was referring to the territories owned by countries in the EU but are not in the EU.

~:smoking:

How is any of that the EU's fault then? They all get what they voted for.

[Pannonian]

How is any of that the EU's fault then? They all get what they voted for.

And, as the Dutch have noted, they're nowhere near implementing what they voted for. The Dutch are doing their bit to prepare for hard Brexit, which they're now expecting. The Irish government don't want a hard Brexit, as it will be immensely expensive through no doing of their own. The British government, choosing hard Brexit of their own accord, nonetheless don't want to pay to implement it. And the expenses aren't due to EU rules, but WTO rules. It's typical that Brexiteers regardless of the facts choose to blame the EU anyway. Still, I have little doubt that Ireland will be helped by the others to pay for the hard border, in order to safeguard the EU's integrity as per WTO requirements. The UK's side will have to be paid for by the UK alone though. And the UK government don't want to pay, and the UK people largely aren't interested in the facts, as they weren't interest in facts throughout the referendum campaign.

And the Japanese ambassador has warned the UK government that Japanese auto industries exist in the UK only as a portal to the EU market. If there are any barriers, don't expect them to remain in the UK. Never mind, what does he know about such things, eh. We've had enough of experts touting their expert opinions. The Will of the People (TM) must triumph.

[rory_20_uk]

How is any of that the EU's fault then? They all get what they voted for.

The Irish don't see it that way "we want to be in the EU and have no borders with the UK as you know the Troubles are only just over and if we don't get our way perhaps this is a thinly veiled threat we'll start bombing things again".

It is the EU's problem since Ireland is in the EU.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The Irish don't see it that way "we want to be in the EU and have no borders with the UK as you know the Troubles are only just over and if we don't get our way perhaps this is a thinly veiled threat we'll start bombing things again".

It is the EU's problem since Ireland is in the EU.

~:smoking:

How many additional customs officers have we hired in preparation for Brexit? The Dutch have just authorised 750-930. Their expectation is that, if they need hundreds, the British with their land border need thousands. How many additional customs officers have we hired?

[Husar]

The Irish don't see it that way "we want to be in the EU and have no borders with the UK as you know the Troubles are only just over and if we don't get our way perhaps this is a thinly veiled threat we'll start bombing things again".

It is the EU's problem since Ireland is in the EU.

~:smoking:

From whom is that quote? Did the Irish PM say they will start a terror campaign if there's a land border or are you making things up?

And no, it's not the EU doing this to Ireland, the EU never voted for Brexit. The British people voted for Brexit (well, enough of them) and the British government is negotiating the deal. The EU can not bend over backwards just to prevent a tiny land border in Ireland, although I can see how someone who is for Brexit and would like to see the EU crumble would dream about that...
If Ireland wants the border to be open so badly, they will either have to get the UK to negotiate a deal with an open border according to the EU rules for such open trade or they can leave as well and join the UK, see how that works out for them. It's not like Ireland cared the other way around when they offered companies a tax rate of 0.5% just to get the jobs to their country.

[rory_20_uk]

From whom is that quote? Did the Irish PM say they will start a terror campaign if there's a land border or are you making things up?

And no, it's not the EU doing this to Ireland, the EU never voted for Brexit. The British people voted for Brexit (well, enough of them) and the British government is negotiating the deal. The EU can not bend over backwards just to prevent a tiny land border in Ireland, although I can see how someone who is for Brexit and would like to see the EU crumble would dream about that...
If Ireland wants the border to be open so badly, they will either have to get the UK to negotiate a deal with an open border according to the EU rules for such open trade or they can leave as well and join the UK, see how that works out for them. It's not like Ireland cared the other way around when they offered companies a tax rate of 0.5% just to get the jobs to their country.

When exactly did the Irish government undertake terror in the UK? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or really that ignorant of events that occurred before the EU was founded? Does the Good Friday agreement ring a bell? IRA? The Provosts? The Troubles?

The Irish want no border. The UK doesn't want a border. The EU insists that there is one. It really is that simple. Yes, Ireland could leave and that would also be fine. But as it stands it is the EU that is demanding the border, and no amount of hurrumphing (yes, Ireland has broken many EU tax laws - but that is not relevant) and finger pointing alters that.

And your "solution" is to get Ireland to get the UK to unilaterally follow all EU rules just for their benefit? And if this were to occur the EU might then deign to accept no borders - although with the option of blocking them off if they should ever choose. :rolleyes:

I don't want the EU to crumble. I don't want the USA to crumble. They are two large Federal States of which the UK trades and mainly works with.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

When exactly did the Irish government undertake terror in the UK? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or really that ignorant of events that occurred before the EU was founded? Does the Good Friday agreement ring a bell? IRA? The Provosts? The Troubles?

The Irish want no border. The UK doesn't want a border. The EU insists that there is one. It really is that simple. Yes, Ireland could leave and that would also be fine. But as it stands it is the EU that is demanding the border, and no amount of hurrumphing (yes, Ireland has broken many EU tax laws - but that is not relevant) and finger pointing alters that.

And your "solution" is to get Ireland to get the UK to unilaterally follow all EU rules just for their benefit? And if this were to occur the EU might then deign to accept no borders - although with the option of blocking them off if they should ever choose. :rolleyes:

I don't want the EU to crumble. I don't want the USA to crumble. They are two large Federal States of which the UK trades and mainly works with.

~:smoking:

How utterly typical that a Brexiteer blames the EU for everything. The EU has proposed a plan for an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It's the UK that's turned it down, by insisting on certain conditions. And under these conditions, it's the WTO, not the EU, that demands a hard border. The Dutch have decided to hire an additional 750 customs officers in preparation for a hard Brexit, rising to 930 if it's a no deal Brexit, citing the cluelessness of the UK negotiators as the clock ticks down. How many have the UK hired?

Oh, and BTW, given your outrage that the UK should be required to unilaterally follow all EU rules, note that various industries, including agriculture, are planning to do just that. Whether or not the UK government requires them to. It's to their benefit that they follow EU rules. I'd like to know how you plan to get around the JIT processes governing the UK's complex industries though. Or do you think the UK should devolve back to cottage industries employing family members?

[Husar]

When exactly did the Irish government undertake terror in the UK? Are you being intentionally obtuse, or really that ignorant of events that occurred before the EU was founded? Does the Good Friday agreement ring a bell? IRA? The Provosts? The Troubles?

In the UK, but you said it's an EU problem. Are you saying they will blame the EU and blow up people in Berlin and Paris if they don't get what they want?



The Irish want no border. The UK doesn't want a border. The EU insists that there is one. It really is that simple.

That's a blatant lie. The EU does not want there to be a border. The UK wants there to be a border and that's why it triggered Brexit in the first place. Even with Brexit, the EU is willing not to have a border, but there are conditions since you can't just get a deal that noone else gets either. The one who keeps refusing any deal where there is no border is the UK.
You're basically saying all the other 27 countries have to give up on their idea of what the EU should be or else the Irish are going to start a terror campaign against us because you will block any sensible deal. That's just blackmail, nothing else. You're trying to make 27 other countries some kind of colony that has to bow to your imperial will because you're the only ones who know what's right.

You know what? I'd rather pay a bit more in taxes so we can reimburse Ireland for their losses and watch you struggle in isolation than give in to this type of blackmailing nonsense.

[Pannonian]

In the UK, but you said it's an EU problem. Are you saying they will blame the EU and blow up people in Berlin and Paris if they don't get what they want?

That's a blatant lie. The EU does not want there to be a border. The UK wants there to be a border and that's why it triggered Brexit in the first place. Even with Brexit, the EU is willing not to have a border, but there are conditions since you can't just get a deal that noone else gets either. The one who keeps refusing any deal where there is no border is the UK.
You're basically saying all the other 27 countries have to give up on their idea of what the EU should be or else the Irish are going to start a terror campaign against us because you will block any sensible deal. That's just blackmail, nothing else. You're trying to make 27 other countries some kind of colony that has to bow to your imperial will because you're the only ones who know what's right.

You know what? I'd rather pay a bit more in taxes so we can reimburse Ireland for their losses and watch you struggle in isolation than give in to this type of blackmailing nonsense.

Never mind the EU. At the current level of preparedness, the UK won't even qualify for WTO.

[Furunculus]

That's just blackmail, nothing else. You're trying to make little old britain some kind of colony that has to bow to your imperial will because you're the only ones who know what's right.

You know what? I'd rather see the City take a hit and watch the eurozone struggle to finance growth than give in to this type of blackmailing nonsense.

hmmm, yes, i do agree.

[Husar]

hmmm, yes, i do agree.

The EU isn't blackmailing anyone, it's just enforcing rules it has had for years now. Britain can choose between open borders and closed borders, but Britain wants something in between that the EU simply doesn't offer to anyone.
You're saying that's not fair, but then you'd also have to ask Ferrari to offer a 10,000€ car because people only getting a choice between no Ferrari and the really expensive Ferraris is not fair. It's a free world, you can join any other trade bloc if you don't like it.
It's not blackmail to enforce the same rules for all members, you're twisting things here to get an exception that noone else ever got.

[Pannonian]

Dutch activate 'hard Brexit' plan and blame 'a lack of clarity' from the UK (https://news.sky.com/story/dutch-activate-hard-brexit-plan-and-blame-a-lack-of-clarity-from-the-uk-11258568)


Cabinet finance minister Menno Snel wrote that 930 would be required in the event of a "no deal" Brexit, which is "conceivable" after "difficult" first-phase negotiations.

Perhaps as shocking is that 750 extra customs agents would be required even in the event of a Canada-style free trade deal with a transition period. Fifty have already been paid for.

As the finance ministry calculates it takes between nine and 22 months to train a customs officer, the Dutch government has green-lighted immediate recruiting, training, tendering of contracts and organising of housing.

Mr Snel wrote to Dutch MPs: "The divisions within the British Conservative Party and the remaining lack of clarity about the British input continue to impede the smooth running of the negotiations.

"It is therefore clear that the scenario that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and without a transitional period is still conceivable.

"The red lines of the UK for the future relationship with the EU (leaving the internal market and customs union) mean that the trade relationship can not go much further than a trade agreement like the one the EU has concluded with Canada."

The Netherlands has traditionally been seen as a key ally of the UK, and stands to be among the most impacted by any radical change to UK-EU trading conditions - as when imports and exports are combined it is the UK's third largest trade partner.

This from one of the more Anglophilic countries in the EU, that has no land borders with the UK. How many customs officers will the UK need, and how far are they into preparations for separation along the red lines laid down by the UK government?

BTW Frag, how practical is Nexit now that you've seen what Brexit entails?

[Fragony]

Very unlikely to happen but one can hope. It isn't that we can't, slapping tarrfis on us would only make their own products more expensive to make, their food will become more expensive as well, but the political will isn't there. Not yet at least a lot of people have kinda had it with Brussels

[rory_20_uk]

The EU isn't blackmailing anyone, it's just enforcing rules it has had for years now. Britain can choose between open borders and closed borders, but Britain wants something in between that the EU simply doesn't offer to anyone.
You're saying that's not fair, but then you'd also have to ask Ferrari to offer a 10,000€ car because people only getting a choice between no Ferrari and the really expensive Ferraris is not fair. It's a free world, you can join any other trade bloc if you don't like it.
It's not blackmail to enforce the same rules for all members, you're twisting things here to get an exception that noone else ever got.

It is not blackmail. It is not a lie. It is very simple.

The EU will only have no borders with those which follow all their rules. That is their main, nay only, consideration.
The Irish don't want a border and this is their main consideration. The UK would like this too.
This was one of the clear things the UK wanted, and the EU clearly refused.

It is not blackmail it is merely giving on very clear and simple example of how the EU increasingly enforces rules that the member states are not thrilled about - and continues since the population of countries are not allowed to have a say - as the French President also mentioned recently the French would have probably voted to leave if they had had the chance.

It is not a trade bloc. It is a disguised state. Trade blocks, be that NAFTA, TPP or almost any other you mention do not extort money to be part of. Many might have joint standards to the quality of goods of course.

I personally am fine with a border between the two states. I am equally fine with Northern Ireland being given to Ireland - and good riddance. As long as there was some sort of structure protecting the West coast of the UK from Atlantic storms I would rather Ireland was not there.

Ireland, just like Scotland both want to have their cake and eat it in their own way. Ireland wants to have frictionless trade with an important country whilst also being part of the EU. Scotland wanted to have independence from England (where they are over represented both in Westminster as well as having their own parliament - and even get a greater per capita share of funds) to become a EU member state since they would have to otherwise float a new currency.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is not blackmail. It is not a lie. It is very simple.

The EU will only have no borders with those which follow all their rules. That is their main, nay only, consideration.
The Irish don't want a border and this is their main consideration. The UK would like this too.
This was one of the clear things the UK wanted, and the EU clearly refused.

It is not blackmail it is merely giving on very clear and simple example of how the EU increasingly enforces rules that the member states are not thrilled about - and continues since the population of countries are not allowed to have a say - as the French President also mentioned recently the French would have probably voted to leave if they had had the chance.

It is not a trade bloc. It is a disguised state. Trade blocks, be that NAFTA, TPP or almost any other you mention do not extort money to be part of. Many might have joint standards to the quality of goods of course.

I personally am fine with a border between the two states. I am equally fine with Northern Ireland being given to Ireland - and good riddance. As long as there was some sort of structure protecting the West coast of the UK from Atlantic storms I would rather Ireland was not there.

Ireland, just like Scotland both want to have their cake and eat it in their own way. Ireland wants to have frictionless trade with an important country whilst also being part of the EU. Scotland wanted to have independence from England (where they are over represented both in Westminster as well as having their own parliament - and even get a greater per capita share of funds) to become a EU member state since they would have to otherwise float a new currency.

~:smoking:

For mostly sentimental reasons, I am a "One Ireland" type. I do not have quite the negative view rory does.

Essentially, I think his summary is correct, however. All of the political entities involved are attempting that political classic of both possessing an intact cake and consuming it at the same time.

RofI wants to stay in the EU but with their convenient open border to Ulster.
Scotland wants to be in the EU without, entirely, divorcing themselves from the UK.
England wants out of the EU but wants to retain all of the good components of the common market.
The EU wants to function as a federal state without taking on all of the responsibilities of such a sovereign state.
The USA wants NATO to do what supports the USA's interests but wants NATO to pay more for the privilege.

Having/eating is THE political goal!

[Pannonian]

For mostly sentimental reasons, I am a "One Ireland" type. I do not have quite the negative view rory does.

Essentially, I think his summary is correct, however. All of the political entities involved are attempting that political classic of both possessing an intact cake and consuming it at the same time.

RofI wants to stay in the EU but with their convenient open border to Ulster.
Scotland wants to be in the EU without, entirely, divorcing themselves from the UK.
England wants out of the EU but wants to retain all of the good components of the common market.
The EU wants to function as a federal state without taking on all of the responsibilities of such a sovereign state.
The USA wants NATO to do what supports the USA's interests but wants NATO to pay more for the privilege.

Having/eating is THE political goal!

Not everyone. Remainers like me just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today, with political decisions that can be reversed with a new electoral cycle. Whatever you may feel about Trump, barring nuclear holocaust, that is what you will still have. We wanted things to be reasonably like today because there were oodles of evidence that exiting the EU will be difficult in the extreme. Evidence that the Leave campaign dismissed as Project Fear, because the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, so they said.

I'm still waiting for solutions to the JIT processes that British manufacturing is based on. The Leavers have said that the UK coped before accession to the EEC, and will cope once again. Does this also mean returning to the problems that they had prior to joining the EEC, such as shifts of workers on paid idle time waiting for components to arrive so that the next step can be undertaken?

[Husar]

The EU wants to function as a federal state without taking on all of the responsibilities of such a sovereign state.

How do you arrive at this particular conclusion?

People like Fragony think it is taking over too many things already and wants more and more, yet you say it does not want all the responsibilities. Why then does it often scold national states for failing their responsibilities? Does that not even mean it takes over responsibilities that the national states do not want?
As examples for this I would bring Ireland: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/technology/apple-tax-eu-ireland.html
Germany: https://www.thelocal.de/20171115/eu-planning-to-sue-germany-over-dirty-air-in-cities-report
(Germany #2:) http://www.dw.com/en/eu-sues-germany-over-water-tainted-by-nitrate-fertilizer/a-19225653
Poland: http://www.dw.com/en/can-the-eu-save-polands-bialowieza-forest/a-40450894

I would claim that in every case above, the EU is absolutely correct and the nation states are failing in their duties/responsibilities in one form or another. Isn't the reason that the EU does not get more responsibilities more about countries like the UK not wanting to give it any more because they fear giving up their own sovereignty will lead all the other European citizens to ruin their country somehow?

[Pannonian]

How do you arrive at this particular conclusion?

People like Fragony think it is taking over too many things already and wants more and more, yet you say it does not want all the responsibilities. Why then does it often scold national states for failing their responsibilities? Does that not even mean it takes over responsibilities that the national states do not want?
As examples for this I would bring Ireland: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/technology/apple-tax-eu-ireland.html
Germany: https://www.thelocal.de/20171115/eu-planning-to-sue-germany-over-dirty-air-in-cities-report
(Germany #2:) http://www.dw.com/en/eu-sues-germany-over-water-tainted-by-nitrate-fertilizer/a-19225653
Poland: http://www.dw.com/en/can-the-eu-save-polands-bialowieza-forest/a-40450894

I would claim that in every case above, the EU is absolutely correct and the nation states are failing in their duties/responsibilities in one form or another. Isn't the reason that the EU does not get more responsibilities more about countries like the UK not wanting to give it any more because they fear giving up their own sovereignty will lead all the other European citizens to ruin their country somehow?

Such as the primary argument for Brexit as given by Leave voters, immigration. Freedom of Movement is the most cited reason for Leave, with stories about eastern Europeans leeching off the British state and so on. Yet the EU already allows for each state to act to prevent this from happening, and other countries do just that. The body that's failing the British state over this argument is the British government, which has taken no such action and has chosen to take no such action. Not the EU. PFH once said that he knew this was all the fault of the British government and not the EU, but that he was voting Leave anyway because he wanted to remove the scapegoat for the government's failings.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pannonian:

You've been consistent. You want the UK to be part of the EU, and you've been willing to accept the oversight effect the EU exerts as the price of all the advantages gained by membership in the Union both economically and in terms of stability. You have been clear on this. You have stated that many of the leading voices for the "Leave" movement were either willfully lying to the public to sway votes or blithely ignorant of the real costs of leaving or in a few cases both. From the evidence you've marshalled in making your points, it seems clear that at least some of the "Leave" leaders were making things up whole cloth.

Husar:

I am sure sovereignty concerns by states in the EU are part of the reason for how it is developing and exercising responsibilities. I do not see the kind of wild expansion of control Fragony sees. On the other hand, the EU does seem to take up the role of dictating economic choices and is, very clearly, letting the UK twist in the wind over it's choice to exit (though I will stipulate that the UK has not been blameless from their side of the exit process discussions by any means). The EU does not, however, seem willing to take up mutual defense issues for their collective, letting NATO (USA) continue to play the lead on this. The EU has not taken any kind of collective action in response to the refugee crisis resulting from (at least in part) the Syrian civil war. NATO was allowed to half-bake the effort in Libya. To me it reads as though, rather than simply maintaining the common market, the EU has taken up governance oversight for all the members...yet isn't fully embracing that.

I will submit that I am an outsider looking in, so I may be getting the wrong impression.

[Pannonian]

I'm still waiting for solutions to the JIT processes that British manufacturing is based on. The Leavers have said that the UK coped before accession to the EEC, and will cope once again. Does this also mean returning to the problems that they had prior to joining the EEC, such as shifts of workers on paid idle time waiting for components to arrive so that the next step can be undertaken?

Mountain of chicken spotted going to waste at DHL depot amid KFC crisis (http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/20/mountain-chicken-spotted-going-waste-dhl-depot-amid-kfc-crisis-7327314/)


A small mountain of chicken has been spotted going to waste in a DHL depot as KFC becomes embroiled in a nationwide delivery blunder. Around 700 of the company’s 870 stores in the UK have shut after a huge failure at delivery firm DHL left restaurants without any chicken. It has been claimed the delivery chaos is costing the firm £1 million a day while it is feared staff on zero hour contacts will miss out on pay. The picture taken at the depot in Rugby – described as ‘total mayhem’ – shows tray after tray of chicken piled high in delivery baskets, waiting to be loaded onto lorries. The company was forced to start closing stores on Saturday following a delivery problem believed to have started on Wednesday following an accident on the M6.


The above is what happens when industries built on JIT processes have delays somewhere along the logistical line. The UK government's current level of preparedness is promising the above, for all industries across the UK that have supply lines that cross the UK border. The Dutch government has already commented on the massive numbers of additional customs officers the UK will need, and given their estimated time of around 2 years needed to train an officer, no sign that the UK is doing so in time. Millions of lorries pass through Dover every year between the UK and France, but there are no arrangements to handle delays that will eventuate from changed customs arrangements. And the UK government has ruled out customs union.

What is the UK's plan? Or is it going to just blunder on into chaos and continue to blame the EU for the chaos it has chosen for itself?

[Fragony]

You know Pan's you put your toes in the wrong part of the water. If you don't see that the EU is going to fall apart in a few years... New deals will be made. You can never be in the same river twice, nothing is ever still.

[Pannonian]

You know Pan's you put your toes in the wrong part of the water. If you don't see that the EU is going to fall apart in a few years... New deals will be made. You can never be in the same river twice, nothing is ever still.

Absolutely none of what you've predicted would happen to the EU has come to pass. Most of what the experts have predicted would happen on Brexit have come to pass. You've been pitching meaningless platitudes. The experts have been giving concrete predictions.

[Fragony]

Absolutely none of what you've predicted would happen to the EU has come to pass. Most of what the experts have predicted would happen on Brexit have come to pass. You've been pitching meaningless platitudes. The experts have been giving concrete predictions.

The UK is doing just fine. Let me put it this way, you fought two world wars with the country that is really now the EU.

[Pannonian]

It is not blackmail. It is not a lie. It is very simple.

The EU will only have no borders with those which follow all their rules. That is their main, nay only, consideration.
The Irish don't want a border and this is their main consideration. The UK would like this too.
This was one of the clear things the UK wanted, and the EU clearly refused.


Meanwhile former World Trade Organisation chief Pascal Lamy argued that whatever Brexit option was chosen "will necessitate a border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

"There will have to be a border", he told the Commons Brexit committee, because checks will have to be carried out on goods and people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460

Brexiteers blaming the EU for everything. Even it's the WTO, not the EU, that insists on borders.

[rory_20_uk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460

Brexiteers blaming the EU for everything. Even it's the WTO, not the EU, that insists on borders.

Unless there is an agreement. Ireland wants one a lot more than most of the UK does since where Ireland currently trades.

So, to reiterate. Countries on both sides want there not to be a border. For any two countries they'd have an agreement - and hence there would not be one since this is allowed under WTO rules.

So... if it not the UK or Ireland then who exactly is it?

The reasons for the EU might be very clear and make sense. But the only party to the situation which insists on a border is the EU.

It is not "blame" it is just pointing out the obvious.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

The EU does not want there to be a border, it just wants the UK to accept the fair terms for an open border. The UK refuses to accept the fair terms and wants a special access that would be incredibly unfair to other countries that get open borders to the EU. The whole problem only exists in the first place because the UK wants new restrictions and closed borders. Again, the EU didn't hold a referendum where people argued the border to the UK is too open, but the UK had a referendum about whether the borders to the EU were too open and voted that they were indeed too open. To now go and claim the EU wants borders to be closed is simply ridiculous. The only ones who want to close something are the UK:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-and-irish-border/


It depends what restrictions the UK puts on EU immigration
Claiming this won’t change after Brexit assumes that these measures will still be enough to police the open border. Leave campaigners pointed out during the referendum that the Common Travel Area was in place before the EU even existed, and this has since been echoed by the Brexit Secretary.

This is true, but there’s never been a situation where Ireland accepted free movement of people and the UK didn’t.

If the UK wants to put restrictions on EU immigration or short visits, that might generate more illegal cross-border movement. At the moment, Operation Gull only has to catch unauthorised migrants from non-EU countries.

See, it's the UK that wants to close something...

Again, just because it can apparently not be repeated often enough: It's the UK that wants borders closed on terms that benefit only the UK. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't get free stuff in the competitive world it voted for so it begins to whine like an entitled rich kid and tries to blame others for not getting more entitlements shoved up its arse for free.

Edit: And while you're at it, you can also create border controls around London and to Scotland if you get a special deal for Northern Ireland: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-deals/scotland-wales-and-london-want-special-brexit-deal-if-northern-ireland-gets-one-idUKKBN1DY24H

I wonder what the London-UK border will be like, with British border agents on both sides to keep the filthy EU people contained in the London area... :rolleyes:

[Pannonian]

Unless there is an agreement. Ireland wants one a lot more than most of the UK does since where Ireland currently trades.

So, to reiterate. Countries on both sides want there not to be a border. For any two countries they'd have an agreement - and hence there would not be one since this is allowed under WTO rules.

So... if it not the UK or Ireland then who exactly is it?

The reasons for the EU might be very clear and make sense. But the only party to the situation which insists on a border is the EU.

It is not "blame" it is just pointing out the obvious.

~:smoking:

It's the British PM who's set out the red lines, that govern what kind of agreement is possible. Both the EU and the TWO have set out what kind of agreement is possible given those red lines. They've set out a number of possible options for the UK to choose between. The need for an agreement was triggered by a British action, namely the referendum. If you don't like the consequences, change your mind about what that means.

"If you break it, you own it." When will Brexiteers take responsibility for their own actions? It's not like the rest of us asked for this chaos.

[Pannonian]

The EU does not want there to be a border, it just wants the UK to accept the fair terms for an open border. The UK refuses to accept the fair terms and wants a special access that would be incredibly unfair to other countries that get open borders to the EU. The whole problem only exists in the first place because the UK wants new restrictions and closed borders. Again, the EU didn't hold a referendum where people argued the border to the UK is too open, but the UK had a referendum about whether the borders to the EU were too open and voted that they were indeed too open. To now go and claim the EU wants borders to be closed is simply ridiculous. The only ones who want to close something are the UK:

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-referendum-and-irish-border/



See, it's the UK that wants to close something...

Again, just because it can apparently not be repeated often enough: It's the UK that wants borders closed on terms that benefit only the UK. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't get free stuff in the competitive world it voted for so it begins to whine like an entitled rich kid and tries to blame others for not getting more entitlements shoved up its arse for free.

Edit: And while you're at it, you can also create border controls around London and to Scotland if you get a special deal for Northern Ireland: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-deals/scotland-wales-and-london-want-special-brexit-deal-if-northern-ireland-gets-one-idUKKBN1DY24H

I wonder what the London-UK border will be like, with British border agents on both sides to keep the filthy EU people contained in the London area... :rolleyes:

There's already a physical border around the London area.

[Husar]

There's already a physical border around the London area.

I wonder what you mean, does the city have a new city wall or is there some topological thing I'm not aware of?

[Pannonian]

I wonder what you mean, does the city have a new city wall or is there some topological thing I'm not aware of?

M25. Only a few small bits lie outside the ring road.

[Pannonian]

And the EU has called the UK's bluff on the Irish border. They'd come to a sort of agreement last December, only for Davis to disclaim it within a day or two, thus showing what the UK's word is worth. Now the agreement they'd reached to push talks along will no longer be kept, as the UK can plainly not be trusted. It's up to the UK to come up with a workable solution, or there will not be talks. No more platitudes as May and co have purely dealt with thus far. Concrete solutions, or no talks.

And if any Brexiteers want to accuse the EU of punishing the UK; it's the UK's choice to do what it's done. This is the natural consequences of the UK's choice, and it was known before the referendum, as Major and Blair had warned. This is part and parcel of Brexit.

[Husar]

And if any Brexiteers want to accuse the EU of punishing the UK; it's the UK's choice to do what it's done.

I think to some extent this blaming is a ruse. They're trying to use the kind-heartedness against the EU the same way they complain about foreigners doing it to UK citizens. They argued for competitiveness and one way for them to be competitive is to cry crocodile tears to get what they want. And that's one reason I wouldn't even give them the time of the day. If someone says "we're better off with competition" I'd like to compete them into the ground and not stop when they're already crying. It's simply better for the EU now to outcompete Britain and rightfully gain all the jobs, trade, etc. it can. I mean, this socialist union is bad for capitalism, we have to compete. If Britain cannot keep up, it's not my problem, shouldn't be so lazy and work harder.

:smoking:

[Fragony]

You might be wrong on where the crying will be

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You might be wrong on where the crying will be

Possibly, but as Pannonian's comments have pointed up, the UK has, to date at least, not shown a lot of success in establishing new trade links or building relationships that can yield economic development without the EU. Early days, so this may yet happen, but there are few signs suggesting that the UK is going to enjoy this latest world economic surge that most countries have had a decent uptick from this past year or so. England seems to be tromping forward without picking up that much at all.

[Pannonian]

Possibly, but as Pannonian's comments have pointed up, the UK has, to date at least, not shown a lot of success in establishing new trade links or building relationships that can yield economic development without the EU. Early days, so this may yet happen, but there are few signs suggesting that the UK is going to enjoy this latest world economic surge that most countries have had a decent uptick from this past year or so. England seems to be tromping forward without picking up that much at all.

The last parliamentary inquiry indicated that any deal with the US will have to include normalisation of agricultural standards, with normalisation meaning us yielding to US standards. Just as Remainers had said would happen, but were dismissed as Project Fear. Quite a lot of what Remainers said would happen but were dismissed as Project Fear has happened, or at least have been backed up by government studies. Virtually nothing of what Leavers have said would happen has happened, and just about every expert study has refuted their claims. Yet we are pressing ahead with hard Brexit, which even Nigel Farage said during the campaign would not happen. I certainly remember PFH here saying that the Norway option was the most likely outcome.

[rory_20_uk]

For the EU to agree to anything requires all countries to agree. That means Spain has to not put the boot in over Gibraltar, Ireland is happy with the border and France doesn't want to be vindictive. When was that ever realistically going to happen? Perhaps one - but all three? And this is of course thinking all the other 24 have no issues when with Canada it was a regional Belgium court which managed to block.

Alternative Vote should have been used (and should always be used).

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

For the EU to agree to anything requires all countries to agree. That means Spain has to not put the boot in over Gibraltar, Ireland is happy with the border and France doesn't want to be vindictive. When was that ever realistically going to happen? Perhaps one - but all three? And this is of course thinking all the other 24 have no issues when with Canada it was a regional Belgium court which managed to block.

Alternative Vote should have been used (and should always be used).

~:smoking:

What do you mean by alternative vote? Alternative vote regarding the referendum, alternative vote in the European Parliament, or what? How does your alternative vote affect the nature of the 2016 referendum, which was that one side had a demonstrable manifesto (the EU as it is), whereas the other side could promise unicorns and leprechauns before the vote before jettisoning all their promises once the vote was over? Remember the 350m/wk promise, so prominent during the campaign, was thrown away the day the result was known. The EU negotiators have complained for the last 12 months (since article 50 was invoked) that the UK side has nothing concrete to negotiate with, no manifesto of any kind to engage with. 21 months since the referendum, and Leave still has no plan to which they should be held accountable for.

[Pannonian]

Possibly, but as Pannonian's comments have pointed up, the UK has, to date at least, not shown a lot of success in establishing new trade links or building relationships that can yield economic development without the EU. Early days, so this may yet happen, but there are few signs suggesting that the UK is going to enjoy this latest world economic surge that most countries have had a decent uptick from this past year or so. England seems to be tromping forward without picking up that much at all.

Apparently the Open Skies agreement the US is offering means British Airways will not be able to fly to the US.

[rory_20_uk]

What do you mean by alternative vote? Alternative vote regarding the referendum, alternative vote in the European Parliament, or what? How does your alternative vote affect the nature of the 2016 referendum, which was that one side had a demonstrable manifesto (the EU as it is), whereas the other side could promise unicorns and leprechauns before the vote before jettisoning all their promises once the vote was over? Remember the 350m/wk promise, so prominent during the campaign, was thrown away the day the result was known. The EU negotiators have complained for the last 12 months (since article 50 was invoked) that the UK side has nothing concrete to negotiate with, no manifesto of any kind to engage with. 21 months since the referendum, and Leave still has no plan to which they should be held accountable for.

Never has the EU been clear beyond being the EU. The EU itself has morphed over the years, adding powers and even members. The remain side was clear only in as much it was to not leave - no one knows what will happen next with the the EU. I doubt the EU itself does especially after the Italian election. No specifics were offered and nor could they be of the future.

The vote was binary and therefore especially with leave no one knows what people wanted. Those who want to remain probably include those who want a United States of Europe to those who view it as an economic calculation. Those who voted to leave include xenophobes, those who want to recreate the British Empire, who want to join the USA, those who want to remain in the customs Union, who want to join Norway etc al to those who want to follow WTO rules. Who knows? None of these options were on the voting slip.

The British did have a clear position - one that the EU would of course never agree to. The EU negotiators have also flatly refused everything - they appear to view "negotiation" is agreeing with them. And why not? What is in it for them to compromise? Negotiation is always couched as picking and choosing. Well yes... That's the point! And a year after they suddenly refuse to to move due to the Irish border. As if they didn't know this would be an issue from the start!

Are the majority die hard leavers or would rather remain if only there was meaningful reform?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Never has the EU been clear beyond being the EU. The EU itself has morphed over the years, adding powers and even members. The remain side was clear only in as much it was to not leave - no one knows what will happen next with the the EU. I doubt the EU itself does especially after the Italian election. No specifics were offered and nor could they be of the future.

The vote was binary and therefore especially with leave no one knows what people wanted. Those who want to remain probably include those who want a United States of Europe to those who view it as an economic calculation. Those who voted to leave include xenophobes, those who want to recreate the British Empire, who want to join the USA, those who want to remain in the customs Union, who want to join Norway etc al to those who want to follow WTO rules. Who knows? None of these options were on the voting slip.

The British did have a clear position - one that the EU would of course never agree to. The EU negotiators have also flatly refused everything - they appear to view "negotiation" is agreeing with them. And why not? What is in it for them to compromise? Negotiation is always couched as picking and choosing. Well yes... That's the point! And a year after they suddenly refuse to to move due to the Irish border. As if they didn't know this would be an issue from the start!

Are the majority die hard leavers or would rather remain if only there was meaningful reform?

~:smoking:

Did you miss the bit last December when the EU agreed to allow May some leeway in order to let the talks sort of push on to the next stage, on the understanding that the UK will come up with something more substantial on the subject later. Only for Davis to say a day later that the UK was not legally bound by that agreement. With that kind of two facedness on the UK's part regarding agreements and understandings, you still manage to blame the EU for being unreasonable.

I got a 50p coin the other day, dating back to 2007. It was a special commemorative coin, celebrating 100 years of the Entente Cordiale. Back in the days when an understanding was as good as a formal treaty. Of course, nowadays we have Brexiteers thinking it reasonable for Germany to overrule Ireland on an Anglo-Irish bilateral treaty (whilst complaining about how the ECJ impinges on UK sovereignty, of course).

BTW, should the Leavers be held to the promises that were most prominent in the campaign? Such as the 350m/wk for the NHS?

[Kagemusha]

Are the majority die hard leavers or would rather remain if only there was meaningful reform?

How can you reform something you have left already?

I see lot of issues with EU that needs to be reformed. It is far from being s perfect structure in any way, rather towards the opposite. But still it is the best platform available in Europe to handle mutual issues within Europe. I dont agree with hardcore federalist agenda concerning speedy integration into federal state, because EU does not have the check´s and balances for such. The main concern being the lack of representative democracy. Still even in its current form EU is of more benefit to its participants then trouble, thus it has a mandate to exist.
If one quits a gentlemen´s club. One can hardly reform the club´s rules afterwards.

[Pannonian]

How can you reform something you have left already?

I see lot of issues with EU that needs to be reformed. It is far from being s perfect structure in any way, rather towards the opposite. But still it is the best platform available in Europe to handle mutual issues within Europe. I dont agree with hardcore federalist agenda concerning speedy integration into federal state, because EU does not have the check´s and balances for such. The main concern being the lack of representative democracy. Still even in its current form EU is of more benefit to its participants then trouble, thus it has a mandate to exist.
If one quits a gentlemen´s club. One can hardly reform the club´s rules afterwards.

And even in its unrepresentative state, in terms of each state not having a fair voice within the discussion forums, the UK benefited disproportionately, with opts out where it had no interest in being part of an integrated state, but also having pushed for things that have affected the rest of the EU, such as the additional of the eastern European members. You know those Polish immigrants over here taking our jobs? That was Britain's price for France and Germany to push ahead with the euro. Which Britain opted out of.

[Pannonian]

Something else worthy of note is the powers Westminster is claiming back from the devolved governments in order to implement Brexit. Post-devolution, everything that is not explicitly centralised is assumed to be the remit of the devolved governments. Westminster is now claiming back powers on legislation regarding H&S, environmental standards, workers' rights, etc., indicating the kind of Brexit we can expect.

[rory_20_uk]

How can you reform something you have left already?

I see lot of issues with EU that needs to be reformed. It is far from being s perfect structure in any way, rather towards the opposite. But still it is the best platform available in Europe to handle mutual issues within Europe. I dont agree with hardcore federalist agenda concerning speedy integration into federal state, because EU does not have the check´s and balances for such. The main concern being the lack of representative democracy. Still even in its current form EU is of more benefit to its participants then trouble, thus it has a mandate to exist.
If one quits a gentlemen´s club. One can hardly reform the club´s rules afterwards.

And that was one question that was not asked on the ballot - would people stay if there was reform? Not much point worrying about the tentative steps at reform that have been muted right after Brexit.


Did you miss the bit last December when the EU agreed to allow May some leeway in order to let the talks sort of push on to the next stage, on the understanding that the UK will come up with something more substantial on the subject later. Only for Davis to say a day later that the UK was not legally bound by that agreement. With that kind of two facedness on the UK's part regarding agreements and understandings, you still manage to blame the EU for being unreasonable.

I got a 50p coin the other day, dating back to 2007. It was a special commemorative coin, celebrating 100 years of the Entente Cordiale. Back in the days when an understanding was as good as a formal treaty. Of course, nowadays we have Brexiteers thinking it reasonable for Germany to overrule Ireland on an Anglo-Irish bilateral treaty (whilst complaining about how the ECJ impinges on UK sovereignty, of course).

BTW, should the Leavers be held to the promises that were most prominent in the campaign? Such as the 350m/wk for the NHS?

Nice poison chalice there - "you know the border situation in Ireland? Tell us how to fix it. And we'll say whether we'll allow it or not. And if we like the idea we'll pass it on to the individual nation states and areas to vote on as well". Ireland is in the EU. Surely they would assist in helping the EU solve this issue, and not just stick to their demands?

Just because I say the EU is unreasonable does not mean I have some sort of fetish for Davis. Every politician is looking for what happens when the UK finally leaves the EU and then May gets almost instantly thrown out of office as she can then be conveniently blamed for everything. So they are all running their own pseudo campaigns where they'd rather be the PM of a mess than help the situation.

Aaaah, days when an understanding was as good as a treaty. Yes, those days are definitely dead with the layers of laws the EU is demanding. Simpler times. And that understanding led to the death of millions of our countrymen (along with those in the Empire) and hastened the destruction of the Empire (which was almost certainly doomed). Not exactly the best example of "good things we've had from Europe".

Some politicians lied in the campaign. That truly is the first time in history that has happened! And humour me... how exactlyis Farage et al to be held to account? Do we ask him for the money? Does the UK sue him for something or other (and then we can probably sue almost every other politician in the UK)? Having elections where politicians have to be honest and are in some way held to account for their promises (beyond the next election 5 years hence) sounds like a great idea... But would require the politicians to implement.

I must confess I didn't believe him or any of the politicians before the campaign, during the campaign nor after the campaign. I voted on wanting the UK Supreme Court to be the final court of the land. Everything else was background fuzz as far as I was concerned. I viewed and view the odds of an agreement with the EU as being extremely unlikely since the entire procedure is similar to that of the USSR - the negotiator gets his orders from 27 people (who change depending on elections) so even if by some miracle Davis managed to get something hammered out there are still votes in something like 30 different parliaments.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

And that was one question that was not asked on the ballot - would people stay if there was reform? Not much point worrying about the tentative steps at reform that have been muted right after Brexit.



Nice poison chalice there - "you know the border situation in Ireland? Tell us how to fix it. And we'll say whether we'll allow it or not. And if we like the idea we'll pass it on to the individual nation states and areas to vote on as well". Ireland is in the EU. Surely they would assist in helping the EU solve this issue, and not just stick to their demands?

Just because I say the EU is unreasonable does not mean I have some sort of fetish for Davis. Every politician is looking for what happens when the UK finally leaves the EU and then May gets almost instantly thrown out of office as she can then be conveniently blamed for everything. So they are all running their own pseudo campaigns where they'd rather be the PM of a mess than help the situation.

Aaaah, days when an understanding was as good as a treaty. Yes, those days are definitely dead with the layers of laws the EU is demanding. Simpler times. And that understanding led to the death of millions of our countrymen (along with those in the Empire) and hastened the destruction of the Empire (which was almost certainly doomed). Not exactly the best example of "good things we've had from Europe".

Some politicians lied in the campaign. That truly is the first time in history that has happened! And humour me... how exactlyis Farage et al to be held to account? Do we ask him for the money? Does the UK sue him for something or other (and then we can probably sue almost every other politician in the UK)? Having elections where politicians have to be honest and are in some way held to account for their promises (beyond the next election 5 years hence) sounds like a great idea... But would require the politicians to implement.

I must confess I didn't believe him or any of the politicians before the campaign, during the campaign nor after the campaign. I voted on wanting the UK Supreme Court to be the final court of the land. Everything else was background fuzz as far as I was concerned. I viewed and view the odds of an agreement with the EU as being extremely unlikely since the entire procedure is similar to that of the USSR - the negotiator gets his orders from 27 people (who change depending on elections) so even if by some miracle Davis managed to get something hammered out there are still votes in something like 30 different parliaments.

~:smoking:

You want the UK Supreme Court to be the final law of the land. Fair enough, wanting sovereignty to be national. But then you go and expect Germany to overrule Ireland on a bilateral treaty between the UK and Ireland. Why? The treaty exists in a practiceable form because of the framework of the EU. But it's an agreement between two countries, the UK and Ireland. Why is sovereignty non-negotiable when it's a matter of the UK wanting its way, yet is flexible when it needs to be for the UK to have its way? You don't see any hypocrisy in these two positions of yours?

And as for fixing the border situation; the EU has a working solution that has worked for 20 years. It's called the Good Friday Agreement. It's the UK that's calling to change things. Why shouldn't the onus be on the UK to come up with an alternative solution? How many additional customs officers have we recruited so far, simply to qualify for WTO? The Dutch government estimates we'll need thousands. Our government estimates 10,000 give or take a thousand. Another couple of weeks and we'll have reached the halfway mark. Oh, and how much land have we designated for the lorry parks in Kent?

BTW, have you caught the stories from auto manufacturers talking about the extra costs involved in stockpiling parts, as JIT manufacturing will no longer be possible with the disruption to supply lines resulting from Brexit? Exactly as I'd talked about earlier in this thread. How do you suppose they should mitigate for this, other than simply giving up on manufacturing in the UK and moving elsewhere where they won't have these problems?

[rory_20_uk]

I think you'll find the UK is happy to leave the border as is. The EU are not prepared to do so.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I think you'll find the UK is happy to leave the border as is. The EU are not prepared to do so.

~:smoking:

You'd be wrong on that. It's the UK that's set out red lines that change the border situation. And it's the WTO that rules that, given the red lines set out by the UK government, there must therefore be a hard border. If the UK really is happy with the current border situation, it wouldn't set out the red lines that it has. You keep blaming the EU for things that are the choice of the UK. Just like Brexiteers tend to do.

[Husar]

I think you'll find the UK is happy to leave the border as is. The EU are not prepared to do so.

~:smoking:

Why does the UK refuse to stay in the EU free movement deal then? Wouldn't that keep the borders as they are?
I'm not aware that the EU is against that, the UK does not want free movement of people anymore and is therefore NOT happy with the way it is.

[rory_20_uk]

The free movement with the Irish - the law that is in question, and supposedly the problem with the EU. The Irish and British would both be happy to continue but this is not allowed.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Why does the UK refuse to stay in the EU free movement deal then? Wouldn't that keep the borders as they are?
I'm not aware that the EU is against that, the UK does not want free movement of people anymore and is therefore NOT happy with the way it is.

That I also don't really understand, if the UK doesn't mind open borders with Ireland that is for them to decide, just don't make checkpoints voila

[Pannonian]

The free movement with the Irish - the law that is in question, and supposedly the problem with the EU. The Irish and British would both be happy to continue but this is not allowed.

~:smoking:

Isn't that a WTO issue? Either you have common customs agreements, or you have a hard border. If you have common agreements on some things but not others, then you still have a hard border. See the Greece-Turkey border for an example of the latter. If you don't want a hard border, you must have a customs union. The UK has ruled out a customs union.

[Husar]

The free movement with the Irish - the law that is in question, and supposedly the problem with the EU. The Irish and British would both be happy to continue but this is not allowed.

~:smoking:

Yeah, but that's like, against the rules all countries agreed to in the EU. You can't have an open border in Ireland and at the same time forbid Poland to open the border to Ukraine. If the British are happy to continue, why did they trigger Brexit? They are happy to continue with Ireland, but not with France, they want to treat members of a bloc differently but the bloc can't alloow that because it defeats the purpose of the bloc as other members will want special treatment and the advantages of standardization disappear. Ireland can get that special treatment if it leaves the bloc as well. I wouldn't mind if they leave, so why do they not want to leave and get their open border?

And yes, the bloc rules are not a special mean idea of the EU, the WTO operates by similar principles as Pannonian keeps saying and you keep ignoring:

https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2017/12/07/hard-brexit-soft-border/


Turning a blind eye would necessitate admitting goods from Ireland tariff-free. The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) principle prohibits the UK from giving special tariff rates to one WTO Member that it does not extend to all of the others. There is an exception for Free Trade Areas, in which tariff barriers are eliminated for substantially all trade. Thus such an arrangement would only be possible as an extension of a zero-tariff UK-EU Free Trade Area; otherwise it would violate WTO MFN obligations.

The WTO, just like the EU, cannot and does not allow special treatment. The only ones who don't seem to understand this are the Brexiteers.
Or they're just hoping to destroy the EU over the Ireland border, but we'll see whether that's a sufficiently powerful issue for that...

[Furunculus]

the combination of two things I have been saying for a while:

https://www.rte.ie/amp/960472/

1. What is the solution to Brexit without a border for Northern Ireland?

Read the wording carefully, it references alignment where it supports the all-island-economy and the Good Friday agreement. They aren’t loose words, there are very specific competences and obligations associated with those words. Many of which apply today, such as food/agriculture, such that there is already a border between islands. You can align with those things, without needing to align with the other 80%

2. there really isn't in existence such as thing as a single market for services in the same way that there exists a single market for goods.

frankly, if it brings regulatory independence the best result might be a free trade agreement in goods (and even a customs unions), while excluding services entirely (and thus allowing services based free trade agreements with third countries). the reason germany exports more to china is that it is a manufacturing economy that specialises in machine tools, but they're making a middle-class who will consume services.

[Pannonian]

UK taken to Europe's highest court over air pollution (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/uk-taken-to-europes-highest-court-over-air-pollution)


European court of justice can impose multimillion euro fines if the UK and five other countries do not address the problem

Is this an unacceptable impingement on British sovereignty by the ECJ? Are we leaving the EU so that we no longer have to be subject to court rulings like this?

[Husar]

UK taken to Europe's highest court over air pollution (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/uk-taken-to-europes-highest-court-over-air-pollution)

Is this an unacceptable impingement on British sovereignty by the ECJ? Are we leaving the EU so that we no longer have to be subject to court rulings like this?

It's just another case of Germany and France trying to ruin the GREAT Britain....


The European court of justice (ECJ) has the power to impose multimillion euro fines if the countries do not address the problem swiftly. The nations - the UK, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Romania

Oh, eh, woopsie... :clown:

[rory_20_uk]

As soon as Italy gets its new government I am sure Brexit will recede as an issue... They want 250 billion of loans to be cancelled... because they don't want to repay.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

As soon as Italy gets its new government I am sure Brexit will recede as an issue... They want 250 billion of loans to be cancelled... because they don't want to repay.

~:smoking:

Timber

[Pannonian]

The government's preferred customs solution will cost around 350m/week, according to HMRC. When it eventually works that is, which it won't immediately. And that's just one aspect of the transition, not including eventual sunk costs like car parks and so on to deal with the barriers.

According to Leave, we send 350m/week to the EU, not including rebates making their way back here. All of that, without rebates, will now be spent on dealing with new customs barriers. If we accept the lower estimate that is. The higher estimate is rather more than 350m/week. And that doesn't include other costs resulting from our changed status.

[Fragony]

The status of being able to trade without sanction on trading in the universe and suroungins except a small price tag in that tiny place called Europe, that is bleeding out because of a flawed currency and cultural mismash and a really odd new aristocracy runned by a drunk who was never elected

[Pannonian]

The status of being able to trade without sanction on trading in the universe and suroungins except a small price tag in that tiny place called Europe, that is bleeding out because of a flawed currency and cultural mismash and a really odd new aristocracy runned by a drunk who was never elected

According to our supposed closest friends (the former Dominions), it is more important/urgent to have a good relationship with the EU 27 than with the UK. And according to the US, the biggest of our supposed close friends, a good trading relationship with them starts with accepting their agricultural and food standards, which our farmers and consumer watchdogs have rejected.

BTW, when are you moving over here to share in that freedom which you exult in?

[Husar]

And according to the US, the biggest of our supposed close friends, a good trading relationship with them starts with accepting their agricultural and food standards, which our farmers and consumer watchdogs have rejected.

That sounds really, really sad because even European food standards aren't really good and we know US ones are even worse. Do you happen to have a link about that?
Actually, I found this: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/02/26/UK-again-denies-US-free-trade-deal-is-a-threat-to-food-standards

And also this piece about how the UK is eroding food safety all by itself in the face of Brexit: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/brexit-food-standards-safety-worse-uk-health-a8308971.html#gallery

[rory_20_uk]

That sounds really, really sad because even European food standards aren't really good and we know US ones are even worse. Do you happen to have a link about that?
Actually, I found this: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2018/02/26/UK-again-denies-US-free-trade-deal-is-a-threat-to-food-standards

And also this piece about how the UK is eroding food safety all by itself in the face of Brexit: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/brexit-food-standards-safety-worse-uk-health-a8308971.html#gallery

Oh GOD - moving regulation to the private sector with no public oversight. Sometimes it can work (call me biased but the PMCPA is far more aggressive at policing Pharma than either the MHRA or the ASA in the UK) Do they not learn - or just don't care? This probably saves very little money.

As it is, food standards often seem to be maintained by the good will of suppliers - since when companies do try to abuse the system it is years before they are caught even in the most extreme cases (old race horses from Ireland come to mind). And when it does happen the companies involved just vanish, the Directors claim to know nothing and that's it.

In a society where the ease of communication has never been higher, the absence of all national / supra-national bodies to engage with the people they claim to represent can be nothing short of deliberate.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Oh GOD - moving regulation to the private sector with no public oversight. Sometimes it can work (call me biased but the PMCPA is far more aggressive at policing Pharma than either the MHRA or the ASA in the UK) Do they not learn - or just don't care? This probably saves very little money.

As it is, food standards often seem to be maintained by the good will of suppliers - since when companies do try to abuse the system it is years before they are caught even in the most extreme cases (old race horses from Ireland come to mind). And when it does happen the companies involved just vanish, the Directors claim to know nothing and that's it.

In a society where the ease of communication has never been higher, the absence of all national / supra-national bodies to engage with the people they claim to represent can be nothing short of deliberate.

~:smoking:

Well, there's the ECJ enforcing agreements between countries. But you want us out of that, that being your stated reason for Brexit.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, there's the ECJ enforcing agreements between countries. But you want us out of that, that being your stated reason for Brexit.

The Romanian and Irish horse meat coming into the human food chain via how many European countries was it? But there are no borders, so all is well since the ECJ is there. And although this happened only a couple of years ago you can somehow the the ECJ is enforcing this? Hilarious! Also, China has freedom of religion since the Constitution says it does...

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Well, there's the ECJ enforcing agreements between countries. But you want us out of that, that being your stated reason for Brexit.

The Romanian and Irish horse meat coming into the human food chain via how many European countries was it? But there are no borders, so all is well since the ECJ is there. And although this happened only a couple of years ago you can somehow the the ECJ is enforcing this? Hilarious! Also, China has freedom of religion since the Constitution says it does...

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The Romanian and Irish horse meat coming into the human food chain via how many European countries was it? But there are no borders, so all is well since the ECJ is there. And although this happened only a couple of years ago you can somehow the the ECJ is enforcing this? Hilarious! Also, China has freedom of religion since the Constitution says it does...

~:smoking:

Did the ECJ enforce the opposite? Or did the international agreements get enforced once the scandal came to light? If the former, then it's the fault of the ECJ. If the latter, then it's the fault of the regulatory bodies, which were insufficient. I posted a story a few days ago about the ECJ holding several EU countries to their agreements on reducing pollution. The regulatory bodies/scientists give findings that showed that these countries were contravening their agreements. The ECJ, as the extra-national body ruling across national borders in Europe, then rules that the national governments must hold up their end of the contract. I asked, to no reply, whether this was an unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty by the ECJ.

[rory_20_uk]

Did the ECJ enforce the opposite? Or did the international agreements get enforced once the scandal came to light? If the former, then it's the fault of the ECJ. If the latter, then it's the fault of the regulatory bodies, which were insufficient. I posted a story a few days ago about the ECJ holding several EU countries to their agreements on reducing pollution. The regulatory bodies/scientists give findings that showed that these countries were contravening their agreements. The ECJ, as the extra-national body ruling across national borders in Europe, then rules that the national governments must hold up their end of the contract. I asked, to no reply, whether this was an unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty by the ECJ.

International agreements? Given that what they were doing was against the laws in every single country - and laws present for decades if not hundreds of years the point is the ECJ had no bearing one way or the other on the situation. Having a totemic court by itself does not solve every issue.

The ECJ is by definition unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty whatever they are doing. Because they are a supra-national court. Merely that my neighbour is a good gardener doesn't mean s/he can pop in to my garden and do as they will. It is not the subject, nor the intent. It is the entire process.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

International agreements? Given that what they were doing was against the laws in every single country - and laws present for decades if not hundreds of years the point is the ECJ had no bearing one way or the other on the situation. Having a totemic court by itself does not solve every issue.

The ECJ is by definition unacceptable overriding of national sovereignty whatever they are doing. Because they are a supra-national court. Merely that my neighbour is a good gardener doesn't mean s/he can pop in to my garden and do as they will. It is not the subject, nor the intent. It is the entire process.

~:smoking:

What if one party decides they are bigger and stronger and thus does not need to abide by previously made agreements, as the other party has no teeth to back them up? Is party A right to supersede their agreement with party B by way of superior strength? If party A unilaterally decides that previously made agreements should no longer apply to them, how should party B seek redress? Should party B be able to seek redress, or should party A be able to do whatever it can get away with?

[rory_20_uk]

What if one party decides they are bigger and stronger and thus does not need to abide by previously made agreements, as the other party has no teeth to back them up? Is party A right to supersede their agreement with party B by way of superior strength? If party A unilaterally decides that previously made agreements should no longer apply to them, how should party B seek redress? Should party B be able to seek redress, or should party A be able to do whatever it can get away with?

That is a tough one. Something that protects the weak from the strong. Something that can be there for all. What can be offered? What To Offer...? What about the very thing the countries of Europe are turning to because of the USA...?

Oh yes! EURIKA!! The WTO! A system for exactly this purpose that operates worldwide and predates the ECJ.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

That is a tough one. Something that protects the weak from the strong. Something that can be there for all. What can be offered? What To Offer...? What about the very thing the countries of Europe are turning to because of the USA...?

Oh yes! EURIKA!! The WTO! A system for exactly this purpose that operates worldwide and predates the ECJ.

~:smoking:

And what happens when party A threatens to not comply with WTO conditions?

And NB. the EU offers far better trade conditions than the WTO, which is recognised as pretty barebones. And we can't even satisfy WTO conditions, so I don't know why you're citing it as an alternative.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And what happens when party A threatens to not comply with WTO conditions?

And NB. the EU offers far better trade conditions than the WTO, which is recognised as pretty barebones. And we can't even satisfy WTO conditions, so I don't know why you're citing it as an alternative.

Pannonian:

As you well know, the ultimate 'guarantor' of any international accord is armed violence. All of diplomacy and the agreed conduct thereof is an attempt to forestall this tool of last resort. When parties discard the social niceties, it always comes down to how much you are willing to/capable of killing people.

[Pannonian]

Reality of the "frictionless border" option favoured by the UK government, as explained by someone who has frequent experience of said type of border. (https://evolvepolitics.com/watch-knowledgeable-eu-van-driver-utterly-destroys-jacob-rees-moggs-brexit-bluster-with-firsthand-experience-video/)

Does this invalidation of the government's rhetoric, by an expert on the subject, matter to Leavers? Will Leavers accept membership of the Customs Union and the Single Market, with all the conditions that implies, for the sake of trade? Or would they rather sacrifice trade in order to rule out certain things?

[Furunculus]

I am always willing to compromise on the detail:
If that means single market or customs unions, fine.
If that means rejoining a (reformed) eu that too is fine.

But I am a total freaking zealot on the principle:
Being totally out is better than political/economic union.
The relationship must never be a gun to our head (i.e. negotiated services access being threatened with unilateral withdrawal unless we comply with X unrelated policy)

[Pannonian]

I am always willing to compromise on the detail:
If that means single market or customs unions, fine.
If that means rejoining a (reformed) eu that too is fine.

But I am a total freaking zealot on the principle:
Being totally out is better than political/economic union.
The relationship must never be a gun to our head (i.e. negotiated services access being threatened with unilateral withdrawal unless we comply with X unrelated policy)

Aren't these two mutually contradictory? "You can have any colour you like, as long as it is black".

[Gilrandir]

Aren't these two mutually contradictory? "You can have any colour you like, as long as it is black".

detail =/= principle

[Pannonian]

detail =/= principle

It's like May's red lines. "We're open to agreement, as long as they follow these red lines." Proceeds to put forward red lines that rule everything out.

In Furunculus's case, his red line is the basis of all multi-faceted agreements. All multi-faceted agreements involve horse trading of some kind. Germany and France wanted the European Currency Union. So Britain's price (as demanded by Thatcher and Major) was the Single Market and the admission of eastern Europe. Both sides got what they thought was important, and in Britain's case we didn't even need to join the ECU, as they were prepared to give us that leeway too.

Any future trade deals will involve horse trading of the kind Furunculus has ruled out, as will any complex agreement of any kind. Any deal with the US will have to involve acceptance of US agricultural and food standards, even though our counterparts don't want that at all. Or will Furunculus stretch his point to argue that these are related after all, and thus completely different from the UK-EU agreements.

[Furunculus]

Any future trade deals will involve horse trading of the kind Furunculus has ruled out,

Where did i do any such thing? Building up strawmen only to knock them down again?

Being opposed to Britain being in political and economic union with the EU does not preclude any of a whole host of possible partnership agreements.
Rejecting fragile agreements subject to unilateral threat (effectively making the agreement a tool of geopolitics), can be answered with Efta/bilat abritration.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

For clarity, Furunculus, you should have re-stated those guiding principles that would remain inviolate. It would then have been much clearer as to the degree of flexibility to compromise available across the range of issues.

[Pannonian]

For clarity, Furunculus, you should have re-stated those guiding principles that would remain inviolate. It would then have been much clearer as to the degree of flexibility to compromise available across the range of issues.

The relationship must never be a gun to our head (i.e. negotiated services access being threatened with unilateral withdrawal unless we comply with X unrelated policy)

The above can be taken to mean all kinds of things. For many Brexiteers, it means ruling out all horse trading altogether. Even though the very Single Market that they want to withdraw from was the result of such horse trading, and a British demand at that. "The UK will veto all discussions of a Currency Union unless France and Germany accept the Single Market and the admission of former eastern bloc countries." And afterwards, even the British payment was negotiated away, as the UK was allowed to opt out of said Currency Union (while the British price was paid by all countries).

Yes! We won! Now send them back. (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/we-won-now-send-back-8295545)

[Furunculus]

For clarity, Furunculus, you should have re-stated those guiding principles that would remain inviolate. It would then have been much clearer as to the degree of flexibility to compromise available across the range of issues.

It is very difficult to do so.
The only sensible way to approach a task so byzantine is to be output focussed, not process focussed.
Does the end preserve fundamental sovereignty, a workable economy, and good relations with our neighbours.
That may or may not involve the single market to give but one teeny example.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is very difficult to do so.
The only sensible way to approach a task so byzantine is to be output focussed, not process focussed.
Does the end preserve fundamental sovereignty, a workable economy, and good relations with our neighbours.
That may or may not involve the single market to give but one teeny example.

This is much clearer, even with your caveats.

Principles invoked:

1. Sovereignty -- which I suspect you define as self determination of policy, without any overarching authority having the ability to overrule that sovereign decision.

2. Workable economy -- an economy that provides a reasonable standard of living for the citizens and legal residents of that polity. You do not specify service/industrial/agro/tech as a focus (intentionally, I presume).

3. Good Relations with neighbors -- this isn't as clearly articulated. Is good the absence of violence or positive interaction? Are neighbors defined regionally? by travel time? by immediate proximity to one polity's physical borders? I believe you are defining it regionally and that good relations would be fair trade, no unreasonable bureaucratic delays in services or travel, mutual defense in event of direct attack, and reasonable procedures for extradition and the like. It is not clear from your phrase itself, however.

[Furunculus]

This is much clearer, even with your caveats.

Principles invoked:

1. Sovereignty -- which I suspect you define as self determination of policy, without any overarching authority having the ability to overrule that sovereign decision.

2. Workable economy -- an economy that provides a reasonable standard of living for the citizens and legal residents of that polity. You do not specify service/industrial/agro/tech as a focus (intentionally, I presume).

3. Good Relations with neighbors -- this isn't as clearly articulated. Is good the absence of violence or positive interaction? Are neighbors defined regionally? by travel time? by immediate proximity to one polity's physical borders? I believe you are defining it regionally and that good relations would be fair trade, no unreasonable bureaucratic delays in services or travel, mutual defense in event of direct attack, and reasonable procedures for extradition and the like. It is not clear from your phrase itself, however.

1. e.g. a problem of the current third country services regime is that it is equivalence that can be revoked at any time. given that the ecj can be extremely flexible in interpreting legislation it would be very risky to try and refuse to implement something as trivial as a tobin tax, if the eu was holding a gun to britain's head over the loss of the equivalence regime in the whole area of services trade.

2. It is indeed intentional, i know what i would prefer but in a majoritarian system of parliamentary sovereignty, that might welll mean freedom to organise the economy by command in five year plans. So be it.

3. Good relations in terms of geopolitics. I define a great power as a middle power (in relative capability) that is also a regional power... and does not have a polar opposition in the region (which would contain its wider ambition). India is a middle power, and a regional power, but its ceasless tussle with pakistan prevents it deploying its resources in a way that would achieve great power effect. Back to brexit britain; it will be entirely pointless if we have such a divisive relationship with europe, that it demands our attention to manage in a manner that dissipates our focus on bigger issues (europe will be a strategic backwater post 2040).

but yes, i will maintain the caveats and all manner of other nuance. because this is a complex issue and I know enough to know how much i don't know.

[Pannonian]

You speak of the ability to have command economies and five year plans should there be a majority decision for such. However, how do you propose to cope with lengthy waits resulting from the loss of frictionless borders, as described by the freight driver above? Unlike your scenario of theoretical possibilities that have rarely if ever been seen in western Europe, and the closest equivalents of which in the UK go back 50 years or more, the scenario I cite is a certainty given current experience. And the government's own department dealing with Brexit thinks that even this may be understating how bad things may become. Are you willing to sign up to the Single Market and the Customs Union, with all that entails? Or would you prefer to face up to not signing up to them, as DExEU is warning us we are currently on course for?

Currently we have red lines barring us from certain options. However, we have made nowhere near sufficient preparations for a situation outside these options. With things as they currently are, we will have a no deal Brexit without the organisation to deal with it. A situation DExEU describes as nothing short of catastrophic. One thing cannot be changed: we won't be able to put the organisation in place before we exit on 29th March next year. Talks of solutions to ease this is either nonsense, or outright deception (as Rees Mogg's dissembling is above). Do you want solutions which the government's red lines currently rule out? Or do you prefer to keep the red lines and face whatever comes?

Edit: A number of leading Brexiteers have made preparations to live inside the EU post-Brexit.

[Furunculus]

i don't propose anything, for i'm not well informed enough on the either the technical expertise required, or the likely give-n-take available in the negotiation.
i have duly informed the gov't that political union is not acceptable, and expect them to go about rectifying the matter in a workmanlike fashion.
the gov't has not filled me with confidence in its competence, but the matter needs to be accomplished.

i don't believe the red lines are really all that red.
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-picking-apart-theresa-mays-red-lines-on-leaving-the-european-union-10732511

"(Staying in the single market would mean) complying with the EU's rules and regulations… without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are…"
single market - right here right now i'd prefer to be out as I prefer to avoid the eu's fetish for regulation on the principle of precautionary principle.

"I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU… I have an open mind on how we do it."
customs union - fine, prefer out as i do see the great eu trade wall as a protectionist racket.

"We will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU."
immigration - don't personally care much, but would like a regime that doesn't penalise against anglosphere countries (relative to eu). political necessity probably requires that some restriction are placed on europe, to have the same regime as elsewhere.

"The days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end."
the budget - sure, why not. but not really fussed if we get something for the contribution.

[Pannonian]

i don't propose anything, for i'm not well informed enough on the either the technical expertise required, or the likely give-n-take available in the negotiation.
i have duly informed the gov't that political union is not acceptable, and expect them to go about rectifying the matter in a workmanlike fashion.
the gov't has not filled me with confidence in its competence, but the matter needs to be accomplished.

i don't believe the red lines are really all that red.
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-picking-apart-theresa-mays-red-lines-on-leaving-the-european-union-10732511

"(Staying in the single market would mean) complying with the EU's rules and regulations… without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are…"
single market - right here right now i'd prefer to be out as I prefer to avoid the eu's fetish for regulation on the principle of precautionary principle.

"I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU… I have an open mind on how we do it."
customs union - fine, prefer out as i do see the great eu trade wall as a protectionist racket.

"We will get control of the number of people coming to Britain from the EU."
immigration - don't personally care much, but would like a regime that doesn't penalise against anglosphere countries (relative to eu). political necessity probably requires that some restriction are placed on europe, to have the same regime as elsewhere.

"The days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end."
the budget - sure, why not. but not really fussed if we get something for the contribution.

"right here right now i'd prefer to be out". Such a simple thing to say, and yet with a host of ramifications. The lorry driver in the above video has described what it means for people like himself. DExEU has described the knock on effects for the rest of the population once people like said lorry driver have to deal with your preference to be out. And yet you still prefer to be out?

NB. We don't have the facilities to deal with your preference to be out. They will be starting consultations early next year for building works to deal with our being outside the EU. We'll have left the EU by the end of March. DExEU says that the existing facilities at Dover can't cope with a no-deal Brexit. Our supply chains will dry up in short order. We've already seen what happened to KFC. It'll be like that, across the board. And yet you still prefer to be out?

[Furunculus]

"And yet you still prefer to be out?"
"And yet you still prefer to be out?"

Yes.... and, yes.
Political union is not acceptable.

[Pannonian]

"And yet you still prefer to be out?"
"And yet you still prefer to be out?"

Yes.... and, yes.
Political union is not acceptable.

But a collapsed economy is acceptable? KFC lost 1/3 of its value after their supply chain went down for a few weeks. This will last years (at best, decades at worst), and DExEU predicts the infrastructure at Dover will prove inadequate within a week. You might as well say that an absence of magic beans and unicorns is not acceptable.

BTW, are you going to campaign for us to withdraw from the UN and its companion organisations? Is NATO next on your list? After all, how can we allow the US to dictate to us that we should spend 2% of our GDP on our military. Shouldn't it be a majoritarian decision whether we want to spend 2%, 1% or 0%?

[Furunculus]

I believe the long term prospects will improve over the current trend, short term disruption can therfore be justified.

No, for the umpteenth time: There is a very real and appreciable difference between a supranational union with political integration as its driving imperative, and an intergovernmental treaty organisation with strictly limited remit for defence coordination.

[Pannonian]

I believe the long term prospects will improve over the current trend, short term disruption can therfore be justified.

No, for the umpteenth time: There is a very real and appreciable difference between a supranational union with political integration as its driving imperative, and an intergovernmental treaty organisation with strictly limited remit for defence coordination.

Where do you get this belief from? Even Farage now disclaims that Brexit will be a success, and he's already made escape arrangements.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Where do you get this belief from? Even Farage now disclaims that Brexit will be a success, and he's already made escape arrangements.

The UK has a reasonably well educated work force, good basic infrastructure, a stable court system/reasonably controlled crime, and does not have a business culture centered on graft and kickbacks.

All of these signs, long term, point towards economic success.

Just how short term the short term disruption will be is, of course, quite debatable.


The Leave leadership did sell it as though the economic hiccough would last 18 months tops didn't they? Your lot fell for it as though they were a group of yanks hearing another "I'm not gonna be corrupted by the system" pol out stumping.

[Furunculus]

Where do you get this belief from? Even Farage now disclaims that Brexit will be a success, and he's already made escape arrangements.

the extremely brief answer is that we were being harmonised upward to the continental norm in taxation and regulation. the labour years took us from 37.5% of GDP to 42.5% of GDP (before the crisis), during which we adopted ever more of the eu regulatory format which prefers the precuationary principle to demonstrable harm.

knock 5% of GDP out of the taxman's hands (and and similar swinge at regulatory excess), and we could see additional growth - compound - of 0.5%/year. in a generations time you have an economy siginficantly bigger and (by that point) generating more tax revenue than the status quo.

This paper is worth a look:
https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/striking-a-balance-a-blueprint-for-the-future-uk-eu-economic-partnership/

p.s. lay off the invective and made up mal-associations - farage claims brexit is being badly handled (and thus lead to failure), not that Brexit will cannot be a success (in its own terms). It adds heat, not light.

[Pannonian]

The UK has a reasonably well educated work force, good basic infrastructure, a stable court system/reasonably controlled crime, and does not have a business culture centered on graft and kickbacks.

All of these signs, long term, point towards economic success.

Just how short term the short term disruption will be is, of course, quite debatable.


The Leave leadership did sell it as though the economic hiccough would last 18 months tops didn't they? Your lot fell for it as though they were a group of yanks hearing another "I'm not gonna be corrupted by the system" pol out stumping.

The supply chain and the dictum of time equals money is the killer. KFC had supply chain problems (they had products and demand, but they couldn't get their products to the relevant outlets to meet demand) for 2-3 weeks, and shed a large chunk of their value as a result. Now that's one company in a functioning economy, with other businesses able to take up the slack. Post-Brexit, the supply chain bottleneck does not affect just one company, but all companies that work with multiple components some of which originate from outside the UK. The estimate, given similar experiences elsewhere and the volume of traffic Dover processes, is 30+ mile queues, where Dover is currently equipped for frictionless trade. Consultations are due to start next year, when we're due to formally leave the EU. Consultations for that scale of project normally last years before they settle on what to build. Then there's the small matter of building; the rebuilding of Tottenham Court Road, a single tube station, took the best part of a decade to complete. And remember that this isn't a single business being affected by the bottleneck which can be re-routed, but businesses across the board and their subsidiaries. And this isn't just a possible disaster scenario; the organisation of freight transporters, the people who work the supply chain, have said that we've already passed the point where we can prepare for it. Complete chaos and zero preparedness isn't a possibility, it's an inevitability come March next year.

GB says that things would be better if we had a PM who was prepared to properly Leave, rather than May who was supposedly a Remainer. No we wouldn't. The chaos doesn't come from not being willing to Leave. The chaos comes from cutting ties. We still wouldn't have the infrastructure to cope with cutting ties, no matter how willing the government may be. And we still won't have the economy to cope with this lack of infrastructure post-Brexit. All of this was concrete, or perhaps ironically, non-existent in concrete, before the vote, except that Leave labelled it as Project Fear. Project Fear that even Leave's leaders now accept is Actual Reality. Putting an X on a ballot doesn't change this reality.

Furunculus has mentioned an acceptable economy before. At what point does it become unacceptable?

[Husar]

Open Europe...

Why would anyone believe anything these snake oil salesmen have to say?

[Furunculus]

Open Europe...

Why would anyone believe anything these snake oil salesmen have to say?
As opposed to whom?

Which paragons of disinterested expertise leave openeurope so deeply in the shade?

[Husar]

As opposed to whom?

Which paragons of disinterested expertise leave openeurope so deeply in the shade?

Any that are not allies (and contain members) of the Koch Brothers' Atlas Network and the Mont Pélerin Society and want to make Atlas Shrugged a reality.

[Furunculus]

"shhhh! don't tell anyone you've figured it out..."

*looks around furtively*

[Pannonian]

the extremely brief answer is that we were being harmonised upward to the continental norm in taxation and regulation. the labour years took us from 37.5% of GDP to 42.5% of GDP (before the crisis), during which we adopted ever more of the eu regulatory format which prefers the precuationary principle to demonstrable harm.

knock 5% of GDP out of the taxman's hands (and and similar swinge at regulatory excess), and we could see additional growth - compound - of 0.5%/year. in a generations time you have an economy siginficantly bigger and (by that point) generating more tax revenue than the status quo.

This paper is worth a look:
https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/striking-a-balance-a-blueprint-for-the-future-uk-eu-economic-partnership/

p.s. lay off the invective and made up mal-associations - farage claims brexit is being badly handled (and thus lead to failure), not that Brexit will cannot be a success (in its own terms). It adds heat, not light.

How would you answer this?


“All these potential barriers were thrown up by the Government’s decision to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market. In return we were promised that ‘frictionless’ trade would continue through special agreements reached with the EU. Trade talks haven’t even started. In the event of a No Deal Brexit it will be the logistics industry, which operates 24/7 365 days a year, that will have to pick up the pieces of the failure of politicians to agree. No doubt we will face the unwarranted ire of consumers and businesses if goods cannot be delivered on time.

“The industry’s frustration with the lack of progress is building daily. Logistics businesses simply cannot answer their customers’ questions about how they will move goods after Brexit. Manufacturers and retailers are losing faith and fear that post-Brexit Britain is at real risk of becoming nothing more than a series of road blocks at our ports and airports.

“What is really making our members angry is that these real, legitimate concerns are simply being dismissed by some members of the Government on the basis that it will not be in the EU’s interests to impose them. This is a reckless attitude to take and is playing chicken with crucial parts of the British economy and the livelihoods of the seven million Britons in the industry. All the evidence is that the other EU member states are recruiting hordes of border officials to enforce their rule book, regardless of the cost to their businesses and consumers. Expecting economic realism to kick in after 50 years of top-down bureaucracy is a bit of a stretch from UK politicians who have always slammed the EU for its obsession with rules and bureaucracy. The reliance on the other side blinking first is hanging the logistics industry out to dry.

“To date, all the focus has been on what the new Customs arrangements will be. But this misses the point. The real issue will be the lack of permits to allow the trucks carrying the goods to travel to the Continent in the first place. This is the trucking equivalent of the threat to the aviation sector because of the ending of Europe-wide agreements when the UK leaves the Single Market.”

See the example of KFC for what happens when logistics breaks down.

[Husar]

"shhhh! don't tell anyone you've figured it out..."

*looks around furtively*

Oh, you think you're funny?
The MPS has an official website, it's not a secret conspiracy: https://www.montpelerin.org
Maybe you've heard of Milton Friedman, aka their founder?

You may even agree with their goals, but I certainly don't, so I don't need to trust them.
It's not my fault that neoliberals created hundreds of think tanks funded by corporations and their capitalist owners to influence politics for their benefit. I also don't see why I should be interested in benefitting these people in a world of limited resources.
Maybe you can explain it?

[Furunculus]

The problem politics has right now, is that people don't know how to talk to each other, to disagree with each other constructively.
Everything is black and white, and the Neo-Progressive left have been captured by this Manichean world view just as much as the Alt-Right.
Perhaps no surprise as they are both forms of identity politics.
Don't be part of the problem.

[Pannonian]

The problem politics has right now, is that people don't know how to talk to each other, to disagree with each other.
Everything is black and white, and the Neoprogressive left have been captured by this Manichean world view just as much as the alt-right.
Perhaps no surprise as they are both forms of identity politics.
Don't be part of the problem.

Perhaps if the bare majority recognises that it is just a bare majority, and not a mandate for radical change, then moderation in discussion can be possible. Didn't Farage say before the referendum that if Remain won by a narrow majority, then he would continue to campaign to Leave as there was obviously an audience for it, and that ignoring such a large minority would lead to resentment?

[Furunculus]

Perhaps if the bare majority recognises that it is just a bare majority, and not a mandate for radical change, then moderation in discussion can be possible. Didn't Farage say before the referendum that if Remain won by a narrow majority, then he would continue to campaign to Leave as there was obviously an audience for it, and that ignoring such a large minority would lead to resentment?

I'm happy to agree with that as a principle:
While I personally favour a mid-atlantic brexit poised between the the extremes of american market-libertarianism and european social-democracy, i am more than happy to compromise on a much closer relationship with europe (and follow more of their norms). Asd you say; it was 52/48, not 67/33.

However, the detail of how that is done is complicated:
In a services driven economy such as the UK's, in which services form the majority of its exports, and is the dominant player in international services management/regulation in its part of the world, signing up to the single market and being subservient to the ECJ would be awful.
Not just awful for the UK's preference for free-wheeling service sector (because it would be a huge constraint on public policy preference).
Also awful for the UK's relationship with the EU going forward (for it would be a huge source of friction).
The result would be the next forty years of public debate on europe being worse than the last forty years!
As I said earlier; i want a good relationship with the EU, so we can focus on geopolitics in the parts of the world that will matter in future.
And for exactly that reason, we need to be extremely careful to build a relationship that minimises friction and ill-feeling.

When I say I am easy on how the nuts and bolts of a brexit agreement are put together, I genuinely am, i'm not religious on any of the technical elements. But I absolutely insist the complete package of the agreement needs to be constructive, not just "close at all costs", for that would be ugly for pro-europeans brits in particular, as you watch public attitudes further sour on 'europeans' with every additional dispute.

[Pannonian]

I'm happy to agree with that as a principle:
While I personally favour a mid-atlantic brexit poised between the the extremes of american market-libertarianism and european social-democracy, i am more than happy to compromise on a much closer relationship with europe (and follow more of their norms). Asd you say; it was 52/48, not 67/33.

However, the detail of how that is done is complicated:
In a services driven economy such as the UK's, in which services form the majority of its exports, and is the dominant player in international services management/regulation in its part of the world, signing up to the single market and being subservient to the ECJ would be awful.
Not just awful for the UK's preference for free-wheeling service sector (because it would be a huge constraint on public policy preference).
Also awful for the UK's relationship with the EU going forward (for it would be a huge source of friction).
The result would be the next forty years of public debate on europe being worse than the last forty years!
As I said earlier; i want a good relationship with the EU, so we can focus on geopolitics in the parts of the world that will matter in future.
And for exactly that reason, we need to be extremely careful to build a relationship that minimises friction and ill-feeling.

When I say I am easy on how the nuts and bolts of a brexit agreement are put together, I genuinely am, i'm not religious on any of the technical elements. But I absolutely insist the complete package of the agreement needs to be constructive, not just "close at all costs", for that would be ugly for pro-europeans brits in particular, as you watch public attitudes further sour on 'europeans' with every additional dispute.

The EU haven't insisted on much, it's almost all been from the UK side. All the EU has insisted on is that any deal should retain the GFA. Which, given that the GFA was a bilateral treaty between the UK and Ireland, we have no legal right to unilaterally set aside anyway. Other than that, we can have various packages of rights and responsibilities (one does not come without the other), or we can fall back to WTO, which has demands of its own. That's the thing Brexiters never mention; WTO isn't a no responsibility deal. As things stand, we can't even fulfil the WTO's requirements. The fall yet further back option that you and other neoliberalist fans favour, complete free trade, means the end of all British manufacturing at a minimum, and every other sector where outsiders care to drive away British expertise with cheaper imports. Once that expertise is lost, it's not coming back.

And on the last sentence: Brexiteers already see pro-Britishness as defined by anti-Europeanness. Hence in the latest US-EU dispute, they are wholeheartedly in support of the US, despite the UK being in the EU camp politically, economically, and most damningly of all, strategically from the US POV. They see selling us to the US as a patriotic move, as it would spite the EU, and for them, that's all that's desired. Well I'm not a US-centric neoliberal. I tend much more to the Euro-centric tradition of social democracy. I expect to have responsibilities along with my rights. So those packages, that are anathema to you, are part of what I expect from every aspect of life. If I don't want certain responsibilities, then I veer clear of the accompanying rights too.

However, I'd like one thing clarified at least. Do you accept that "no deal" will result in the scenario I've posted? The reason I ask this is because I want to know if you accept the sources I've derived this from.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

[Husar]

The problem politics has right now, is that people don't know how to talk to each other, to disagree with each other constructively.
Everything is black and white, and the Neo-Progressive left have been captured by this Manichean world view just as much as the Alt-Right.
Perhaps no surprise as they are both forms of identity politics.
Don't be part of the problem.

What exactly are you saying? That the EU isn't just black and white and that leaving it is too big a step devised by people who are part of the problem?

If you are trying to avoid talking about how neoliberal think tanks control the world in general and mean you want to talk about more concrete things, okay, let's try that:


the extremely brief answer is that we were being harmonised upward to the continental norm in taxation and regulation. the labour years took us from 37.5% of GDP to 42.5% of GDP (before the crisis), during which we adopted ever more of the eu regulatory format which prefers the precuationary principle to demonstrable harm.

knock 5% of GDP out of the taxman's hands (and and similar swinge at regulatory excess), and we could see additional growth - compound - of 0.5%/year. in a generations time you have an economy siginficantly bigger and (by that point) generating more tax revenue than the status quo.

This argument is incomplete at best since there's a lot of math missing and it makes misleading statements.
1. You may (assuming the math is correct) generate more tax income than now in a generation, but until then you generate less! What do you do until a generation has passed when your infrastructure crumbles?

2. The money you make more in a generation, will have to be spent on rebuilding that crumbled infrastructure for another generation or two.

3. If the infrastructure crumbles, it will hamper economic growth and therefore you may fail to reach your goal of increased tax income.

4. Why should people want economic growth when the economy has mostly been growing for a while now while the number of people who can barely get by with a full time job has been growing? It's nice when the corporations are worth more, but that by itself never fixed the erosion of real wages.

5. In a generation you may generate more tax revenue than the status quo, but the things you have to pay for will also be more expensive due to inflation. You have to show actual calculations to prove that the tax income will grow faster than the cost of services.

As for the article you linked:

The UK economy is strongly services dominated (around 80% of our economy) – we cannot simply be a rule-taker in key industries such as financial services. The approach on services therefore should be about managing divergence. While we should aim for more than the current equivalence regime, we are unlikely to get the full mutual recognition sought by the Government. Asking for more comes with its own costs, as the EU will demand wide-ranging “level-playing field” controls over our wider domestic economy including taxation, labour law, and environmental standards. The majority of our services trade is with the world beyond the EU, and even in some areas where the Single Market in services is most developed – for example financial services – only 36% of our exports are to the EU. There is also an increasing uncertainty cost of pursuing a deal which is unlikely to be negotiable.

1. Why is the UK economy so strongly services dominated and why does the article thake that as some kind of unchangeable truth? Perhaps having such a services-dominated economy wasn't the best idea in the first place?

2. Why is it bad that the EU is demanding environmental standards? Does the guy live in the Matrix?

3. "only 36% [of financial service exports] are to the EU": Why only? The sector makes up 12% of your economy and 36% is more than a third: https://www.thecityuk.com/research/key-facts-about-uk-financial-and-related-professional-services-2016/

[Furunculus]

The EU haven't insisted on much, it's almost all been from the UK side. All the EU has insisted on is that any deal should retain the GFA. Which, given that the GFA was a bilateral treaty between the UK and Ireland, we have no legal right to unilaterally set aside anyway. Other than that, we can have various packages of rights and responsibilities (one does not come without the other), or we can fall back to WTO, which has demands of its own. That's the thing Brexiters never mention; WTO isn't a no responsibility deal. As things stand, we can't even fulfil the WTO's requirements. The fall yet further back option that you and other neoliberalist fans favour, complete free trade, means the end of all British manufacturing at a minimum, and every other sector where outsiders care to drive away British expertise with cheaper imports. Once that expertise is lost, it's not coming back.
It would grow the economy, we simply wouldn't be engaged in 'legacy' industries any more.
But as I said, i'm happy to keep britain on the edges of a european social democracy.


And on the last sentence: Brexiteers already see pro-Britishness as defined by anti-Europeanness. Hence in the latest US-EU dispute, they are wholeheartedly in support of the US, despite the UK being in the EU camp politically, economically, and most damningly of all, strategically from the US POV. They see selling us to the US as a patriotic move, as it would spite the EU, and for them, that's all that's desired. Well I'm not a US-centric neoliberal. I tend much more to the Euro-centric tradition of social democracy. I expect to have responsibilities along with my rights. So those packages, that are anathema to you, are part of what I expect from every aspect of life. If I don't want certain responsibilities, then I veer clear of the accompanying rights too.
I think this began as a response to my point that an unconstructive agreement that lead to friction would be most heart wrenching for pro-eu brits, for it would only further sour the public debate about their EUropean identity.
But it veers off on a tangent, and doesn't really address that point at all...
Unless, perhaps, your mention of being a social-democrat with responsibilities, is really a nod to the responsibilities of business as a price for market activity. I have heard free-trade termed by pro-EU people before: it's a bargain where you are allowed to do business if you accept higher taxation and all manner of invasive social regulation.
If that is the case then I'll offer you my condolences, for that is a minority view in britain, and possibly a very good explanation for our noted lack of a EUropean political identity.


However, I'd like one thing clarified at least. Do you accept that "no deal" will result in the scenario I've posted? The reason I ask this is because I want to know if you accept the sources I've derived this from.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

I accept there that will be a severe short term hit.
I accept that your sources have accurately portrayed the problem... that exists prior to mitigation.

[Pannonian]

It would grow the economy, we simply wouldn't be engaged in 'legacy' industries any more.
But as I said, i'm happy to keep britain on the edges of a european social democracy.

I think this began as a response to my point that an unconstructive agreement that lead to friction would be most heart wrenching for pro-eu brits, for it would only further sour the public debate about their EUropean identity.
But it veers off on a tangent, and doesn't really address that point at all...
Unless, perhaps, your mention of being a social-democrat with responsibilities, is really a nod to the responsibilities of business as a price for market activity. I have heard free-trade termed by pro-EU people before: it's a bargain where you are allowed to do business if you accept higher taxation and all manner of invasive social regulation.
If that is the case then I'll offer you my condolences, for that is a minority view in britain, and possibly a very good explanation for our noted lack of a EUropean political identity.

I accept there that will be a severe short term hit.
I accept that your sources have accurately portrayed the problem... that exists prior to mitigation.

I was thinking more of protecting local industries by allowing commercialisation of local identities. And shutting down tax loopholes for multinationals so that they can't evade tax on money made in one country then hidden away in another. And other moves to make globalised businesses attend to the quality of the services they provide.

But on the BiB, what's wrong with social legislation per se? Two of my political heroes are David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, and not for their roles as wartime leaders, but for their part in bringing in swathes of social regulation that improved the lives of the poor.

And as for mitigating the problem, what mitigation is there? The sources I cite don't seem to think there is, and they're the most authoritative sources around on the subject matter.

[Furunculus]

I was thinking more of protecting local industries by allowing commercialisation of local identities. And shutting down tax loopholes for multinationals so that they can't evade tax on money made in one country then hidden away in another. And other moves to make globalised businesses attend to the quality of the services they provide.

But on the BiB, what's wrong with social legislation per se? Two of my political heroes are David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, and not for their roles as wartime leaders, but for their part in bringing in swathes of social regulation that improved the lives of the poor.

And as for mitigating the problem, what mitigation is there? The sources I cite don't seem to think there is, and they're the most authoritative sources around on the subject matter.

I'm fine with the measures you mention, merely agreeing that; yes, the implication of Minford's suggested absolutist free-trade is a more dynamic economy.... and the end of uncompetitive legacy industries. But nothing to stop that plan being implemented alongside the measures you mention.

The problem is seeing free-trade as an emergent gift of a social-democratic policy platform, rather than a noble pursuit to be undertaken in its own right, on first principles. I have seen pro-eu people 'explain': "that of course the working time directive is appropriate regulatory activity for the single market (and so subject to QMV), and not merely a social/employment aid desired as part of ever-closer-(social)union. If we didn't accept that, then we wouldn't have the single market!" So, even when we secure exemptions from social policy formulated in Brussels, it tends to be interpreted by the ECJ as single market policy and enforced as such. Governance of the eurozone was another example. I am not a social democrat, i do not accept this explicit link between social policy and trade.

People investigate catastrophic outcomes precisely so that they can mitigate against them. Yes, chappy has identified a bad thing, but how will he (or his industry - with support of gov't) respond to that bad thing? I can equally cite to you an example of a major east coast port, who reckon that it will be a mere blip as a result of their preparation.

[Pannonian]

And Nigel Farage says that Britain may be worse off post-Brexit, but it's someone else's fault. No wonder he's making sure he's got a German escape route should it all go tits up.

[Furunculus]

And Nigel Farage says that Britain may be worse off post-Brexit, but it's someone else's fault. No wonder he's making sure he's got a German escape route should it all go tits up.

i told you; lay off the emotive invective:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053778233&viewfull=1#post2053778233

It adds heat, not light.

[Pannonian]

i told you; lay off the emotive invective:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053778233&viewfull=1#post2053778233

It adds heat, not light.

Being critical of the lies and hypocrisy of Nigel Farage adds heat and not light?

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/139/590x/Nigel-Farage-680545.jpg


"If you vote to remain you are voting to go into a political union with Turkey. You are voting to go into a free travel area with 77 million people and rising fast in Turkey," he said.

"I used to worry that we were living in an increasingly German-dominated Europe but from what I can see it might become a Turkish-dominated Europe."

And the chief financial backer of Leave, who donated millions to the Leave campaign despite having a loss-making business, is refusing to answer to Parliament over claims of links with the Russian government. So much for Parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control.

[Furunculus]

And the chief financial backer of Leave, who donated millions to the Leave campaign despite having a loss-making business, is refusing to answer to Parliament over claims of links with the Russian government. So much for Parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control.

Back to the mal-associations, then?

Aaron banks was the chief financial backer of "Leave.eu", which was just one of the many leave backing groups and not the official campaign which was "Vote Leave".

The way you present that obfuscates that reality in a very misleading way. More Light, less heat.

[Pannonian]

Back to the mal-associations, then?

Aaron banks was the chief financial backer of "Leave.eu", which was just one of the many leave backing groups and not the official campaign which was "Vote Leave".

The way you present that obfuscates that in a very misleading way. More Light, less heat.

And should he answer to Parliament for his links with Russia?

[Furunculus]

What exactly are you saying? That the EU isn't just black and white and that leaving it is too big a step devised by people who are part of the problem?

No, specifically, I was referring to you and your refusal to engage with ideas that may bear the taint of 'neoliberalism'.
n.b. which other people might simply brand the anglo-saxon economic model (a cross-cutting but different beast entirely).


If you are trying to avoid talking about how neoliberal think tanks control the world in general and mean you want to talk about more concrete things, okay, let's try that:

Lol, no, I find that idea as silly as the notion of reds under the bed.
To the extent it might have some truth, it is only the surface similarity due to the cross-cutting nature anglo-saxon liberalism, as someone famous once said: reality has a liberal bias.


This argument is incomplete at best since there's a lot of math missing and it makes misleading statements.
1. You may (assuming the math is correct) generate more tax income than now in a generation, but until then you generate less! What do you do until a generation has passed when your infrastructure crumbles?
2. The money you make more in a generation, will have to be spent on rebuilding that crumbled infrastructure for another generation or two.
3. If the infrastructure crumbles, it will hamper economic growth and therefore you may fail to reach your goal of increased tax income.
4. Why should people want economic growth when the economy has mostly been growing for a while now while the number of people who can barely get by with a full time job has been growing? It's nice when the corporations are worth more, but that by itself never fixed the erosion of real wages.
5. In a generation you may generate more tax revenue than the status quo, but the things you have to pay for will also be more expensive due to inflation. You have to show actual calculations to prove that the tax income will grow faster than the cost of services.

You may have noticed that I prefaced that comment as the "extremely brief explanation", no?
Yes, these are theoretical problems. They can be addressed by both policy and public expectation.
There is an implicit acceptance that if you want lower tax (and usually the less restrictive regulation that goes along with it), then you must scale back your expectations of what government will provide.
Dilapidated infrastructure is not uniquely an anglo-saxon economic model problem, germany has a very notable infrastructure problem despite operating a very different economic model.


As for the article you linked:
1. Why is the UK economy so strongly services dominated and why does the article thake that as some kind of unchangeable truth? Perhaps having such a services-dominated economy wasn't the best idea in the first place?
2. Why is it bad that the EU is demanding environmental standards? Does the guy live in the Matrix?
3. "only 36% [of financial service exports] are to the EU": Why only? The sector makes up 12% of your economy and 36% is more than a third: https://www.thecityuk.com/research/key-facts-about-uk-financial-and-related-professional-services-2016/
1. Because we are an advanced western economy that has since thatcher chosen not to prop up uncompetitive industries, and so we shed industries in which we no longer maintained a useful competitive advantage.
2. Because of the regulatory model that the eu prefers to use, which is based on the precautionary principle rather than demonstrable harm. Which is why continentals get all hot and sweaty about GM and fracking, and why it was acceptable to phase out nuclear.
3. Because we do a total of 45% (and falling) of our external trade with the EU EU, and yet even though we are strong services economy only 36% of that total is in Services. Recognition that a single market for services does not really exist, and that services remain heavily protected in countries like germany.

[Furunculus]

And should he answer to Parliament for his links with Russia?

Sure, I'd like him to.
But I don't see how his refusal to do so has any ironic implications for parliamentary sovereignty post-Brexit.
The rules are as they are: he cannot be compelled. That was the same as pre-June16.
Do you accept that your phrasing was misleading?

[Pannonian]

Sure, I'd like him to.
But I don't see how his refusal to do so has any ironic implications for parliamentary sovereignty post-Brexit.
The rules are as they are: he cannot be compelled. That was the same as pre-June16.
Do you accept that your phrasing was misleading?

Not particularly, as I tend to the reflexive suspicion that anything linked with Russian governments won't be good for the UK. Outside inter-state relations that is, which is necessary but which I don't expect to be friendly. If anyone has any dealings with the Russian government or their subsidiaries, eg. RT, then I'd suspect them of carrying out Russia's anti-western policy, as either a useful idiot or worse. And when Banks has access to the millions that he had in the Leave campaign, despite a failing business, then that's pretty major for me. And no, I don't think highly of smaller recipients of Russian money either, like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn.

And as for not being compelled; that's a weaselly way out. If Parliament wants to question you, you go and answer their questions. Full stop. If you want to use legal arguments on that count, you might as well also accept that the June 2016 referendum was advisory only, and the UK constitution does not compel Parliament to enact it. Yet the Commons felt compelled to do so anyway, cf. Corbyn's "will of the people".

[Pannonian]

1. Because we are an advanced western economy that has since thatcher chosen not to prop up uncompetitive industries, and so we shed industries in which we no longer maintained a useful competitive advantage.

Does that include industries where we had a competitive edge, but where a national vote has thrown away that edge and any kind of viability? What do you propose to do with these former workers? Console them with, bad luck mate, but it was the will of the people that you should be laid off, and that's the end of it. Just how many of these do you expect before you concede that the will of the people was a rather bad idea?

[Furunculus]

Not particularly, as I tend to the reflexive suspicion that anything linked with Russian governments won't be good for the UK. Outside inter-state relations that is, which is necessary but which I don't expect to be friendly. If anyone has any dealings with the Russian government or their subsidiaries, eg. RT, then I'd suspect them of carrying out Russia's anti-western policy, as either a useful idiot or worse. And when Banks has access to the millions that he had in the Leave campaign, despite a failing business, then that's pretty major for me. And no, I don't think highly of smaller recipients of Russian money either, like George Galloway and Jeremy Corbyn.

And as for not being compelled; that's a weaselly way out. If Parliament wants to question you, you go and answer their questions. Full stop. If you want to use legal arguments on that count, you might as well also accept that the June 2016 referendum was advisory only, and the UK constitution does not compel Parliament to enact it. Yet the Commons felt compelled to do so anyway, cf. Corbyn's "will of the people".

1. So the fact that of your phrasing of "Leave" implying the designated Leave campaign, was not misleading? When you talk of an unnamed individual (Aaron Banks), who had no connection to the official campaign (Vote Leave).

2. It is not a weasely way out. Yes he should attend. Yes it reflects badly that he chooses not to. No he is not compelled to do so. In this society we still (just about!) maintain the legacy of negative liberty in the english tradition: where you are free to do whatsoever that is not specifically prescribed in law. Rights are principally [against] gov't interference, rather than enabling you to achieve things.

3. Oh, believe me, I entirely take the view that referenda are advisory. Parliament is sovereign. I just equally take the view that Parliament must always beware of the people, fear them even! It is free to do whatever it likes, and in the face of tyranny 'we' are free to turn up in front of parliament with burning brands and a gibbet. Lawful rebellion was removed from statute, but the treaty was never repealed.

[Furunculus]

Does that include industries where we had a competitive edge, but where a national vote has thrown away that edge and any kind of viability? What do you propose to do with these former workers? Console them with, bad luck mate, but it was the will of the people that you should be laid off, and that's the end of it. Just how many of these do you expect before you concede that the will of the people was a rather bad idea?

Sorry, I am right wing: I believe in free-trade, and I believe in the right to trade free of intereference (the quid-pro-quo of which is that I trade without expectation of subsidy).

I supported the removal of subsidy from the coal mines by thatcher. I do not live in [your] world where people are owed a living.

[Husar]

No, specifically, I was referring to you and your refusal to engage with ideas that may bear the taint of 'neoliberalism'.
n.b. which other people might simply brand the anglo-saxon economic model (a cross-cutting but different beast entirely).

I don't like the ideas because their effects are pretty clear. They exaggerate the differences between the poor and the rich. They turn very few people into owners and the rest into debtors/dependents. Or that is what their application has done in the past 40 years.


Lol, no, I find that idea as silly as the notion of reds under the bed.
To the extent it might have some truth, it is only the surface similarity due to the cross-cutting nature anglo-saxon liberalism, as someone famous once said: reality has a liberal bias.

It must feel very liberating to reduce your obligations to the government as a representation of all society and instead become indebted to corporations as a representation of only the rich people who own them.


You may have noticed that I prefaced that comment as the "extremely brief explanation", no?
Yes, these are theoretical problems. They can be addressed by both policy and public expectation.
There is an implicit acceptance that if you want lower tax (and usually the less restrictive regulation that goes along with it), then you must scale back your expectations of what government will provide.
Dilapidated infrastructure is not uniquely an anglo-saxon economic model problem, germany has a very notable infrastructure problem despite operating a very different economic model.

But what is the benefit of getting less for paying less? It's like saying if you want to save on fuel expenses then you need to drive to work less often. But do you really win then?
The major difference I see is that you allow some rich investors to profit off of essential things, which then also become unavailable to those who cannot afford them and got them from the government before. Surely the rich people who used to pay for the services before so that the poor could receive them as well, now only pay for themselves and save money. Or make a profit by owning the corporation that provides the service now. The question is why I should put their benefit over that of others if they were already doing fine under the old model as well?
Besides, the German model is not all that different, our current government keeps talking about not taking up any more debt and Bavaria for example is also hosting corporations at very low tax rates. It's just another flavor of neoliberal tendencies. :shrug:


1. Because we are an advanced western economy that has since thatcher chosen not to prop up uncompetitive industries, and so we shed industries in which we no longer maintained a useful competitive advantage.
2. Because of the regulatory model that the eu prefers to use, which is based on the precautionary principle rather than demonstrable harm. Which is why continentals get all hot and sweaty about GM and fracking, and why it was acceptable to phase out nuclear.
3. Because we do a total of 45% (and falling) of our external trade with the EU EU, and yet even though we are strong services economy only 36% of that total is in Services. Recognition that a single market for services does not really exist, and that services remain heavily protected in countries like germany.

1. What if you end up uncompetitive in all industries? Do you close down your country? Extreme example, but you can also think of a situation where you can only employ 50% of your workforce in competitive industries because those markets don't support more. What do you do with the other 50%? What do you do in the agricultural area once the neoliberal ways of growing food have degraded your soil completely? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/soil-erosion-a-major-threat-to-britains-food-supply-says-government-advisory-group-10353870.html
After all you were talking about long-term benefits.

2. Did you ever hear about the demonstrable gas coming out of the tap in US areas where fracking is used? Or is that not demonstrable enough for you? Your model sounds like you prefer to drive down a cliff over braking when you see it because you can only know that it's harmful on impact...
This is pretty much why our oceans are full of plastic now, why your soil is degrading and why we are likely to run into some other catastrophes. You cannot compare what we do now to the past either because in the past we didn't invent thousands of new things every decade and the scale at which we released them into our environment was vastly different.

3. Your link said 36% of your financial services, not your overall services, are exports. Your financial services sector is 12% of your entire economy, so 36% of that would be roughly 4% of your entire economy, which is still quite significant for an entire country.
How exactly do you mean a single market for services does not exist and whose fault is that? The movie and music industries do not want there to be one for example while the EU is working on a digital single market: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4919_en.htm

[Pannonian]

Sorry, I am right wing: I believe in free-trade, and I believe in the right to trade free of intereference (the quid-pro-quo of which is that I trade without expectation of subsidy).

I supported the removal of subsidy from the coal mines by thatcher. I do not live in [your] world where people are owed a living.

That's where you're contradicting yourself. Frictionless trade is trade with minimal interference. Your Brexit will put a stop to that, and industries based on JIT supply chains won't be able to do so any more. KFC was an example of a business where the JIT supply chain broke down, to the point where they couldn't even give their stuff away for free, and former customers lost confidence and the business lost a large chunk of its value. That lorry driver I linked to describes what a non-frictionless border is like for logistics people like him, and how delays result in losses of thousands of pounds for his clients. And we're talking about a single lorry driver, carrying a single load that was delayed. Things like the car industry are viable solely because of the existence of frictionless trade and JIT supply chains. Nissan has already said that each day's delay due to the unavailability of one component or another results in the loss of millions of pounds. Delays which, according to the first hand expert sources I've cited, are inevitable post-Brexit. These industries don't exist because of subsidies. They don't exist because of interference by the government to support them. But they'll stop existing because you've interfered with their workings.

You may be a right winger, and from what you've said, a radical one at that, fully justifying the label of neoliberal in its fullest sense. While I have socialist sympathies, I'm probably a small scale conservative in its fundamental sense; I want tomorrow to be pretty much like today, so I can plan ahead. I want people to take responsibility for their own decisions and their consequences, and to keep promises they've made. All of that has been the opposite of what Brexit has been doing. Radical change without reference to the promises they made whilst campaigning, and any failure is down to people who never wanted this in the first place.

BTW, I recommend you read Night Watch, by Terry Pratchett. Particularly the bit where Vimes muses on the logistics of keeping the city fed and running, and how people in charge don't tend to think of nuts and bolts, but assume that food and drink magically appears courtesy of servants and the lower classes.

[Pannonian]

Once again, the papers equate anti-Brexit with treason.

[Furunculus]

It must feel very liberating to reduce your obligations to the government as a representation of all society and instead become indebted to corporations as a representation of only the rich people who own them.
+
But what is the benefit of getting less for paying less? It's like saying if you want to save on fuel expenses then you need to drive to work less often. But do you really win then?
[quote]
It's a philosophical thing, putting a ceiling on the power of government, whose capacity for tyranny (and history of doing so) far exceeds any other societal actor.
For someone of the the negative liberty bent it is a fairly normal response.
Remember, I prioritise equality of opportunity, not of outcome. In principle I have no objection to an outcome that has achieved equality, in practice I believe the long march to reach this outcome would prove tyrannical in its imposition on individual liberty.


[QUOTE=Husar;2053778511]1. What if you end up uncompetitive in all industries? Do you close down your country? Extreme example, but you can also think of a situation where you can only employ 50% of your workforce in competitive industries because those markets don't support more. What do you do with the other 50%? What do you do in the agricultural area once the neoliberal ways of growing food have degraded your soil completely? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/soil-erosion-a-major-threat-to-britains-food-supply-says-government-advisory-group-10353870.html
After all you were talking about long-term benefits.

2. Did you ever hear about the demonstrable gas coming out of the tap in US areas where fracking is used? Or is that not demonstrable enough for you? Your model sounds like you prefer to drive down a cliff over braking when you see it because you can only know that it's harmful on impact...
This is pretty much why our oceans are full of plastic now, why your soil is degrading and why we are likely to run into some other catastrophes. You cannot compare what we do now to the past either because in the past we didn't invent thousands of new things every decade and the scale at which we released them into our environment was vastly different.

Sounds dangerously close to the lump of labour fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Remember, I propose nothing revolutionary here; merely normal jogging for Australia, Canada, NZ, US.


3. Your link said 36% of your financial services, not your overall services, are exports. Your financial services sector is 12% of your entire economy, so 36% of that would be roughly 4% of your entire economy, which is still quite significant for an entire country.
How exactly do you mean a single market for services does not exist and whose fault is that? The movie and music industries do not want there to be one for example while the EU is working on a digital single market: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-4919_en.htm

**Warning - neoliberalism**
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/we-cant-complete-eu-single-market-in.html
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/the-single-market-is-difficult-for-services/

[Furunculus]

That's where you're contradicting yourself. Frictionless trade is trade with minimal interference. Your Brexit will put a stop to that, and industries based on JIT supply chains won't be able to do so any more.

You may be a right winger, and from what you've said, a radical one at that, fully justifying the label of neoliberal in its fullest sense. While I have socialist sympathies, I'm probably a small scale conservative in its fundamental sense; I want tomorrow to be pretty much like today, so I can plan ahead.

Inside europe, yes, but lets not pretend that the great (non) tarriff wall is anything other than a giant protectionist racket, built as a lowest common denominator compromise between a collection of largely non-freetrade nations.

"a radical one at that, fully justifying the label of neoliberal in its fullest sense" Lol, really? Truly? I'm happy to see taxed (up to) forty percent of GDP, and outside the requirement that (at least) two percent of gdp goes to defence in support of an activist foriegn policy, I'm completely at ease about what we do with the rest of the cash. Use it for benefits, the nhs, great! How on earth do you justify that statement?

[Husar]

It's a philosophical thing, putting a ceiling on the power of government, whose capacity for tyranny (and history of doing so) far exceeds any other societal actor.
For someone of the the negative liberty bent it is a fairly normal response.
Remember, I prioritise equality of opportunity, not of outcome. In principle I have no objection to an outcome that has achieved equality, in practice I believe the long march to reach this outcome would prove tyrannical in its imposition on individual liberty.

What is the point of this philosophy and why do you espouse it?
Let's take a simple example where the government is almost powerless and you and someone with equal opportunity start a business of the same type. Now they use all the dirty tricks they can to completely ruin you and you literally have to live under a bridge in a cardboard box with your wife and children because the government isn't helping anyone and the other person made you a persona non grata in the entire neighborhood. With debts and no cash you can't even afford to leave the neighborhood because transport is too expensive.
How would you explain to your children that they have to live under a bridge because your philosophical dream has become true but you turned out to be a "loser" despite giving your best to overcome the other guy?

I'm not necessarily for fully equal outcomes either, but I would like to see some sort of maximum disparity with a decent minimum. Living in a cardboard box would be below my minimum.

And why, on earth, do you think taxes equal tyranny? Russia has a 13% flat tax, is it less tyrannical than Norway with its very high taxes?
Tyranny is stopped by other means than reducing all regulation. There can be tyrannical regulation, but regulating businesses and certain other interactions is not per se the road to tyranny, it's what people did on the road to civilization.


Sounds dangerously close to the lump of labour fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Remember, I propose nothing revolutionary here; merely normal jogging for Australia, Canada, NZ, US.

Did you miss the part where the fallacy is criticized for being a bit too simplistic? When I say markets don't support more growth, then that is a reality. You cannot spawn endless new party businesses in my area when I'm already spending all the money I have on the parties that already exist. This is similarly true for larger groups of people. I also don't see how that fallacy would apply to my second point that you quoted.

The whole tax cuts improve the economy thing is also demonstrably false by the way: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/815486495308585/
Can't find the video on youtube, so you'll have to watch it on Facebook I'm afraid, but basically it talks about studies showing that corporations that got tax cuts often reduced their workforce even when other corporations increased theirs. So the link between lower taxes and more growth is nowhere near proven, it's just ideological belief or even malicious claims.


**Warning - neoliberalism**
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/we-cant-complete-eu-single-market-in.html
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/the-single-market-is-difficult-for-services/[/QUOTE]


The APPG proposes a package of changes and at the top of the list is adopting the ‘country of origin’ principle to enable service providers to trade across EU borders under their home country regulation – if necessary, through enhanced cooperation among a group of like-minded EU member states. This is an idea we've been keen on for a while and set out in detail in a report earlier this year.

Wow, nothing could go wrong, like customers getting shafted because they're not aware of the other country's laws and regulations...
But hey, it's neoliberalism, so obviously it's cheering on the idea that businesses can fool customers even better and then blame the customers for not ignoring the advertisement that was carefully crafted by highly paid professionals to activate their basic instincts and walk into the trap. :wall:

And what about that second link? Luxembourg does exactly what your first link proposes. It basically whores out to corporations to offer them a low-tax environment from where they can exploit the rest of EU countries and try to apply lax Luxembourg-rules to citizens of other EU countries with stricter rules. It's one of my biggest criticisms of the EU that this leech-behavior is still allowed.
Malta, Cyprus and Ireland at the very least fall into the same category.

It says absolutely nothing about the impact of losing 4% of your economy. And I'm all for making services more open, provided the same rules apply across the entire EU instead of letting corporations pick the rules while countries compete to lower customer protections.

Overall I'm not sure what your point is because you didn't prove anything I said wrong and also didn't prove how or when Britain will actually gain from Brexit, which was your original point, no? Maybe I missed something somewhere, but arguing for a more open service market does not improve Brexit in any way.

[Furunculus]

"Let's take a simple example where the government is almost powerless and you and someone with equal opportunity start a business of the same type. Now they use all the dirty tricks they can to completely ruin you and you literally have to live under a bridge in a cardboard box with your wife and children..."

Yeah, you just built another straw man, and then knocked it down. Yay for you.

I don't subscribe to a world of zero care, devil take the hindmost dystopia. I'm not sure where you got that impression, at least; i'm unsure how you reached that point from my stated preference for less taxation and regulation.

n.b. that is "less", not "none".

Again, there is nothing radical here; it is something that is normal jogging in Australia, Canada, etc. It is liberal in the classical liberal sense of negative liberty, rather than the positive liberty sense of the collectivist state french (read: continental) liberalism.

[Pannonian]

"Let's take a simple example where the government is almost powerless and you and someone with equal opportunity start a business of the same type. Now they use all the dirty tricks they can to completely ruin you and you literally have to live under a bridge in a cardboard box with your wife and children..."

Yeah, you just built another straw man, and then knocked it down. Yay for you.

I don't subscribe to a world of zero care, devil take the hindmost dystopia. I'm not sure where you got that impression, at least; i'm unsure how you reached that point from my stated preference for less taxation and regulation.

n.b. that is "less", not "none".

Again, there is nothing radical here; it is something that is normal jogging in Australia, Canada, etc. It is liberal in the classical liberal sense of negative liberty, rather than the positive liberty sense of the collectivist state french (read: continental) liberalism.

There is another form of liberalism that the likes of Rees Mogg are opposed to, that is just as historically British as the type you describe. Reformist liberalism, that recognises that society does not only work theoretically, but that it consists of human beings who are not born with equal opportunities, that some are born privileged and will be favoured by laissez faire, and that large sections of society are born underprivileged and will need the state to help even the odds so that they do not fall under a certain level of acceptability, and that society as a whole benefits from the state thus helping the underprivileged. That form of liberalism, represented by David Lloyd George (and his protege Winston Churchill), borders on early C20 British socialism, and that border is where I fall.

[Husar]

Yeah, you just built another straw man, and then knocked it down. Yay for you.

I don't subscribe to a world of zero care, devil take the hindmost dystopia. I'm not sure where you got that impression, at least; i'm unsure how you reached that point from my stated preference for less taxation and regulation.

n.b. that is "less", not "none".

Perhaps you're just too vague, I understood your post as you not wanting any regulation to curb "personal liberty".
You might want to be more precise about what you want and what not.
I didn't go for none, I just assumed that since you don't care much about outcomes over opportunities, you might want to curb the "welfare state" first, hence the government not helping you.

Half the time you're not even really answering my questions so I'm left to guess what you actually try to say. :shrug:
For example, I started that part asking about your exact philosophy. You take down my examplew by saying it does not apply, but you still haven't made very clear what you mean unless the next part is meant to cover all of that.


Again, there is nothing radical here; it is something that is normal jogging in Australia, Canada, etc. It is liberal in the classical liberal sense of negative liberty, rather than the positive liberty sense of the collectivist state french (read: continental) liberalism.

So if that is the explanation, I'm sorry, but I don't get it, perhaps because English is not my first language or perhaps because I thought Australia and Canada were about on the same level of capitalism vs socialism as the UK. The whole positive vs negative liberty is something I never ever hear people say on the continent, all I have is vague memory of you having had a wrong concept about how laws work outside the UK in the past. IIRC it was something about everything being forbidden on the continent that isn't expressly allowed, which would be wrong.

That's the best I can make of this, but I guess I'm wrong again. :shrug:

[Furunculus]

So if that is the explanation, I'm sorry, but I don't get it, perhaps because English is not my first language or perhaps because I thought Australia and Canada were about on the same level of capitalism vs socialism as the UK. The whole positive vs negative liberty is something I never ever hear people say on the continent, all I have is vague memory of you having had a wrong concept about how laws work outside the UK in the past. IIRC it was something about everything being forbidden on the continent that isn't expressly allowed, which would be wrong.

That's the best I can make of this, but I guess I'm wrong again. :shrug:

no, you got it. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

"Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marquis de Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition".[24][25] Hayek also rejected the label laissez-faire as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume and Smith.

Guido De Ruggiero also identified differences between "Montesquieu and Rousseau, the English and the democratic types of liberalism"[26] and argued that there was a "profound contrast between the two Liberal systems".[27] He claimed that the spirit of "authentic English Liberalism" had "built up its work piece by piece without ever destroying what had once been built, but basing upon it every new departure". This liberalism had "insensibly adapted ancient institutions to modern needs" and "instinctively recoiled from all abstract proclamations of principles and rights".[27] Ruggiero claimed that this liberalism was challenged by what he called the "new Liberalism of France" that was characterised by egalitarianism and a "rationalistic consciousness".[28]"

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=21699

[Pannonian]

So would you admit Lloyd George and Churchill to be genuine British liberals, or are they too continental for your taste?

[Husar]

no, you got it. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

"Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the "British tradition" and the "French tradition". Hayek saw the British philosophers Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood. The French tradition included Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Marquis de Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats. This tradition believed in rationalism and sometimes showed hostility to tradition and religion. Hayek conceded that the national labels did not exactly correspond to those belonging to each tradition: Hayek saw the Frenchmen Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville as belonging to the "British tradition" and the British Thomas Hobbes, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Paine as belonging to the "French tradition".[24][25] Hayek also rejected the label laissez-faire as originating from the French tradition and alien to the beliefs of Hume and Smith.

Guido De Ruggiero also identified differences between "Montesquieu and Rousseau, the English and the democratic types of liberalism"[26] and argued that there was a "profound contrast between the two Liberal systems".[27] He claimed that the spirit of "authentic English Liberalism" had "built up its work piece by piece without ever destroying what had once been built, but basing upon it every new departure". This liberalism had "insensibly adapted ancient institutions to modern needs" and "instinctively recoiled from all abstract proclamations of principles and rights".[27] Ruggiero claimed that this liberalism was challenged by what he called the "new Liberalism of France" that was characterised by egalitarianism and a "rationalistic consciousness".[28]"

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=21699

You're still confusing me. You called my example from earlier a strawman because it is not what you want. It is something that probably could happen to you in Chile. Chile is a country that follows the Hayek/Friedman principle that was set up by people who were directly educated about it by Friedman in the US, the "Chicago Boys", and they did it under a dictatorship, funnily enough... So here you're quoting Hayek and other people espousing these ideas, but when I talk about the downsides of their relatively pure implementation as seen in Chile, you keep calling it a strawman and say it's not what you want.

Perhaps you want to explain to me what is so great about Chile and its relatively pure implementation of the economics you're advertising here?
Or perhaps it's just that Australia and Canada don't quite follow the ideology you think you want as much as I assume you want it? Do you even want it fully implemented or just to a certain degree? Please enlighten me.
What do you like about it and what not?

[Pannonian]

You're still confusing me. You called my example from earlier a strawman because it is not what you want. It is something that probably could happen to you in Chile. Chile is a country that follows the Hayek/Friedman principle that was set up by people who were directly educated about it by Friedman in the US, the "Chicago Boys", and they did it under a dictatorship, funnily enough... So here you're quoting Hayek and other people espousing these ideas, but when I talk about the downsides of their relatively pure implementation as seen in Chile, you keep calling it a strawman and say it's not what you want.

Perhaps you want to explain to me what is so great about Chile and its relatively pure implementation of the economics you're advertising here?
Or perhaps it's just that Australia and Canada don't quite follow the ideology you think you want as much as I assume you want it? Do you even want it fully implemented or just to a certain degree? Please enlighten me.
What do you like about it and what not?

You won't be able to speak from experience as you're from the German education system, but I can tell you that the pure market liberalism Furunculus talks about is as alien to your average Englishman as the dialectic materialism of Marx and Engels. In the British education system, it's pure Whig up to the end of compulsory education, at which point progressive liberalism takes over, which approaches society from the opposite pole from which Furunculus argues. Pure market liberalism as Furunculus argues it is the realm of the privileged elite, who are the only ones to benefit from it. It only gains traction from its association with patriotism, or more accurately, its opponents' utter lack of it.

[Furunculus]

stuff

your being given philosophical context, not a practical implementation to aspire to.

pannonian above is not quite right, i'd suggest, noting instead that the British education system is pure progressiveism up to the end of compulsory education, something which can just about be labelled 'liberalism' but in fact bears little relationship to classical liberalism of the negative liberty type.

despite this, it cannot be said that britain as a whole has ever attained an acceptance of socialism, with our left wing movement rooted in the labour movement instead. nor too can it be said that we have achieved the level of enthusiam for collective social action and positive liberty as found in france etc.

the explanation of the difference between british and french liberalism being a good primer here.

[Husar]

your being given philosophical context, not a practical implementation to aspire to.

So after I told you why your tax cuts plan is a bad idea, the only answer you have is "but according to my ideology here, it's a good idea!"?
That's it?

[Furunculus]

So after I told you why your tax cuts plan is a bad idea, the only answer you have is "but according to my ideology here, it's a good idea!"?
That's it?

That pretty little voice-over'ed infographic is *one* view, here is another:

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tax-and-Growth-PDF.pdf

Here is a nice chewy extract, that wouldn't easily be put into some chirpy narration for a web-video:


The size of government: maximising growth and welfare

Given the macro- and microeconomic effects of government spending and taxation on growth and welfare, as well as the fact that the provision of certain public goods can be regarded as welfare enhancing, it is reasonable to ask whether there are ‘growth-maximising’ or ‘welfare-maximising’ levels of government expenditure. There is a third statistic of interest, which is the revenue-maximising level of taxation and spending – if the government is spending beyond this level, it means that a reduction in tax rates will increase growth sufficiently that tax revenues will increase. A government spending beyond this level is totally destructive of economic welfare. Clearly, there are growth and welfare maximising levels of government spending in theory, but, in practice, it is much more difficult to identify those levels. Indeed, the growth-maximising and welfare-maximising levels of government spending will depend on a number of time- and context-specific factors (for example, how mobile labour and capital are – if they are more mobile, tax is more likely to be damaging to growth; how efficiently government provides services; and the shape of the tax system).
Despite the practical difficulties, we can make some generalisations and, during this debate, certain rules of thumb – that were based on older national accounts definitions, however – have tended to become accepted by people who have worked in this area (Smith 2006). These included:

• The growth-maximising share of government spending in
GDP was some 20–25 per cent of GDP. This was based on the
fact that ratios in this range were typical of the fast growing
South East Asian ‘Tiger’ economies, countries such as Japan
and Korea in their high growth phases, and even Australia,
Canada and Spain in the 1950s.
This indicative range should
probably be revised down to some 18.5–23.5 per cent, using
current (June 2016) UK definitions.

• The welfare-maximising share of government spending
in GDP was less than some 30–35 per cent of GDP. This
conclusion was based on the work of Tanzi and Schuknecht
(2000) and Tanzi (2008), who examined the effects of state
spending on a range of objective measures of human
wellbeing. They concluded that there was no sign of
improved outcomes for welfare measures once spending had
exceeded these limits. Subsequent methodological changes

• The upper limit on taxable capacity was around 38 per
cent, implying that the public finances eventually became
unsustainable if general government expenditure was
allowed to increase much beyond 40 per cent of GDP. (8)
On current definitions, the upper limit on taxable capacity
in Britain seems to be around 37.5 per cent of factor-cost
GDP (Figure 1), or 33 per cent on the market-price measure,
suggesting that spending only becomes sustainable when it
falls into the 37–38 per cent range.

The ratios calculated using the factor-cost measure of national income would be higher. However, it is not difficult to convert from one basis to another, using the GDP figures in Table 4. It is also worth noting that Mr osborne’s March 2016 Budget target that government spending should be down to 37.2 per cent of market-price GDP by 2020/21 looks at the upper margin of what is reasonable if the aim is long-term fiscal sustainability, but not, of course, if the aim is welfare maximisation. Certainly, there seems little scope for the new Chancellor, Mr Hammond, to relax his predecessor’s spending targets

[Pannonian]

your being given philosophical context, not a practical implementation to aspire to.

pannonian above is not quite right, i'd suggest, noting instead that the British education system is pure progressiveism up to the end of compulsory education, something which can just about be labelled 'liberalism' but in fact bears little relationship to classical liberalism of the negative liberty type.

despite this, it cannot be said that britain as a whole has ever attained an acceptance of socialism, with our left wing movement rooted in the labour movement instead. nor too can it be said that we have achieved the level of enthusiam for collective social action and positive liberty as found in france etc.

the explanation of the difference between british and french liberalism being a good primer here.

British progressivism, of the sort touted by the majority of the British people, is rooted in the idea that the unregulated Victorian past was a Bad Thing, and reforms to bring us to the modern Britain we live in were a Good Thing. Thus one of the most lasting electoral principles is Better Services. During the referendum campaign, this meshed with patriotic arguments, framed as anti-Europeanism, into the infamous pledge: "We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead." Few people tout the free market liberalism that you proclaim to be uniquely British. Most hark back instead to the single society of WW2, which ironically was the most regulated Britain has ever been, or they look to the reformist liberalism of Lloyd George, Asquith and Churchill, which reached its apogee with Attlee's Welfare State.

Present the average Briton with two viewpoints, ostensibly describing the same thing, but with polar opposite approaches. Firstly, that the free market is a necessity for an economy fit to provide society with better services. Secondly, that services are a necessity that bolsters the free market. Both describe a balance between the market and the state. The first looks to strengthen the state wherever possible. The second looks to reduce the state wherever possible. The difference is why anyone describing Blair as a neoliberal is talking balls.

And BTW, compulsory history education in Britain is pure Whig, typified by 1066 and All That.

[Montmorency]

Authoritarian liberalism ~ neoliberalism is not about reducing the state, it is about redirecting it into security operations (internal and external) to support horizontally-integrated elite market actors. Let's face it, the Western leaders of the post-Cold War period were infatuated with austerity (which was only continued from, not begun with, 2008) and extremely short-sighted.

Nice article on the "Supermanagerial Reich (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-supermanagerial-reich/)".

Clickbait title: Neoliberalism is Fascism
Accurate title: The Structures of Governance in Nazi Fascism and Contemporary Authoritarian Liberalism are Convergent

Synopsis:

Third Reich was not Hobbes' leviathan but behemoth, with diffuse sovereignty centered on conservative, military, and business (managerial) elites running heir own fiefdoms with minimal bureaucratic oversight or regulation. Not really such centralized or totalitarian state, especially in early years.
-Cromwell and Long Parliament-

MY THOUGHT: fascism could be called modernist managerial feudalism

In neoliberal era, according to Picketty a stunning devpt: the growth of returns on wages for supermanagerial elite (0.1%) has outpaced that of capital income. Can be explained as rent seeking mechanism toward supranational governance of elites similar to like in legacy fascism.

Almost all wealth of so-called "new rich" in salary and financial earnings of managerial and executive positions (transnational elite), not like the old aristocratic inheritances. Public-private revolving door just like in Nazi Germany.


The most plausible explanation is that supermanagers are paid for governance where the state has been redeployed elsewhere or, even, effectively dissolved. One could think of this as a peculiar kind of rent extraction for the ability to shift seamlessly at the boundaries of these sectors — from one board, to another, from a corporation, to a foundation, to a university, to government, to a think tank and back again.

Nazis pioneered reprivatization, reprivatized many public functions and industries, encouraged influence through political/insider connections and monopolization, consolidation, concentration - just like in our era.

Police (national security?) empowered under nazis as today:

"The general “task” presumed to have been given to the police in the Nazi state — that of safeguarding the state and regime against any disturbance — implies the supremacy of any of its actions (whether in the form of decree, directive, internal instruction, or pure action) over any existing law […] Thus, the police becomes “a function whose activities are determined solely through what is politically necessary […] This means that the police as such can do whatever it deems necessary, without being restrained by legal authorities" [...] This is the necessary “on the ground” counterpart — learned well from colonization abroad — to supermanagerial control of the endlessly complex, newly “marketized” governance apparati, public-private initiatives, and the labyrinthine overlapping jurisdictions between sectors in the neoliberal state.

But fascism and neoliberalism have many crucial differences:

Both fascism and neoliberalism are utopian political projects with different ends, overlapping means and similar causes. The raison d’être of Nazism, for example, was the colonization of Eastern Europe, the internal purge of Jews, homosexuals, the disabled, and other “undesirables,” and the defeat of communism and the left writ large. All of the parties committed to establishing and maintaining the regime were extremely excited at the prospect of the first and the third of these goals, and at least indifferent (but frankly often enthusiastic) about the second. Colonization would be good for business, restorative to the military, and provide Hitler his much-desired Lebensraum for “racial health” and prosperity of the Aryan-German people.

The raison d’être of neoliberalism, however, is to extend market relations and principles to every facet of society, from “the economy” itself to the state all the way down to redefining basic understandings of the human being. Citizens become consumers; humanity becomes “human capital,” people become amorphous, reinventing, endlessly flexible, resilient, risk-taking individuals. Even beyond the human, there are cellular processes, algorithms, and chemical compounds rife for market optimization. Neoliberalism — far more than 1930s-era fascism (although this does appear to be changing with the new and alt-right) — is also a transnational and evangelical project. Instead of only the reliance on brute force that characterized fascist expansion in both its plans and practice, neoliberalism also employs interlocking international regulatory, banking, and trade organizations. Neoliberalism (a term nowadays nearly always disavowed) is confusingly nested in layered combinations of treaty obligations, memberships, and, above all, the private power of capital and finance — as in the European Union. Despite its propaganda, it doesn’t actually seek state annihilation or even the formal end of parliamentary procedure that we saw in Nazism. Rather, it captures and transforms the state, such that its sovereignty is reduced and its power rescinded in some areas (for example, in the retraction of business and finance regulation, even in its ability to collect taxes), but radically expanded in others, regulating labor organization, setting up particular patent processes that can only be maneuvered by a few key corporations, requiring citizens to partake in private economic activity, and even, as a much more basic level, the ever-increasing direct and restrictive governance of the individual.

MY THOUGHT: Author says that fascism has necessary racial and ideological component, while neoliberalism relies on "elite cosmopolitanism with racialized power" necessary for policing and international intervention, but portrays its racism as ostensibly incidental. But fascism usually (Italy, Spain, Putin's Russia) is the same way, not like Nazism (itself often incoherent and fluid), though in fascism racial hierarchies may be more explicit than otherwise.

Imposing "free" trade favors & facilitates concentrated capital/business power. But nazis only cared for capitalism inasmuch as it promotes hierarchy, the nation, and can be bent toward self-sufficiency. Neoliberalism demands perpetual pervasion of capitalism per se.

Tension between democracy and liberal capitalism: democracy > broad base > at least some redistribution and democratization of property. On the fascist side, "Hitler declared that “democracy” (i.e., actual parliamentary control) was fundamentally incompatible with a free-market capitalist economy [...] Göring concluded: “the sacrifices asked for […] would be so much easier for industry to bear if it realized that the election of March 5th will surely be the last one for the next 10 years, probably even for the next 100 years.”" But fascistic ideology was premised at least rhetorically on core democratic fundamentals that allegedly represented the true will of the nation through the leader. The govt sponsored popular mass action, organization, rallies, and "affinity groups" (e.g. Hitler youth, strength through joy). For its part, neoliberalism reacts to

reshape and redeploy government functions and services through “marketization” and hybridizing, and to ***refashion the entire concept of politics itself as yet another market.***" (via homo economicus rationality) "Reducing “democracy” to its most transactional structure — votes exchanged for services rendered, the formal motions of a liberal republican state for at least a plurality of citizens — neoliberalism achieves a feat that the great revolutionary and reactionary movements of the 19th and 20th century never achieved: unique among critiques of parliamentarianism, neoliberalism discourages participation without undermining legitimacy.


"One of the key differences between neoliberalism and fascism is that, more and more neoliberalism relies not on a claim to democratic legitimacy but on a kind of “naturalism”; “there is no alternative,” Margaret Thatcher famously quipped."

Neolib maintains perfunctory nods to formal indicators or metonymy of democratic process. But neoliberalism disprefers popular participation of any kind, except in terms of atomized market relation of individual workers - not even for war (c.f. Mutually insulated military and pop, professionalized volunteer mitary). Neolib prefers a mass state of anxiety and insecurity, bent toward maximizing market efficiency or productivity.


Just as with the Nazi decimation of the formal state, the neoliberal “restructuring” of the state requires the large scale, expansive and expensive rule of supermanagers. The dismantling of democratic oversight and control, for example, although often framed as “efficiency,” inevitably creates either more bureaucracy or more arcane structures.

Neoliberalism suffers from internal crises, and from its exacerbation and inability to grapple with the ecological meta crisis. Neofascism and ethnomationalism are also seeing revivals and new articulation a the world over.


If colonization and eradication were the promises that Nazism would not break — even to its dying minutes — a devotion to solutions found only in the market is the line that neoliberalism cannot cross. Its intellectual and institutional structures are built precisely to prevent the kind of widespread prosperity that was seen by the late ’60s, near full employment in particular.


In 1939, Max Horkheimer famously wrote, “whoever is not prepared to talk about capitalism should also remain silent about fascism" [...] Anyone who takes seriously the threat of the newly empowered reactionary right, must take seriously the role neoliberalism has played in laying out the red carpet for its arrival. Instead of handwringing over liberal dead letters, we must come to terms with the fact that we have already been living in a form of deeply destructive authoritarian liberalism for nearly four decades now.

KEY WORD: AUTHORITARIAN LIBERALISM


Like mid-1930s Germans, too many are quite simply comfortable with the rolling slow-motion horror that has been neoliberalism. They view the Trumps and the Le Pens and the Erdogans, and so forth as a new crisis, a sudden shock to the system.
People fear Trump because he would increase state repression and punitive incarceration, the police state and deportation and immigrant harassment, surveillance state, persecution of Muslims on mass scale, and economic enervation. ***But neoliberal rule has already given us all that.***


While their economic nationalisms are doomed and their ethno-nationalisms are abhorrent, the Trumps, Le Pens, and Farages are correct that the “established order” is not delivering for the vast majority of people. Furthermore, people do not simply feel more and more disenfranchised, they quite simply are.

***

If there is going to be a politics that overcomes the new fascist threat, it must address the fact that the crisis is not now, the crisis has already been for some time. By focusing only on the threat of our homegrown Hitler caricature we have failed to notice the facts right in front of our faces: the uniquely parallel structures, the same winners, the similar losers, the crimes, the human degradation. We are already living in our very own, cruel 21st-century Supermanagerial Reich.
***

In the end it seems the trouble is a more historically-recurrent one of failing to take into consideration sufficient stakeholders. You can't recursively concentrate wealth and power in fewer hands forever (https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10921.html), it always leads to unrest among the unrepresented.

Funnily enough, our society mirrors the stagnation of the Soviet Union. Governments have made decisions to deliver us a certain standard of living, but this standard of living is much too low and alienating (really declining) and its unsuitability for most people cannot be assuaged entirely with increasing state repression and pervasive warmaking.

The Soviet Union collapsed in the wake of popular unrest, of course. Their government acknowledged the outcome and made the decision not to escalate with violence...

[Furunculus]

very interesting, but where does this fit into the debate where it is now, or even the broader terms of the topic at large?

[Pannonian]

very interesting, but where does this fit into the debate where it is now, or even the broader terms of the topic at large?

The British people do not want to deregulate in order to move even more wealth into the hands of the few. Your argument in favour of these principles is wrong, and your argument that this is distinctively British is even more wrong. The British people want wealth to move in the other direction, if not in terms of ready money, then certainly in terms of Better Services. As shown in the belief of the Brexit Dividend, and More Funds for the NHS.

"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."

Fulfil this pledge, and I'll have no arguments with Brexit, for they'll have owned up to their promises and kept them.

[Furunculus]

The British people do not want to deregulate in order to move even more wealth into the hands of the few. Your argument in favour of these principles is wrong, and your argument that this is distinctively British is even more wrong. The British people want wealth to move in the other direction, if not in terms of ready money, then certainly in terms of Better Services. As shown in the belief of the Brexit Dividend, and More Funds for the NHS.

"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."

Fulfil this pledge, and I'll have no arguments with Brexit, for they'll have owned up to their promises and kept them.

That is *a* view, but I've seen nothing to convince me that we harbour the same collectivist ambition that permits taxation approaching half of gdp, or that we desire to regulate the freedom to do socially 'bad' things to the same extent.

P. S. are we not now spending 350m on the NHS now?

[Montmorency]

That is *a* view, but I've seen nothing to convince me that we harbour the same collectivist ambition that permits taxation approaching half of gdp, or that we desire to regulate the freedom to do socially 'bad' things to the same extent.

P. S. are we not now spending 350m on the NHS now?

Isn't that a framing issue?

Most people don't think or care in terms of GDP-proportionate spending, and those who do usually do so from a status-quo bias.

On the other hand, if you get down to it, you might find that people favor a social contract framed in terms of caring for and investing in one another as the overarching principle.

[Pannonian]

That is *a* view, but I've seen nothing to convince me that we harbour the same collectivist ambition that permits taxation approaching half of gdp, or that we desire to regulate the freedom to do socially 'bad' things to the same extent.

P. S. are we not now spending 350m on the NHS now?

Are you deliberately miscontruing the pledge? The promise was to spend the money that was previously sent to the EU, ie. the 350 million per week that was previously spent on EU dues should be added to the NHS budget. Not 350 million per week to be the budget. And not raise taxes in order to claim that this is the Brexit dividend. Same level of taxation, 350 million per week extra for the NHS.

"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."

The above was from the official Leave campaign, with Boris Johnson (currently a cabinet minister) among others campaigning in front of it.

[Pannonian]

Isn't that a framing issue?

Most people don't think or care in terms of GDP-proportionate spending, and those who do usually do so from a status-quo bias.

On the other hand, if you get down to it, you might find that people favor a social contract framed in terms of caring for and investing in one another as the overarching principle.

Or less abstractly, people want Better Services.

[Montmorency]

Are you deliberately miscontruing the pledge? The promise was to spend the money that was previously sent to the EU, ie. the 350 million per week that was previously spent on EU dues should be added to the NHS budget. Not 350 million per week to be the budget. And not raise taxes in order to claim that this is the Brexit dividend. Same level of taxation, 350 million per week extra for the NHS.

"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."

The above was from the official Leave campaign, with Boris Johnson (currently a cabinet minister) among others campaigning in front of it.

He's already said he's never going to feel pinned about this, because he's not aligned with the mainstream Brexit promoters and only considers himself a fellow traveler. Find another angle if you intend to discomfit him.


Or less abstractly, people want Better Services.

I worded it that way because I think a large majority of people in most countries would agree with that articulation. The one catch is that people differ on the particulars, the exceptions, exemptions, limitations, concerns...

As for "Better Services": like basically every country in Europe, Sweden has been continually cutting both taxes and services for decades. In 2014 (https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/sweden-without-illusions/),


According to polls, 90% of the Swedish population wants to get rid of venture capitalists in the public sector and 80% would agree to pay higher taxes if welfare levels are increased. The support for the welfare state is still intact and has even risen slightly during the last decades.

However, both the major social democratic and conservative party have agreed that there will not be tax hikes under any circumstances, only cuts.

I don't know what the popular support for More Taxes = More Services might be in Sweden today, but clearly the far-right option of the Swedish Democrats has taken advantage of the situation by being pro-ethnonationalist and pro-welfare. That means dudes like Kadagar.

The Swedish general election is coming this September, and the Social Democrats are are neck-and-neck for the lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2018) with mainsteam parties...


So @Furunc, the syllogism is clear: a vote for tax cuts and pro-market is a vote for fascist renewal in Europe.

[Husar]

That pretty little voice-over'ed infographic is *one* view, here is another:

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tax-and-Growth-PDF.pdf

Here is a nice chewy extract, that wouldn't easily be put into some chirpy narration for a web-video:

Just because I know you will hate me for saying that: The IAE spawned the aforementioned Atlas Foundation...
And it shows everywhere in the language that their concerns are purely monetary, like when they say investment in education is only viable when a reduction in taxation does not lead to stronger economic growth...
One could also ask whether growing the economy is really the only goal a country should have?

The part you quote only repeats what you said, I cannot find the part where they show when the taxes catch up after a tax cut and calculate that against inflation and the "damages" done in the meantime to show how long it takes for the benefits of a tax cut to actually be noticeable in terms of higher tax revenue.

And what does this mean?

Looking at the expenditure side, Table 15 reveals that only
10.4 per cent of government expenditure is accounted for by the
two ‘primary’ government functions of external defence and the
maintenance of law and order. Even adding in debt interest only
brings that total to 15.5 per cent of government spending or 7 per
cent of factor-cost GDP. This contrasts with the three big items
of social protection (14.1 per cent of factor-cost GDP), health
(8.5 per cent) and education (6 per cent).

Are they implying the latter items are less important than the "primary" ones?

I may look further into it later, but I don't have the time to read all of it unless I'm willing to seriously tax my own economic growth so to say...

[Pannonian]

He's already said he's never going to feel pinned about this, because he's not aligned with the mainstream Brexit promoters and only considers himself a fellow traveler. Find another angle if you intend to discomfit him.


He was trying to argue that his free market liberalism was somehow distinctively British, unlike the alien continental mindset of looking to bolster society. I pointed out that reformist liberalism was the mainstream British political worldview, which is some way towards social democracy on the social scale, and that his free market liberalism is as alien to the British mainstream as dialectic materialism. As a marker of that, I pointed him to the most well known pledge of the Leave campaign, and stated that, if they can fulfil this pledge, I'd have no problem with Brexit, as they'd be keeping their promises after winning the vote.

[Montmorency]

He was trying to argue that his free market liberalism was somehow distinctively British, unlike the alien continental mindset of looking to bolster society. I pointed out that reformist liberalism was the mainstream British political worldview, which is some way towards social democracy on the social scale, and that his free market liberalism is as alien to the British mainstream as dialectic materialism. As a marker of that, I pointed him to the most well known pledge of the Leave campaign, and stated that, if they can fulfil this pledge, I'd have no problem with Brexit, as they'd be keeping their promises after winning the vote.

OK, but regarding your satisfaction with Brexit...

You aver that you want tomorrow to be like today insofar as you can plan ahead. How would 350 million pounds more NHS funding relative to something or other satisfy that priority (and funding is funding for the government's purposes, you don't receive a treasure chest of gems that could then be directed to a different account receivable, so '350 million pounds more NHS funding" is just what the Brexit blandishment means in practice)? Could you really set aside wider economic and political concerns surrounding Brexit, concerns you've been consistent with for years, for this low, low, price in NHS spending? Does the government's current (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/18/theresa-may-ready-ditch-tax-pledges-pay-nhs-funding-plans) policy agenda accomplish this rather modest boost to the NHS?

Doesn't seem coherent on those terms. Without further ragging, I think you were just trying to advance the position that you would be more supportive of Brexit if you considered Team Brexit to be trustworthy - is that fair?

[Pannonian]

OK, but regarding your satisfaction with Brexit...

You aver that you want tomorrow to be like today insofar as you can plan ahead. How would 350 million pounds more NHS funding relative to something or other satisfy that priority (and funding is funding for the government's purposes, you don't receive a treasure chest of gems that could then be directed to a different account receivable, so '350 million pounds more NHS funding" is just what the Brexit blandishment means in practice)? Could you really set aside wider economic and political concerns surrounding Brexit, concerns you've been consistent with for years, for this low, low, price in NHS spending? Does the government's current (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/18/theresa-may-ready-ditch-tax-pledges-pay-nhs-funding-plans) policy agenda accomplish this rather modest boost to the NHS?

Doesn't seem coherent on those terms. Without further ragging, I think you were just trying to advance the position that you would be more supportive of Brexit if you considered Team Brexit to be trustworthy - is that fair?

If they can add 350 million pw to the NHS's funds without increasing taxes, wouldn't that mean that the economic argument works out? FWIW, May has said that the NHS will indeed be seeing such an increase in funding. But the talk is that taxes will be raised to pay for it. Which begs the question of Brexiteers, what happened to the 350 million pw that we used to send to the EU, if any increases to the NHS's funding has to come from additional taxes.

[Furunculus]

[delete]

[Furunculus]

Are you deliberately miscontruing the pledge? The promise was to spend the money that was previously sent to the EU, ie. the 350 million per week that was previously spent on EU dues should be added to the NHS budget. Not 350 million per week to be the budget. And not raise taxes in order to claim that this is the Brexit dividend. Same level of taxation, 350 million per week extra for the NHS.

"We send 350 million per week to the EU. Let's spend it on the NHS instead."

The above was from the official Leave campaign, with Boris Johnson (currently a cabinet minister) among others campaigning in front of it.

rofl, what do we really care about here? whether [our] beloved NHS gets the funds it so deservedly needs, or, how we came by them?

besides, am I really hearing this right; a labour person compliaining about raising taxation (a moral necessity) to pay for the great secular holy of holies (the NHS)?

:D

[Furunculus]

Isn't that a framing issue?

Most people don't think or care in terms of GDP-proportionate spending, and those who do usually do so from a status-quo bias.

On the other hand, if you get down to it, you might find that people favor a social contract framed in terms of caring for and investing in one another as the overarching principle.

no more than anyone else 'frames' the issue around what we want our gov't to do.
"how will we support [our] NHS?"



So @Furunc, the syllogism is clear: a vote for tax cuts and pro-market is a vote for fascist renewal in Europe.

In europe?


Just because I know you will hate me for saying that: The IAE spawned the aforementioned Atlas Foundation...

One could also ask whether growing the economy is really the only goal a country should have?


Never hate, Husar, just amusement.

Yes indeed, the possibility exists for fundamentally different social compacts built around the collective expectations of those who constitute society. Clearly, some have gone further than others in sacrificing their individual (negative) liberty to build their collective (positive) liberty. It is a valid choice - who could argue otherwise - but it is not the only 'valid' choice.

[Pannonian]

rofl, what do we really care about here? whether [our] beloved NHS gets the funds it so deservedly needs, or, how we came by them?

besides, am I really hearing this right; a labour person compliaining about raising taxation (a moral necessity) to pay for the great secular holy of holies (the NHS)?

:D

I'd like the Brexiteers to keep their promises. Do you think Leave should keep its promises?

[Furunculus]

I'd like the Brexiteers to keep their promises. Do you think Leave should keep its promises?

To the best of their ability, yes.
Might be better to suggest they not make promises they cannot reasonably keep, because it is not within their gift to do so.
but that applies to both sides.

[Montmorency]

If they can add 350 million pw to the NHS's funds without increasing taxes, wouldn't that mean that the economic argument works out? FWIW, May has said that the NHS will indeed be seeing such an increase in funding. But the talk is that taxes will be raised to pay for it. Which begs the question of Brexiteers, what happened to the 350 million pw that we used to send to the EU, if any increases to the NHS's funding has to come from additional taxes.

OK, but government expenditures at the order of 350 million is a tiny fluctuation that could come from anywhere, from an active decision to sell a few bonds for that single purpose to a quasi-random change in balances due to population change, changes in usage or consumption, or short-term rebalanced revenue collection, which in turn could knock on from miniscule changes in the world economy. Hard to identify a single explanatory variable like "Brexit".

Does that really compensate for what you revealed is disrupting JIT logistics and business stability, unavoidable border friction at Dover and other ports of entry, losing place in the EU deliberative process? It's hard to reconcile with your attitudes in this thread.


In europe?


Well, you are in Europe and this is a thread about Europe. I think it also proves likely to apply throughout the world.

Oh, and good point to recall that the "West" still sets an example to the rest of the world, and Western economics drive politics elsewhere (and between each other) - can't forget the relational factor, countries are not fixed unitary actors. Internal policy is not the only story.

Chain shift!

[Furunculus]

Ah, in that case:

I don't accept that a vote for tax cuts and pro-market is a vote for fascist renewal in the UK. I'm not qualified to comment on Europe as a whole, not least because it constitutes dozens of separate nations each with their own political history.

[Pannonian]

OK, but government expenditures at the order of 350 million is a tiny fluctuation that could come from anywhere, from an active decision to sell a few bonds for that single purpose to a quasi-random change in balances due to population change, changes in usage or consumption, or short-term rebalanced revenue collection, which in turn could knock on from miniscule changes in the world economy. Hard to identify a single explanatory variable like "Brexit".

Does that really compensate for what you revealed is disrupting JIT logistics and business stability, unavoidable border friction at Dover and other ports of entry, losing place in the EU deliberative process? It's hard to reconcile with your attitudes in this thread.


Experts in the fields (areas supposedly benefiting from the "Brexit dividend") have already demolished May's claims of how the increases will be funded (within hours of her announcements), so it doesn't seem that hard to add things up and compare the numbers. If you want to buy something from me, does it really matter how you pay for it? But if you want to buy something from me, but preface that with rummaging around in my till, it doesn't take much to put two and two together to work out where you found the money from.


To the best of their ability, yes.
Might be better to suggest they not make promises they cannot reasonably keep, because it is not within their gift to do so.
but that applies to both sides.

If they can't keep their main promises, but try to do what they promised they wouldn't do (get a worse deal than Norway, which was Leave's assured model of Brexit), then what kind of mandate do they still have?

[Furunculus]

Are you.... Putting words in their mouth?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Might be better to suggest they not make promises they cannot reasonably keep, because it is not within their gift to do so....

If this standard were rigorously applied, all governance would cease. Our politicians simply could not function under such a crushing limitation.

[Pannonian]

If this standard were rigorously applied, all governance would cease. Our politicians simply could not function under such a crushing limitation.

Given the Tory government went to the polls with the aim of strengthening their position, and lost the slim majority that they had, it wouldn't be stretching the argument to say that the mandate for a radical free market Brexit, aka hard Brexit, is not there. It would even be the mathematical truth if the anti-hardBrxiteers and the opposition can drum up more MPs than the hardBrexiteers. OTOH, PM May is saying that Parliament should not obstruct the government in its work. I'm not sure where she thinks her government gets its legitimacy and authority from though.

[Furunculus]

I do think you have a point here, re: the mandate for the free marketeer brexit. But it certainly wasn't a clear rejection either. Mixed message all round.

[Beskar]

I had a shower moment. Instead of hard or soft Brexit. We are aiming for Schrodinger's Brexit.
A state we are both simultaneous inside and outside the European Union, with the answer depending on who is asking. The issue is, hopefully no one will try to open the box to actually reveal the reality of the situation.

[Pannonian]

Airbus have said that it will be planning for a no-deal Brexit given the current uncertainty, and in such a situation will leave the UK. The supply chain is cited. Airbus directly employs 14,000 in the UK, with over 100,000 supported.

How many of these will it take before Brexiteers admit Brexit is a bad idea?

[Fragony]

I had a shower moment. Instead of hard or soft Brexit. We are aiming for Schrodinger's Brexit.
A state we are both simultaneous inside and outside the European Union, with the answer depending on who is asking. The issue is, hopefully no one will try to open the box to actually reveal the reality of the situation.

A shower moment, what's that, do know the bath-moment, shower-moment would be everything gliding off

[Husar]

Airbus have said that it will be planning for a no-deal Brexit given the current uncertainty, and in such a situation will leave the UK. The supply chain is cited. Airbus directly employs 14,000 in the UK, with over 100,000 supported.

How many of these will it take before Brexiteers admit Brexit is a bad idea?

They will all get hired by BAE Systems to sell more bombers to Turkey and China.

It's the democratic way.

[Furunculus]

Airbus have said that it will be planning for a no-deal Brexit given the current uncertainty, and in such a situation will leave the UK. The supply chain is cited. Airbus directly employs 14,000 in the UK, with over 100,000 supported.

How many of these will it take before Brexiteers admit Brexit is a bad idea?

Will you forgive me if I say this comes across as very Chicken Little?

If we want independent self government then we can damn well have it. :)

p.s. an interesting speech on the vision to pursue for brexit:

https://brexitcentral.com/vision-global-facing-outward-looking-post-brexit-britain/

[Beskar]

A shower moment, what's that, do know the bath-moment, shower-moment would be everything gliding off

Where you are in the shower doing a mundane activity so your mind wonders as you contemplate existence, forming connections you would normally not consider as your mind is too occupied with other things. Thus it is common for inspiration to occur.

[Fragony]

Where you are in the shower doing a mundane activity so your mind wonders as you contemplate existence, forming connections you would normally not consider as your mind is too occupied with other things. Thus it is common for inspiration to occur.

Just had to look it up and came up with advertisements. A bath-moment refers to archimedes formula of calculating mass with the help of measuring volume with water displacement, hence the bath

Yes I am being a jerk here

[Seamus Fermanagh]

J...Yes I am being a jerk here

Everyone should have a hobby they enjoy.

[Fragony]

Everyone should have a hobby they enjoy.

Got to admit that the shower vs bath cryptism wasn't handled poorly

[Pannonian]

Brexiteers are developing their Dolchstosslegende, as civil servants had correctly noted.


Brexit done properly will make this country richer, Brexit done badly will leave us in a worse position than before. Brexit on its own isn't some magic cure. What Brexit does is put us back in control of our lives and the problem is, the Prime Minister appears to be rather reluctant to take up that opportunity

Britain is about to go tits up. But it's not the fault of Brexit. It's the fault of the implementers implementing Brexit badly. It's never their fault.

[Fragony]

Haven't you been paying attention? The France/Germany EU is in a massive crisis

[Pannonian]

Haven't you been paying attention? The France/Germany EU is in a massive crisis

Tell that to the guy above. He made sure he got himself a German passport post-Brexit, while the former chairman of Leave lives in France and has no intention of living in the UK.

[Fragony]

Tell that to the guy above. He made sure he got himself a German passport post-Brexit, while the former chairman of Leave lives in France and has no intention of living in the UK.

That's stupid of him, he should have gone to Italy as the 2000 billion debt they have does't really bother them all that much considering the transfer-union the Merkel and the Macron want, schnaps for the south, bill for the north, the distribution of the schaffende childless mutti isn't going very well for her either she's about to get shafted (she voluntered for it unlike other frauleins who get shafted by the Mutti's little children).

The EU is in shambles.

[Pannonian]

That's stupid of him, he should have gone to Italy as the 2000 billion debt they have does't really bother them all that much considering the transfer-union the Merkel and the Macron want, schnaps for the south, bill for the north, the distribution of the schaffende childless mutti isn't going very well for her either she's about to get shafted (she voluntered for it unlike other frauleins who get shafted by the Mutti's little children).

The EU is in shambles.

But it's typical of wealthy Brexiteers. Make sure you have an escape route, so you can buy up bankrupt UK businesses for a song (bankrupt because you're anticipating a plummeting UK economy) whilst not having to experience the UK post-Brexit. Even if you have to live here, as an active politician needs to, make sure you diversify your investments overseas, as the Brexitters' darling Tree Frog has done.

[Fragony]

But it's typical of wealthy Brexiteers. Make sure you have an escape route, so you can buy up bankrupt UK businesses for a song (bankrupt because you're anticipating a plummeting UK economy) whilst not having to experience the UK post-Brexit. Even if you have to live here, as an active politician needs to, make sure you diversify your investments overseas, as the Brexitters' darling Tree Frog has done.

Hypocracy isn't really a good argument, they probably got stocks invested, hypocracy you can find everywhere. In the end the EU is nothing more than a very costly overhead with a twisted relationship between France and Germany nobody is interested in. The EU has no reason to exist, it was all fine before it came to be. A hard brexit might even benefit you as it opens up trade routes (might take a while), you are so pessimistic. The EU is about to crumble, who doesn't sees that comming should get a role in Forest Gumb 2

[rory_20_uk]

A leaked report states that if there's a "hard" Brexit the UK will run out of food within c. 6 weeks. The news articled did not mention whether this is due to the collapse of the pound (which was due to happen when we didn't join the Euro) or else that there is no food in the world that could be purchased.

That's right folks - leaving the EU will have a greater impact on the UK than did WW2...

Might food cost more? Probably. Might there be some logistical problems - possibly leading to some items out of stock for a long time? Possibly. But the absence of food that would put people's lives at risk??!? Not even Venezuela managed it this quickly.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Ah, a leaked report. By knowologues with phd's who should be gently but firmly be escorted to they comfort-space no doubt. Marmite will be more expensive though and you brits do need that tiamide aka b1 that's in it. Hardly a punnishment to pay more for a generously butter-spread toast with carefully spread marmite on it, yummie.

[Husar]

The EU is in shambles.

This may actually be true, but I think we would heavily differ on the reasons for that.

[Fragony]

This may actually be true, but I think we would heavily differ on the reasons for that.

As long is it doesn't get scary that's ok no? That's the thing really, eurocrats are scared and we can hardly call them a cornered cat anymore

[Pannonian]

A leaked report states that if there's a "hard" Brexit the UK will run out of food within c. 6 weeks. The news articled did not mention whether this is due to the collapse of the pound (which was due to happen when we didn't join the Euro) or else that there is no food in the world that could be purchased.

That's right folks - leaving the EU will have a greater impact on the UK than did WW2...

Might food cost more? Probably. Might there be some logistical problems - possibly leading to some items out of stock for a long time? Possibly. But the absence of food that would put people's lives at risk??!? Not even Venezuela managed it this quickly.

~:smoking:

WWI might be a better comparison. Drawing from the lessons of WWI, WWII started with immediate rationing and other aspects of a command economy, so as to make most efficient use of limited resources. WWI began with the assumption of continued normality. When the u-boat blockade bit, something that won't be a factor here, resources became more limited than people were accustomed to, something that will have a parallel here, and a black market arose that both benefited those with needed resources and prompted a panicked run on said resources. Something that we can expect some degree of once the logistical chain breaks down all round. I can point you to the internal blockade of oil refineries in the early 2000s, which was a controlled tightening on a single resource, and the chaos that prompted. With a no-deal Brexit, you can expect that to repeat, except that it will happen across the spectrum, and it won't be called off once the lorry drivers have reached an agreement.

Oh, and none of the current politicians are a patch on the War Cabinet of 1939. Or even the one in 1914. And I expect people will be less tolerant of central control either. So expect a repeat of the oil blockade of 2000, but worse, affecting all aspects of life.

[Pannonian]

Farage being investigated for manipulating the markets on the night of the referendum. Some pretty odd behaviour from him on the night, while some of his backers made fairly vast amounts on the movement of the markets.

[Fragony]

Perhaps because they expected the outcome to be the way it is? That's not manipulation that is how it works. It changes if prior knowledge on the outcome is there, but there isn't, nothing but sour empty hands

[Pannonian]

Perhaps because they expected the outcome to be the way it is? That's not manipulation that is how it works. It changes if prior knowledge on the outcome is there, but there isn't, nothing but sour empty hands

There ya go.

[Fragony]

There ya go.

No I don't, it's risky to anticipate, very risky. Maybe I am wrong, don't hold it against me if I am, but it was pretty much expected that the Brits would vote for a brexit. These kind of things can make markets go crazy. There is a hidden insuation that the outcome of the referendum isn't legitimate in this inquiry and that is foul play imo, want to know more but expect to get little

[Pannonian]

No I don't, it's risky to anticipate, very risky. Maybe I am wrong, don't hold it against me if I am, but it was pretty much expected that the Brits would vote for a brexit. These kind of things can make markets go crazy. There is a hidden insuation that the outcome of the referendum isn't legitimate in this inquiry and that is foul play imo, want to know more but expect to get little

Nail on the head. In retrospect some pretty odd behaviour from Farage on the night indeed. In contrast with the Turkish opposition in the election just gone, which is more typical.

[Pannonian]

Sometimes you wake up and there is something you don't recognise next to you, this time it's a EU army, how did that get here I wasn't that drunk but there it is and it's not leaving after an awkward cup of coffee


Nine EU member states have agreed to establish a European military force for rapid deployment in times of crisis, an initiative which has won the backing of the UK as it seeks to maintain defence ties after Brexit.

Spearheaded by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, the joint enterprise will allow national armed forces across Europe to coordinate and react swiftly together.

Ministers from France, Germany, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Spain and Portugal signed a letter of intent in Luxembourg on Monday.

Thank goodness we've left the EU, or else we might have been forced to participate. Hang on, what was that? We've actually asked to participate? And other, actual EU members, don't have to participate?

[Fragony]

Thank goodness we've left the EU, or else we might have been forced to participate. Hang on, what was that? We've actually asked to participate? And other, actual EU members, don't have to participate?

So it is a such a total mess nobody can understand it anymore, that? Hiding in plain sight, but ohohoh how populist of you to not trust them.

[Pannonian]

And now BMW have said that its UK plants will close if supply chains stop at the border. How many will there have to be before Leavers admit that Brexit is a bad idea?

[Furunculus]

And now BMW have said that its UK plants will close if supply chains stop at the border. How many will there have to be before Leavers admit that Brexit is a bad idea?
Will you forgive me if I say this comes across as very Chicken Little?

If we want independent self government then we can damn well have it. :)

[Pannonian]

Will you forgive me if I say this comes across as very Chicken Little?

If we want independent self government then we can damn well have it. :)

I'm assuming that, even if whole industries move out of the UK, citing supply chain problems, you'll still dismiss it as Chicken Little. NB. the Japanese ambassador has already warned that the Japanese car makers won't be looking kindly on trade barriers, ie. the above.

[Montmorency]

You know, it strikes me all of a sudden that Pannonian's whole screed about the economics of Brexit that past 2 years exemplifies the futility and perversity of conservatism as a philosophy.

An argument from conservatism will always fail against Brexiteers.

And no Pan, I'm not coming out in favor of Brexit. Think about what I'm saying here.

[Husar]

That's funny Monty, because most of the Brexiteers could be described as conservatives.

Also, Germans often seem to vote in favor of moving on without any changes, see 16 years of Merkel. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

And with Furunculus's dismissal of business concerns as Chicken Little, the business representatives (ie. formal representatives, chambers of commerce or their equivalents) of the US, Canada, India and Japan have warned the UK government to attend to their concerns or face the exodus of their countries' business, amounting to 100 billion or so.

[Furunculus]

You know, it strikes me all of a sudden that Pannonian's whole screed about the economics of Brexit that past 2 years exemplifies the futility and perversity of conservatism as a philosophy.

An argument from conservatism will always fail against Brexiteers.

And no Pan, I'm not coming out in favor of Brexit. Think about what I'm saying here.

you'll have to expand on that. I see nothing perverse or futile in the following: "the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism."

That's funny Monty, because most of the Brexiteers could be described as conservatives.

Also, Germans often seem to vote in favor of moving on without any changes, see 16 years of Merkel. :sweatdrop:

Me? No. Nations thrive through change, I'm a liberal conservative (or a Conservative Liberal).
In reality, what I consider myself to be is a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative.


And with Furunculus's dismissal of business concerns as Chicken Little, the business representatives (ie. formal representatives, chambers of commerce or their equivalents) of the US, Canada, India and Japan have warned the UK government to attend to their concerns or face the exodus of their countries' business, amounting to 100 billion or so.

That's rich coming from someone whose political tradition sees business through the prism of an ugly force that must be contained, whose continued existance is justified only by the possibility that they can be bled to feed needs of society. In your quest to constrain business with (high) tax and (excessive) regulation by my calculation you've cost the economy 0.5% GDP growth, compound over the last twenty years.

[Husar]

Me? No. Nations thrive through change, I'm a liberal conservative (or a Conservative Liberal).
In reality, what I consider myself to be is a Classical Liberal, not a Conservative.

Wanting a return to classical times would make you a reactionary then.

https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/libertarianism_conservative_reactionary_or_progressive/

[Montmorency]

<I don't want to take the time to write this in a less tendentious register>

Trying to defend the EU, or criticize leaving it, through a liberal economic lens is inherently conservative, because it relies only on the existence of the status quo and its superficial justifications for its strength. An argument literally that there is virtue in the very maintenance of the existing order will be relatively unconvincing to people who are dissatisfied with the existing order - most people by now. That's one hand.

Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy. Daddy Conservative of the United States William Buckley's maxim was "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop", but that's clearly stupid and vacuous on its own terms, unless you transubstantiate "history" for the project of "modernity". In the end it's a flimsy camouflage for reifying an aristocratic social order; this, not any permutation of sober reflection or opposition to haste or 'caution', is what characterizes Conservative instinct. (The Dulles brothers were more honest than most in this regard.)

In other words, it's a kind of double-speak for reaction.


That's rich coming from someone whose political tradition sees business through the prism of an ugly force that must be contained, whose continued existance is justified only by the possibility that they can be bled to feed needs of society. In your quest to constrain business with (high) tax and (excessive) regulation by my calculation you've cost the economy 0.5% GDP growth, compound over the last twenty years.

There's the rub. A leftist defending an inadequate system with the token language of the Right is like a sheep discoursing to the wolf about what shepherds believe constitutes proper flock management. The wolf doesn't really care about such niceties, it just wants to eat the sheep. It's like making the case to Tory-supporting upper-manager that the NHS is a good idea because healthy citizens are productive citizens. Healthy citizens are good regardless of their economic capacity! You get what I'm saying?

Rather than providing an affirmative justification for the power of EU membership to accomplish new and great things, Pannonian focuses almost entirely on the jeopardy of Brexit for the British way of life. Appeal toward jeopardy is a typical conservative appeal. Ideologically-committed Brexiteers aren't fazed by economic indicators because that's never been the object of their attention. That's offering evidence in a debate they aren't having with you. Their ideals for Brexit involve reshaping the national, regional, and global order in a particular way. No one cares about Brexit's potential effects on exports as % of GDP one way or another, except bureaucrats, actuaries, and academics.

Time to stop talking about desiring a tomorrow that looks like today Pannonian, no one has that luxury anymore except billionaires. You can't out-conservative Conservatives.

[Furunculus]

That is a very reductive view, and seems of marginal relevance in labelling someone who has a particular value construct, whatever that might be.

Are you a reactionary in your attempt to wind. Back the evils of nineties/noughties neoliberalism?

[Montmorency]

That is a very reductive view, and seems of marginal relevance in labelling someone who has a particular value construct, whatever that might be.

Are you a reactionary in your attempt to wind. Back the evils of nineties/noughties neoliberalism?

Maybe if I wanted to return to a mid-century ideal - but I don't. :yes:

The bottom line with my post above is that 'Brexit will be painful' is an irrelevant argument to most supporters of Brexit, whether they be casually dissatisfied, scapegoating, single-issue, or ideologically-motivated. I further argued that this is the case because policy jeopardy is basically a conservative concept, and conservative concepts are for why other people can't or shouldn't do things.

[Furunculus]

Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy. Daddy Conservative of the United States William Buckley's maxim was "A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop", but that's clearly stupid and vacuous on its own terms, unless you transubstantiate "history" for the project of "modernity". In the end it's a flimsy camouflage for reifying an aristocratic social order; this, not any permutation of sober reflection or opposition to haste or 'caution', is what characterizes Conservative instinct. (The Dulles brothers were more honest than most in this regard.)

In other words, it's a kind of double-speak for reaction.

I do agree with you on two counts:
The ineffectual result of trying to co-opt these Rguments from the left, if only because lack of familiarity causes one to make assumption s on the terms of the debate. Mistakes that might not be made from the familiarity of home ground.
That your critiques is valid caricature for how conservatism is often practiced, but that bears little relevance to the philosophy as espoused by hogg. It is as useful as me castigating pannonian for being a communist.

[Montmorency]

I do agree with you on two counts:
The ineffectual result of trying to co-opt these Rguments from the left, if only because lack of familiarity causes one to make assumption s on the terms of the debate. Mistakes that might not be made from the familiarity of home ground.
That your critiques is valid caricature for how conservatism is often practiced, but that bears little relevance to the philosophy as espoused by hogg. It is as useful as me castigating pannonian for being a communist.

Roger Scruton published yet another book (https://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-Invitation-Tradition-Roger-Scruton/dp/1250170567) on this just now. But he opposes individualistic 'market liberalism' IIRC.


"the role of Conservatism is not to oppose all change but to resist and balance the volatility of current political fads and ideology, and to defend a middle position that enshrines a slowly changing organic humane traditionalism."

The question is, is this abstraction bent towards productive or appreciable results? Is it more salutary or meaningful than a principle of "Be best (https://www.whitehouse.gov/bebest/)" or "Everything is always awesome"?

[Furunculus]

Roger Scruton published yet another book (https://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-Invitation-Tradition-Roger-Scruton/dp/1250170567) on this just now. But he opposes individualistic 'market liberalism' IIRC.

The question is, is this abstraction bent towards productive or appreciable results? Is it more salutary or meaningful than a principle of "Be best (https://www.whitehouse.gov/bebest/)" or "Everything is always awesome"?

And there are many strands within (British) conservative tradition, he may not like one of them. But you haven't evidenced the claim that; "Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy."

What benchmarks are you going to measure Conservatism against? And will you hold other political philosophies to the same standard? Social Democracy, just one more more failed five-year-plan away from tyranny and the gulags!

[Fragony]

Losing the Cayman islands would absolutily be a pain for them

[Pannonian]

And there are many strands within (British) conservative tradition, he may not like one of them. But you haven't evidenced the claim that; "Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy."

What benchmarks are you going to measure Conservatism against? And will you hold other political philosophies to the same standard? Social Democracy, just one more more failed five-year-plan away from tyranny and the gulags!

Britain has been on a strand of social democracy since the democratic reforms of the second half of C19, and the social reforms of the early C20. Look up Herbert Asquith, David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill for examples of the second lot. And social reform has been a thing even before them; see Charles Dickens, and even The Conservative (he who renamed the party), Benjamin Disraeli, who coined the term One Nation Conservative (as opposed to the Two Nations of Rich and Poor). While the Reformist Liberals like Asquith et al, not to mention the later Labour party, talked about state obligations, Disraeli talked about social obligations. But both talked about obligations. And this is where they differ from neo-Thatcherites, who feel no obligations whatsoever. Thatcher herself would probably be horrified by her ostensible followers, especially wrt what they're doing about Europe.

[Furunculus]

a fine and noble history, did you miss the absurdist point i was making?

[Pannonian]

a fine and noble history, did you miss the absurdist point i was making?

Comparing social democracy with Communism? And my point is that Communism is as alien to mainstream British political thought as your ultra free marketeerism is. You were arguing on the previous page that social democracy is somehow a European tradition and not British. You're trying to make the same argument again, except by pretending to some kind of wit by reductio ad absurdum.

And an American diplomat's analysis of Brexit. (https://twitter.com/davemacladd/status/1011636382786314240)

[Montmorency]

And there are many strands within (British) conservative tradition, he may not like one of them. But you haven't evidenced the claim that; "Conservatism on paper has genuinely been a weak and largely-indefensible philosophy."

What benchmarks are you going to measure Conservatism against? And will you hold other political philosophies to the same standard? Social Democracy, just one more more failed five-year-plan away from tyranny and the gulags!

Of course I would maintain that most good things in this world have come from/under modern social democracy.

Anyway, think of it like this: in any given situation, what kind of principled prescription or guidance can the conservatism you outlined offer that isn't just, total discretion and whim? On paper, does conservatism preclude even communism?

As an example of philosophies with principles, take "progressivism". There are several ways to interpret it, but one is tautological and really almost impossible to contest regardless of what one thinks of the term itself, "progress".

There have been many aphorisms penned on the subject of knowledge and learning (in the humanistic sense). One such from A. E. Housman, a dude probably relatively well-known among you:


Other desires become the occasion of pain through dearth of the material to gratify them, but not the desire of knowledge: the sum of things to be known is inexhaustible, and however long we read we shall never come to the end of our story-book. So long as the mind of man is what it is, it will continue to exult in advancing on the unknown throughout the infinite field of the universe; and the tree of knowledge will remain for ever, as it was in the beginning, a tree to be desired to make one wise.



What's the principle vis-a-vis "progress" then? Just as there's always something else to be learned or discovered, there's always something that needs doing. From there it can branch any number of ways. A eugenicist says we should pare down and mold the species into a vision of a master race. A posthumanist says we should acknowledge the death of Man, the death of God, and the death of Progress all together as a logical end-point - giving way to something new and alien. A socialist says the shuffle toward equality must be continually reaffirmed.

What does a logically-consistent conservative (at least one attempting to be so) say about that? That all possible ideas, or all ideas worth having and developing, were discovered in the Greco-Roman era and/or codified into the Bible. Extreme, parochial, laughable? Sure. But "palaeo"-conservatism has long been one of the most coherent and influential strands.

[Fragony]

What's in a word, people who like to call themselve progressive will defend a certain backward ultra-orthodox religion whenever they can, and don't understand it doesn't makes them progressive. If they didn't do that I would be one of them.

[Beskar]

What's in a word, people who like to call themselve progressive will defend a certain backward ultra-orthodox religion whenever they can, and don't understand it doesn't makes them progressive. If they didn't do that I would be one of them.

The left-wing types you are describing are more in opposition to certain practices by certain western countries as they are not becoming of a nation of reported higher-moral standing than defend certain backward practices. Some individuals end up being involved with the wrong individuals due to the mistaken view of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as they are both opposing an action for two very different reasons. The left-wing type may feel sympathy for someone with more extreme views as their homes were just bombed in actions they deem illegal and brutal by the actions of the reported higher moral-standing country but it turns out that person who got bombed isn't exactly the most moral-standing themselves and express hatred to that other country and its people.

Those types who are actively involved typically involve the more extreme narratives than "progressive" as well.

[Fragony]

The left-wing types you are describing are more in opposition to certain practices by certain western countries as they are not becoming of a nation of reported higher-moral standing than defend certain backward practices.

Do you honostly think that? I don't even know where to start. I won't dislike someone for thinking differently about things, but I absolutily dispise hypocrites, for people who don't even understand that they are hypocrites I have zero respect. I am a leftie at heart really, I am a total sucker for human rights no matter what kind of human somenone is, feel a bit alone

[Montmorency]

The left-wing types you are describing are more in opposition to certain practices by certain western countries as they are not becoming of a nation of reported higher-moral standing than defend certain backward practices.

Do you honostly think that? I don't even know where to start. I won't dislike someone for thinking differently about things, but I absolutily dispise hypocrites, for people who don't even understand that they are hypocrites I have zero respect. I am a leftie at heart really, I am a total sucker for human rights no matter what kind of human somenone is, feel a bit alone

What if the "Stepford Wives" or any of your other designees accommodate both concerns: Evangelize left and liberal ideas (to Muslim immigrants and to everyone) and defend them as people (and not as 'goat herders fresh off the wrong side of the mountain') from the hypocrisies and depredations of the 'homegrown' far-right?

[Fragony]

What if the "Stepford Wives" or any of your other designees accommodate both concerns: Evangelize left and liberal ideas (to Muslim immigrants and to everyone) and defend them as people (and not as 'goat herders fresh off the wrong side of the mountain') from the hypocrisies and depredations of the 'homegrown' far-right?

What do you assume I think, and why do you, political correctness is nothing more than social brain-damage

[Beskar]

Do you honostly think that? I don't even know where to start. I won't dislike someone for thinking differently about things, but I absolutily dispise hypocrites, for people who don't even understand that they are hypocrites I have zero respect. I am a leftie at heart really, I am a total sucker for human rights no matter what kind of human somenone is, feel a bit alone

Given my exposure to people, including those you are most likely referencing then yes I do. I know lefties who despise Israel for example for the treatment of Palestinians. They see Israel as the aggressor and that they should know better, especially with allies such as the USA. As such, they protest the ill-treatment of Palestinians.
Palestinians are typically Muslim and don't share many values with lefties (such as acceptance of homosexuality, etc), you describe these as "backwards ultra-orthodox". Because you now see Lefties denouncing the actions of Israel, you see these people 'protecting' the Palestinians and their "backwards ultra-orthodox" values.
Now you equate the left with defending Islam, rather than the left defending the ill-treatment of fellow humans (regardless of faith).

[rory_20_uk]

The terms "left" and "right" are so general that they cease to be helpful. At least one more axis - if not more - should be used.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Given my exposure to people, including those you are most likely referencing then yes I do. I know lefties who despise Israel for example for the treatment of Palestinians. They see Israel as the aggressor and that they should know better, especially with allies such as the USA. As such, they protest the ill-treatment of Palestinians.
Palestinians are typically Muslim and don't share many values with lefties (such as acceptance of homosexuality, etc), you describe these as "backwards ultra-orthodox". Because you now see Lefties denouncing the actions of Israel, you see these people 'protecting' the Palestinians and their "backwards ultra-orthodox" values.
Now you equate the left with defending Islam, rather than the left defending the ill-treatment of fellow humans (regardless of faith).

Kindly allow me, what makes the Palestinians so special, aren't people just a bit uncomortable with them being abolutily hopeless, there is nothing they won't screw up, a few ten years ago they massacred eachother, I guess you didn't hear of that a friend of mine can tell you what he saw. yeah I know people from there. But why really, Israel is doing pretty well why the fixation, what I personally think is that people hate how it managed to be succesfull and everything there is done to help the Palestinians is never anything more than a excercise in futility. That conflicts with how some people think about equality of cultures and I think that is where the fixatiion comes from. I might be wrong about that, but I could also be absolutily right about some having an identity-problem, simply being wrong with Israel as an ideoligical proxy-war.

Isn't the real question why it's brought up

[Pannonian]

The terms "left" and "right" are so general that they cease to be helpful. At least one more axis - if not more - should be used.

~:smoking:

What do you think of the BMA's statement on Brexit?

[rory_20_uk]

What do you think of the BMA's statement on Brexit?

Permanent residence for EU doctors and medical researchers currently in the UK - sounds great - we keep the cream. I like it.

A flexible immigration system which supports UK health and medical research - sure, more the merrier. Highly qualified talent is wanted in almost any amounts.

Mutual recognition of professional qualifications and measures which protect patient safety - what the hell does that mean? Perhaps we could have some tests that they can, y'know, speak fluent English at a level required to practice medicine? Or do we have more that can't communicate "coma" and instead use "asleep"? I'm fed up with BMEs whining that more get referred to the GMC and this has to be racism without any attempt to review the data and even bother to see what they were referred for. Perhaps it is but the worst doctors I've ever worked with were all from abroad since their training is different. And in most cases I mean worse. And their english is worse than the natives. And it pisses me off when this ends up killing people.

Ongoing access to EU research programmes and research funding - and here the self interest of the BMA shows itself. Why not ask for access to the funding in the USA / Japan / China whilst we're at it?

Consideration of the unique impact Brexit may have on Northern Ireland’s health service - Northern Ireland needs to get on its Big Boy pants - and ideally reunite with Ireland. Goodbye. Good riddance. Does this statement mean that further subsidies are required, or that no sane doctor would work over in that hole?

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Comparing social democracy with Communism?

No, i was pointing out the opposite, that it would be absurd to do so.
Just as it would be absurd to consign the whole of conservative thought and achievement to the bin labelled "reactionary".

[Montmorency]

What do you assume I think, and why do you, political correctness is nothing more than social brain-damage

I don't understand what you're trying to convey.


Kindly allow me, what makes the Palestinians so special, aren't people just a bit uncomortable with them being abolutily hopeless, there is nothing they won't screw up, a few ten years ago they massacred eachother, I guess you didn't hear of that a friend of mine can tell you what he saw. yeah I know people from there. But why really, Israel is doing pretty well why the fixation, what I personally think is that people hate how it managed to be succesfull and everything there is done to help the Palestinians is never anything more than a excercise in futility. That conflicts with how some people think about equality of cultures and I think that is where the fixatiion comes from. I might be wrong about that, but I could also be absolutily right about some having an identity-problem, simply being wrong with Israel as an ideoligical proxy-war.

Isn't the real question why it's brought up

Maybe they don't hold such a uniquely negative view of Palestinians?

What you see as fixation is to some extent selection bias. People may be involved in or care about multiple causes, but in a moment inevitably you only perceive them in that moment of engaging with Palestinian rights.

[Fragony]

How much do they care then and most of all why. Palestinian authorities aren't exactly very secretive about what they want.

[Pannonian]

And another leading Brexiteer advising UK businesses to leave the UK for the EU. Add Ashcroft to a list of hypocrites including Redwood, Farage and Rees Mogg.

[Husar]

"shhhh! don't tell anyone you've figured it out..."

*looks around furtively*


No, specifically, I was referring to you and your refusal to engage with ideas that may bear the taint of 'neoliberalism'.
n.b. which other people might simply brand the anglo-saxon economic model (a cross-cutting but different beast entirely).

Lol, no, I find that idea as silly as the notion of reds under the bed.
To the extent it might have some truth, it is only the surface similarity due to the cross-cutting nature anglo-saxon liberalism, as someone famous once said: reality has a liberal bias.

On these notes: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/neoliberalism-movement-dare-not-speak-name/


Reactions against the use of the term neoliberalism have usually taken one of two forms: first, that “neoliberalism” is nothing more than a fevered delusion or a mirage perhaps shared with a few other addled persons, and thus best ignored; and second, that if such a thing does indeed exist, it is far too uneven and inconsistent to count as a serious analytical category.
[...]
The elusiveness of neoliberalism, however, ultimately stems from denials that neoliberals themselves have made about their efforts. While we can fairly well identify the roster of who should be acknowledged as a part of the movement, at least from its beginnings in the 1930s until the recent past, we are confronted with the fact that, in public, they themselves roundly deny the existence of any such well-defined thought collective, and stridently resist the label of neoliberalism.
[...]
The tendency to deny the existence of neoliberalism raises four questions that I will address here: Why do people think the “neoliberal” label is so very awful? Is it possible to pin down what neoliberalism signifies, and how you can tell a neoliberal when you encounter one?

You're really fitting the description. :laugh4:

I recommend reading the entire article, the page told me I can read 3 per month for free.
I'm not through it myself yet, I'm just impatient about posting here. :sweatdrop:

(PS: I know you said I may have misrepresented what you said earlier, so perhaps I'm just pulling your leg a little with the description above, no offense intended)

[Furunculus]

On these notes: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2018/02/neoliberalism-movement-dare-not-speak-name/

You're really fitting the description. :laugh4:
We shall see.


I recommend reading the entire article, the page told me I can read 3 per month for free.
I'm not through it myself yet, I'm just impatient about posting here. :sweatdrop:
I agree, it's a very interesting article.


(PS: I know you said I may have misrepresented what you said earlier, so perhaps I'm just pulling your leg a little with the description above, no offense intended)

No problem, all good fun.

To start, i'll quote the sentences that follow your first quote:
"To be fair, mobilization of the term “neoliberalism” has grown uncomfortably sloppy among a subset of those on the left. Broadsides have equated it to laissez-faire economics, market fundamentalism, libertarianism, globalization, biopolitics, financialization, and many other things."
Indeed!

"Neoliberals should not be disparaged as “market fundamentalists,” for they believe that human beings must be transformed in order to establish their ideal society."
I do not hold this belief

"Gramsci understood this: “Moreover, laissez-faire liberalism, too, must be introduced by law, through the intervention of political power: it is an act of will, not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts.”6 From the 1940s onward, the distinguishing characteristic of neoliberal doctrines and practice is that they embrace this prospect of repurposing the strong state to impose their vision of a society properly open to the dominance of the market as they conceive it"
I'm with Gramsci, and I do not believe what is described is desirable, because I am a Classical Liberal.

"Hayek stipulates, only men of substantial property over age forty-five would be eligible to vote or be elected; no political parties would be allowed; and each member would stand for a hefty fifteen-year term.8 This illustrates the larger neoliberal predisposition to be very leery of democracy, and thus to stymie public participation through the concentration of political power in fewer hands."
Hmmm, sounds like the same problem state-fundamentalists have, just from the other direction.
I do not believe what is described is desirable, because I am a Classical Liberal.

"In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something like John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle”: colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so."
Yes! Sounds sensible. Seems like neo-libs don't like it tho... :(

"Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory concerning what a market was, or should be."
Hold on there! I likes my natural rights, m'kay?

(1) “Free” people do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through political organizing.

(2) “The Gov't” is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible—more efficient than any market or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated by the Gov't.

(3) Collectivised society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of humankind.

(4) The political goal of socialists is not to destroy the markets, but to take control of it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the Gov't-friendly culture.

(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizen and private/market/entrepreneur-consumer—because the former does and should eclipse the former.

(6) The most important virtue—more important than justice, or anything else—is collective repsonsibility, defined “positively” as “freedom through heirarchy,” and most importantly, defined as the freedom to acquiesce to the imperatives of the greater good.

(7) Revolution has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries.

(8) Inequality—of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights—is a bad thing; it prompts revolution, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who complain about inequality are our footsoldiers, who need to get hip to the way things work nowadays.

(9) Gov't can do no wrong—by definition. Socialised provision will take care of all problems, including any tendency to monopoly.

(10) The Gov't, engineered and promoted by Socialist experts, can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there’s always “an app for that.”

(11) There is no difference between is and should be: “socialist" societies both should be (normatively) and are (positively) the most efficient Gov't system, and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live—which in turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of “free” societies should be and, as Socialists build more and more power, increasingly are universal."

Yeah, having none of that. I may have paraphrased a little, but you take my point?

"The purpose of the MPS was to create a special space where people of like-minded political ideals could gather together to debate the outlines of a future movement diverging from classical liberalism, without having to suffer the indignities of ridicule for their often blue-sky proposals."

Hmmm, sounds a lot like the various left wing societies/groups that advocate their platform from within the institutions.
A bit like Common Purpose perhaps?
https://www.cpexposed.com/about-common-purpose

[Montmorency]

(1) “Free” people do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through political organizing.

(2) “The Gov't” is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible—more efficient than any market or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated by the Gov't.

(3) Collectivised society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of humankind.

(4) The political goal of socialists is not to destroy the markets, but to take control of it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the Gov't-friendly culture.

(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizen and private/market/entrepreneur-consumer—because the former does and should eclipse the former.

(6) The most important virtue—more important than justice, or anything else—is collective repsonsibility, defined “positively” as “freedom through heirarchy,” and most importantly, defined as the freedom to acquiesce to the imperatives of the greater good.

(7) Revolution has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries.

(8) Inequality—of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights—is a bad thing; it prompts revolution, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who complain about inequality are our footsoldiers, who need to get hip to the way things work nowadays.

(9) Gov't can do no wrong—by definition. Socialised provision will take care of all problems, including any tendency to monopoly.

(10) The Gov't, engineered and promoted by Socialist experts, can always provide solutions to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there’s always “an app for that.”

(11) There is no difference between is and should be: “socialist" societies both should be (normatively) and are (positively) the most efficient Gov't system, and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live—which in turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of “free” societies should be and, as Socialists build more and more power, increasingly are universal."

You replaced "neoliberalism" with socialism and "market" with government seemingly to take the piss; the conversion is almost entirely inconsistent with the ideals of socialism.

[Furunculus]

i feel it is entirely adequate for its intended purpose: to draw a contrast between the individual focus of liberalism vs the statist focus of neoliberalism (by twisting the quoted words to show the closer similarilty of neoliberalism to lefty statism).

That was after all one of the primary aims of the linked article: to tease out what neoliberalism actually is, by seeing past the lazy caricatures of it as classical liberalism.
I thought the article did that rather well, my thanks to Husar.

[Pannonian]

i feel it is entirely adequate for its intended purpose: to draw a contrast between the individual focus of liberalism vs the statist focus of neoliberalism (by twisting the quoted words to show the closer similarilty of neoliberalism to lefty statism).

That was after all one of the primary aims of the linked article: to tease out what neoliberalism actually is, by seeing past the lazy caricatures of it as classical liberalism.
I thought the article did that rather well, my thanks to Husar.

The greatest contrast between neoliberalism as practiced by its theorists, and current states as they stand, is the urge to constantly cut state spending on everything except defence. Current states are not classically liberal that neoliberals will suddenly appear and dispense state funding to. Current states are further towards the social democratic spectrum, and in relation to this, neoliberals can see no action but to cut, cut, cut. Considering the demonisation of neoliberals, your preferred classical liberalism is even more alien to modern society than neoliberalism. Your starting point isn't a non-society that you can build on from scratch; your starting point is society as it now is. Do you have a democratic mandate for burning it all down so you can start anew?

[Montmorency]

i feel it is entirely adequate for its intended purpose: to draw a contrast between the individual focus of liberalism vs the statist focus of neoliberalism (by twisting the quoted words to show the closer similarilty of neoliberalism to lefty statism).

That was after all one of the primary aims of the linked article: to tease out what neoliberalism actually is, by seeing past the lazy caricatures of it as classical liberalism.
I thought the article did that rather well, my thanks to Husar.

But there's an even better way to discern focus: whose table set will you sit at?

It's nice to have theoretical disagreements, but how much do policy prescriptions differ?

[Furunculus]

The greatest contrast between neoliberalism as practiced by its theorists, and current states as they stand, is the urge to constantly cut state spending on everything except defence. Current states are not classically liberal that neoliberals will suddenly appear and dispense state funding to. Current states are further towards the social democratic spectrum, and in relation to this, neoliberals can see no action but to cut, cut, cut.
Perhaps, but they're not any more of a problem to me than the frothing lunatics on the corbynite left.


Considering the demonisation of neoliberals, your preferred classical liberalism is even more alien to modern society than neoliberalism.
That's an interesting view. That I don't share.
Maybe you believe that because your view of society is homogenous, where mine is heterogenous.


Your starting point isn't a non-society that you can build on from scratch; your starting point is society as it now is. Do you have a democratic mandate for burning it all down so you can start anew?
Yes, it's about two years old now. :D


But there's an even better way to discern focus: whose table set will you sit at?

It's nice to have theoretical disagreements, but how much do policy prescriptions differ?
Neither the lunatics of the corbinite left, nor too the lunatics of the neoliberal right.

Not "believing that human beings must be transformed in order to establish their ideal society", seems to be a good start. You know, because i'm a negative liberty classical liberal, and my natural response to social engineering from government is two fingers!

[Montmorency]

Neither the lunatics of the corbinite left, nor too the lunatics of the neoliberal right.

Not believing that human beings must be transformed in order to establish their ideal society, seems to be a good start. You know, because i'm a negative liberty classical liberal, and my natural response to social engineering from government is two fingers!

Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose neoliberal policies, then one is a neoliberal at last.

Next, what are (some) classical-liberal policies? What are (some) neoliberal policies? What have they been?

Is there any daylight between the two?

[Furunculus]

Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose neoliberal policies, then one is a neoliberal at last.

Next, what are (some) classical-liberal policies? What are (some) neoliberal policies? What have they been? Is there any daylight between the two?

No. Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose socialist policies, then one is a socialist at last. Sounds equally manichean to me, how about you?

You're all fighting a battle I simply don't care about. I'm enjoying the splendour of debating the merits of the eu, yet I fear I will end up being sucked into arcane doctrinal disputes over whether ordoliberalism is a form of neoliberlaism or not.

[Montmorency]

Y-yes? If there is no socialist policy you disagree with, or you disagree on the basis of favoring another socialist policy, it would be quite fair to call you a socialist. If it walks like a duck...

It's all fun and games until it's time to follow the logical consequences? It's not about doctrine but empirical object.

[Furunculus]

Y-yes? If there is no socialist policy you disagree with, or you disagree on the basis of favoring another socialist policy, it would be quite fair to call you a socialist. If it walks like a duck...

It's all fun and games until it's time to follow the logical consequences? It's not about doctrine but empirical object.

Still not sure why we are getting our knickers in a twist over neoliberals. Yes, it can be taken to daft extremes. I have much the same opinion of socialism. So what, why does it matter so?

And I'm fine with that, we can have interesting debates about political philosophies and states of mind, all day long. But in this case it should be made relevant to the matter in hand. Why do I care about the 'perils' of neoliberalism in the context of brexit and/or the rump-EU?
----------------------------------------
Will the weight of right-wing EU governance lean 'dangerously' in the direction of German ordoliberalism without Britain to constrain it?
Will Britain fall prey to the evils of neoliberal maniacs without the 'guiding-hand' of responsible european social-democracy to protect it?

Tell me why it matters...

[Husar]

Perhaps, but they're not any more of a problem to me than the frothing lunatics on the corbynite left.

You are aware though, that the left and statism aren't all the same either, right?
You seem very happy about not being a neoliberal and then you appear to lump the entire left into one basket.
I may be a leftist, but I'm not a big fan of Corbyn or the Marxist-Leninist party. I also don't want a USSR or GDR back, I'm not a fan of PETA or think all animals should have the same rights as humans even though I think unnecessary abuse of animals should be illegal...

And yes, I'm a socialist, because I believe that I live in a society, where social interactions happen, so being social towards one another is perhaps not the worst idea in the world. A society consists foremost of humans, not markets, goods, jobs or money. That's my starting point, you know. In fact I would also consider myself quite humanist... :shrug:


No. Let's start with the proposition that if one doesn't oppose socialist policies, then one is a socialist at last. Sounds equally manichean to me, how about you?

You're all fighting a battle I simply don't care about. I'm enjoying the splendour of debating the merits of the eu, yet I fear I will end up being sucked into arcane doctrinal disputes over whether ordoliberalism is a form of neoliberlaism or not.

Why do you not care? Because neoliberals enact and propose policies you like all the time? Where then is the practical difference between you and a neoliberal? That you will complain once it is too late and they replace democracy with something "more efficient"?

[Furunculus]

You are aware though, that the left and statism aren't all the same either, right?
You seem very happy about not being a neoliberal and then you appear to lump the entire left into one basket.
Sure, but is that so very different from shouting "NEOLIBERAL" at anything vaguely right-wing?
I refer you to the article:
"To be fair, mobilization of the term “neoliberalism” has grown uncomfortably sloppy among a subset of those on the left. Broadsides have equated it to laissez-faire economics, market fundamentalism, libertarianism, globalization, biopolitics, financialization, and many other things."


And yes, I'm a socialist, because I believe that I live in a society, where social interactions happen, so being social towards one another is perhaps not the worst idea in the world. A society consists foremost of humans, not markets, goods, jobs or money. That's my starting point, you know. In fact I would also consider myself quite humanist... :shrug:
That's fine. I take no issue with that. I take no issue with being pro-EU in the sense of actively having a EUropean political identity.
I just don't share it.


Why do you not care? Because neoliberals enact and propose policies you like all the time? Where then is the practical difference between you and a neoliberal? That you will complain once it is too late and they replace democracy with something "more efficient"?
You've just gone to great lenghts to:
a) post an article that meticulously differentiates neoliberlism
b) demonstrate how you are one particularly beuatiful variety of lefty, quite distinct from the rest
And then you come along and tell me that i'm basically indistinguishable from a neoliberal.
How many sides do you want to play against the centre.

Again, I refer you to your article:
"In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something like John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle”: colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so... Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory concerning what a market was, or should be."

I too am a beautiful distinct little creature, quite different from the boogy-bears described above.
I think I went to some lengths above to demonstrate it in quotes, did you read it?

[Montmorency]

You can't lump in groups that disagree on policy. Corbin and Blair are both Left, in a manner of speaking. On the other hand, we still have the question unanswered of how you differentiate yourself from a neoliberal concretely? Or more broadly, have classical liberals avoided being subsumed by neoliberalism in our time?

I can't tell you why it matters to you, because it doesn't, right? Regardless of what happens, so long as there is a liberal market in services and a maintenance of the interventionist armed forces, you will enjoy the splendor of Brexit. The details aren't important, as you said, best left to the civil service and elected officials, within the desired contours.

How could it matter to other than whom see a grim future, which you don't?

[Husar]

Sure, but is that so very different from shouting "NEOLIBERAL" at anything vaguely right-wing?
I refer you to the article:
"To be fair, mobilization of the term “neoliberalism” has grown uncomfortably sloppy among a subset of those on the left. Broadsides have equated it to laissez-faire economics, market fundamentalism, libertarianism, globalization, biopolitics, financialization, and many other things."

Now you're being very, very wrong on two fronts:

1. If I made the same mistake you did, it wouldn't excuse yours, especially if you made yours after pointing out mine.

2. I wasn't even wrong when I shouted neoliberalism when you quoted an IEA study. Maybe you didn't read the entire article, but it's actually in there:


Core MPS members helped shape the construction of the think-tank infrastructure. In Thatcher’s Britain, the founding of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) can be traced back to advice delivered to Antony Fisher, a businessman who had read and had been impressed by the Reader’s Digest version of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. Fisher went to see Hayek and asked for his advice as to what he should do to further the cause. Hayek advised him not to go into politics, but instead to start a public policy think tank. This he was able to do—with the support of his profitable firm, Buxted Chickens, the first of the British battery hen companies. The wellsprings of neoliberal liberty in Britain, friends of the IEA might be forced to admit, had a little too much for comfort to do with the imprisonment of hens.14 But it had almost nothing to do with the spontaneous inclinations of wealthy people each acting on their own.

The IEA is in fact a neoliberal organization that was formed with help of the MPS, the mother of all neoliberal organizations.
So you did in fact quote a neoliberal organization and now you claim I was crying wolf?


You've just gone to great lenghts to:
a) post an article that meticulously differentiates neoliberlism
b) demonstrate how you are one particularly beuatiful variety of lefty, quite distinct from the rest
And then you come along and tell me that i'm basically indistinguishable from a neoliberal.
How many sides do you want to play against the centre.
[...]
I too am a beautiful distinct little creature, quite different from the boogy-bears described above.
I think I went to some lengths above to demonstrate it in quotes, did you read it?

No, you misconstrue my point. I asked how I am supposed to distinguish your classical liberalism from neoliberalism when you say you disagree in theory, but in practice you seem to support every neoliberal proposal that comes up here?
What good is the theoretical difference when you quack like a neoliberal, walk like a neoliberal and look like a neoliberal in practice? ;)

[Beskar]

I come to the view that if you do good, people will see it and respond accordingly. As such, practice what you preach and people will go with what looks good.

I am of an ideology that believes that by working together and helping eachother, we all benefit. I have found it easier by saying I am a "socialist" in explaining this, but it is not entirely accurate. I don't think it is a purely socialist thing, though I do believe it is a social thing.

I am going to drop this video though, as I think it makes a point better than I do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ

[Furunculus]

Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...

[Pannonian]

I come to the view that if you do good, people will see it and respond accordingly. As such, practice what you preach and people will go with what looks good.

I am of an ideology that believes that by working together and helping eachother, we all benefit. I have found it easier by saying I am a "socialist" in explaining this, but it is not entirely accurate. I don't think it is a purely socialist thing, though I do believe it is a social thing.


One version of the above is what might be called classical Confucianism, the tenet that the rulers should lead the way by example and deed, a belief that set Confucius at odds with just about every ruler he served. The hypocrisy of the leading Brexiteers, combined with the capacity of their followers to condone such hypocrisy, would make him spin in his grave and lose faith in the capacity of humanity for good.

[Montmorency]

Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...

Nooo, not neoliberals, "classical" liberals. I must be being unclear.


You're all fighting a battle I simply don't care about. I'm enjoying the splendour of debating the merits of the eu, yet I fear I will end up being sucked into arcane doctrinal disputes over whether ordoliberalism is a form of neoliberlaism or not.

You didn't want to confront the collapsing distinction, but it plainly affects this thread and beyond. Put more provocatively, do "classical liberals" exist, and if so, who/where are they?

On the economic side. To my knowledge, people who have claimed to be classical liberals in the recent past usually do so with regard to social issues in opposition to the "SJW" left.