World Politics - EXIT NEGOTIATIONS [Archive] - Page 6

Husar

07-04-2018, 13:31

Let me see:

- Furunculus posts two articles from two different neoliberal think tanks in support of Brexit
- Husar points that out
- Furunculus treats Husar like a conspiracy theorist
- Husar tries to engage more with the content and talk about the practical consequences
- Furunculus ignores the practical consequences and refers to theoretical ideology (classical liberalism) proving him right
- longer pause
- Husar posts article about neoliberalism
- Furunculus finally admits its not a conspiracy theory but that he is not part of it
- People ask Furunculus what exactly differentiates him then, which is actually on topic since he only cited neoliberal sources in support of his arguments while also arguing that he has nothing to do with neoliberal ideas
- Furunculus claims other people are obsessed with neoliberalism while he is the one bringing all the neoliberal think tanks to the discussion:

Monte and Husar are still getting hot and sweaty about neoliberals, not sure where this thread is usefully going now...

No, seriously, stop, you're not making much sense here. Get me some classical liberal think tanks or whatever to support your ideas and arguments and I will immediately stop about neoliberalism. But as long as you bring neoliberal propaganda to the table you can't complain that I want to discuss neoliberal propaganda...

Forgive me if I point out that that would appear to be you alone, with Husar and Pannonian far more concerned about neoliberals.

We've just had a very detailed article from Husar asking this very question. I have gone to some trouble to pick out interesting extracts.
Why don't [you] sift through the article - or find an alternative source - you do seem terribly interested after all.

See above, plus I have also quoted the article to show how you take your "evidence" from neoliberal sources. Again, it wasn't me who brought the IEA into the discussion. Maybe choose your sources more wisely.

Well, believing in natural rights, and rejecting the idea that gov't should be a tool to transform the people to meet the needs of the neoliberal market, seem to be pretty meaty practical differences.

This transformation is already going on and you appear to support most of the policies that facilitate that transformation.
I assume you won't acknowledge it though unless the government installs people in huge metal machines that directly alter their brain waves. See the article for example:

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. They could not acknowledge individual natural rights, because they sought to tutor the masses to become the agent the market would be most likely to deem successful. The market no longer gave you what you wanted; you had to capitulate to what the market wanted. All areas of life could be better configured to behave as if they were more market-like.

Why would you say this is not going on? One of the biggest tools to make people want what the market offers is advertising. Another is the tendency towards quasi-monopolies (and letting them be) and brands, where people mostly stop having or making a choice. And sometimes the choice is imaginary because the same corporation is making it. Most people in the West are too busy consuming what the market offers to think about alternatives they might really want.
And all areas of life becoming more market-like is also becoming more and more true. In many areas it is done by removing possession from the consumer. The consumer then becomes dependent on the corporations granting him the right to use something for a (monthly) price. In return the corporations try to make the consumer more dependent to remove the consumers' choice to go elsewhere or stop paying. There was a German article about how everything is turned into a market, unfortunately I don't know of an English equivalent:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/neoliberales-herrschaftssystem-warum-heute-keine-revolution-moeglich-ist-1.2110256

One of the things it also goes into is how neoliberalism has led people to think every failure is purely their own fault, which is exactly what makes people try to do what the market wants because we get trained to think that not being the way the market wants us makes it our own fault that we fail for not trying hard enough to be the way the market wants us. So there's your "transforming people".

Not allowing the state to grow in power and responsibility to the point where individual liberty is a residual memory isn't a defining characteristic of neoliberalism, it is a mindset that is generic a cross conservatism and classical liberalism for hundreds of years.
viewing the provision of internal and external security as the primary role of the state is hardly unique neoliberal doctrine either, nor to is preventing the rise of the welfare state from entirely crowding it out as a budget priority.

You forget that surveillance is not purely in the interest of governments, but also corporations. See the article about neoliberalism again:

They extravagantly increase incarceration and policing of those whom they deem unfit for the marketplace. They expand both state and corporate power to exercise surveillance and manipulation of subject populations while dismantling judicial recourse to resist such encroachments. Neoliberals introduce new property rights (like intellectual property) to cement into place their extensions of market valuations to situations where they were absent. They strengthen international sanctions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and investor-state dispute settlement schemes to circumvent and neutralize national social legislation they dislike. They bail out and subsidize private banking systems at the cost of many multiples of existing national income. And they define corporations as legal persons in order to facilitate the buying of elections.
[...]
Second, the selling point of many of these platforms is not just that they provide direct services to the scientist involved. At every stage of research, they provide external third parties with the capacities for evaluation, validation, branding, and monitoring of research programs. Their nominal “openness” constitutes the ideal setup for near real-time surveillance of the research process—a Panopticon of Science, something which can be turned around and sold in just the same way that Facebook provides real-time surveillance of consumer behavior.

Many of these things are in practice today and yes, I'm aware that the EU was about to sign some of these partnerships, and still is. I never said the EU isn't partially neoliberal, almost everything nowadays is.
The entire first part of the quote above is effectively real in the US nowadays (and encroaching everywhere else), except for the odd one, where Trump left the TPP.

Again, in the context of brexit and the rump-eu; why the myopic fixation on neoliberalism?

Because you keep quoting them!

Pannonian

07-04-2018, 14:19

Why would you say this is not going on? One of the biggest tools to make people want what the market offers is advertising. Another is the tendency towards quasi-monopolies (and letting them be) and brands, where people mostly stop having or making a choice. And sometimes the choice is imaginary because the same corporation is making it. Most people in the West are too busy consuming what the market offers to think about alternatives they might really want.
And all areas of life becoming more market-like is also becoming more and more true. In many areas it is done by removing possession from the consumer. The consumer then becomes dependent on the corporations granting him the right to use something for a (monthly) price. In return the corporations try to make the consumer more dependent to remove the consumers' choice to go elsewhere or stop paying. There was a German article about how everything is turned into a market, unfortunately I don't know of an English equivalent:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/neoliberales-herrschaftssystem-warum-heute-keine-revolution-moeglich-ist-1.2110256

One of the things it also goes into is how neoliberalism has led people to think every failure is purely their own fault, which is exactly what makes people try to do what the market wants because we get trained to think that not being the way the market wants us makes it our own fault that we fail for not trying hard enough to be the way the market wants us. So there's your "transforming people".

In practice, in the UK, the shibboleth is: what do you think about housing? What the answer is, and more relevantly, how the thought process goes, is illustrative of this process in action. Shirley Porter's Westminster council was one form of this, but there's another, far more insidious form, seen in every media in the UK to the point of a religion. The thin end of this wedge began with Thatcher, and the final part of the wedge is Brexit.

rory_20_uk

07-04-2018, 15:15

In practice, in the UK, the shibboleth is: what do you think about housing? What the answer is, and more relevantly, how the thought process goes, is illustrative of this process in action. Shirley Porter's Westminster council was one form of this, but there's another, far more insidious form, seen in every media in the UK to the point of a religion. The thin end of this wedge began with Thatcher, and the final part of the wedge is Brexit.

So... things pre-Thatcher were a-OK? The change to housing had no bearing on the reduction on strikes? Religious conviction indeed.

The Westminster Council - a Public body - failed in their duty. For years, if not decades. Both under a Labour and Conservative government. The Government rules on safety requirements for both fire doors as well as cladding material failed everyone. The private sector equally failed in their use of materials.

But to state that when the State is involved all is working well and it is only the Private Sector that there are problems this is equally revisionist.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-04-2018, 15:33

So... things pre-Thatcher were a-OK? The change to housing had no bearing on the reduction on strikes? Religious conviction indeed.

The Westminster Council - a Public body - failed in their duty. For years, if not decades. Both under a Labour and Conservative government. The Government rules on safety requirements for both fire doors as well as cladding material failed everyone. The private sector equally failed in their use of materials.

But to state that when the State is involved all is working well and it is only the Private Sector that there are problems this is equally revisionist.

~:smoking:

I'm talking about housing as a tool for societal manipulation. Westminster did it a bit too overtly and the councillors got done for gerrymandering. Thatcher did it more covertly with right to buy, thus converting social housing into private housing, putting the government's housing capability into the hands of private landlords, thus driving up both rent and house prices, etc. All egged on by the media everywhere you look: the obsession with ever-rising house prices, house do ups in preparation for rental or being sold on, etc. Shirley Porter was a failure at it and got done. Maggie Thatcher was a raging success at it, to the point that people don't even recognise what she's done.

Husar

07-04-2018, 18:49

But to state that when the State is involved all is working well and it is only the Private Sector that there are problems this is equally revisionist.

Well, I would generally agree, but in Britain and the US I would also say that a state based on the FPTP principle is basically set up to fail.
:clown:

Furunculus

07-04-2018, 19:04

a completely inoffensive name

07-04-2018, 20:09

And all areas of life becoming more market-like is also becoming more and more true. In many areas it is done by removing possession from the consumer. The consumer then becomes dependent on the corporations granting him the right to use something for a (monthly) price. In return the corporations try to make the consumer more dependent to remove the consumers' choice to go elsewhere or stop paying. There was a German article about how everything is turned into a market, unfortunately I don't know of an English equivalent:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/neoliberales-herrschaftssystem-warum-heute-keine-revolution-moeglich-ist-1.2110256

One of the things it also goes into is how neoliberalism has led people to think every failure is purely their own fault, which is exactly what makes people try to do what the market wants because we get trained to think that not being the way the market wants us makes it our own fault that we fail for not trying hard enough to be the way the market wants us. So there's your "transforming people".

There is a book about this subject I really enjoyed called "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets" by Michael Sandel.
He discusses multiple examples of market thinking being introduced further into the public sphere, much to the detriment of the public psyche.

One key example being the use of market incentives to encourage parents at a day care to arrive on time and not keep the workers waiting for an extra 1-2 hours past closing time. The incentive was to implement a fine of X dollars to any parents who arrive more than 10 minutes late. What ends up happening is an increase in absent parents. The explanation Michael gives for this example and the others is that market incentives have undermined a sense of community by conflating wealth with morality. Fewer parents arrived late when the only punishment was a sense of shame for not attending to their child at the agreed pick up time. Once the day care introduced the fine, parents could pay the fine and feel that they compensated the day care for their tardiness. And if they could afford to keep paying the fine, they would keep coming in late.

Another example that most people would consider trivial, but which resonates with me for some reason is the nature of sports stadiums. Specifically, two items:
1. Introduction of secluded skyboxes
2. Naming rights

With the introduction of secluded skyboxes in the later 20th century, sports stadiums no longer sat rich and poor alike in common seats. Now, there was a clear class divide that only serves to generate two entirely separate realities between the haves and have-nots. The removal of communal experience in favor of market principles (more money = better experience) has likely eroded the sense of citizenship between classes.

Also, with the naming rights issue we see the identity of the team itself put on the market for the highest bidder. Cities are very loyal to their teams and by normalizing this relationship we only serve to instill in the public a sense of identity transience since we cannot find common ground even in our sports institutions. Now, it would ignorant to say that naming stadiums after companies has not been a thing since the very beginning, (e.g. Wrigley Field). But stadiums are now either revising their names on a twenty year contractual basis or they are playing off the citizens psyche to exort tax payer money for new stadiums with higher paying naming rights.

Running joke in Chicago is that the Willis Tower is pronounced "Sears". You get the point. Anyway, I enjoyed the book and I feel it highlights issues with neoliberal mindset of making everything under the sun a market.

Husar

07-04-2018, 21:24

So much time wasted talking about neoliberals, no interest in dealing with the merits or problems of what they say.
should we do the same for all manner of lefty organisations, do they too have nothing interesting to tell us?

Somehow, every time I prove you wrong, you suddenly don't like the direction the discussion is taking and propose we discuss something else.

But if you really want, does your philosophy have an inherent value of a human life? And if yes, what is it? What should be the minimum standard for humans in your ideal community and how would it be realized?

Furunculus

07-04-2018, 21:37

Somehow, every time I prove you wrong, you suddenly don't like the direction the discussion is taking and propose we discuss something else.

But if you really want, does your philosophy have an inherent value of a human life? And if yes, what is it? What should be the minimum standard for humans in your ideal community and how would it be realized?

Prove me wrong...?

Rofl. When? How?

You get to post an entertaining little ditty of a web infographic, five minutes of voice over and pastel cartoons, and I provide sixty+ pages of economic tract.

And you proved ME wrong!

This has been a waste of oxygen since the 16th of June.

Montmorency

07-04-2018, 22:05

Well, believing in natural rights, and rejecting the idea that gov't should be a tool to transform the people to meet the needs of the neoliberal market, seem to be pretty meaty practical differences.

Not allowing the state to grow in power and responsibility to the point where individual liberty is a residual memory isn't a defining characteristic of neoliberalism, it is a mindset that is generic a cross conservatism and classical liberalism for hundreds of years.
viewing the provision of internal and external security as the primary role of the state is hardly unique neoliberal doctrine either, nor to is preventing the rise of the welfare state from entirely crowding it out as a budget priority.

Again, in the context of brexit and the rump-eu; why the myopic fixation on neoliberalism?

How do you reject it in practice? Do you reject it personally, but accept it when allies advance it?

Let's say I reject the killing of political opponents in theory, but in practice support the establishment of a party secret police... that just happen to do forced disappearances. Ah well, maybe they're not really killing those people?

You point out that ideologies may repeatedly overlap in places while remaining distinct, but again the question is not where do they overlap, but where don't they overlap: where would you not accept them overlapping, as a specific political question? How can one claim to oppose some government or market power while acquiescing to them in the presence of alternatives.

It's OK if you don't wish to deal with the topic, but it is a valid one.

P. S. Why do we care so much about neoliberals?

Why do you care so much about not being labeled a neoliberal?

You get to post an entertaining little ditty of a web infographic, five minutes of voice over and pastel cartoons, and I provide sixty+ pages of economic tract.

And you proved ME wrong!

First person to post Das Kapital wins the thread!

Anyway, here's a good time to repost my summary of the essay on the convergence of neoliberal and Nazi fascist governance structure.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053778878&viewfull=1#post2053778878

Husar

07-04-2018, 23:00

Prove me wrong...?

Rofl. When? How?

You get to post an entertaining little ditty of a web infographic, five minutes of voice over and pastel cartoons, and I provide sixty+ pages of economic tract.

And you proved ME wrong!

This has been a waste of oxygen since the 16th of June.

I didn't prove the paper wrong, but some other things you said in the discussion.

The paper is just vague, it even struggles to define the welfare it is talking about and still offers an ideal taxation level to maximize said welfare. The problem is that this is neither here nor there as long as the welfare that is supposedly maximized is not really defined. :shrug:
I've skimmed over various parts and read others in detail, but I'm none the wiser about how the paper would prove anything. Most of it appears to be argumentation about why the authors are right about assuming this or that and one would have to check dozens of other sources to actually verify that. So yeah, I can't prove your paper wrong because I'm unwilling to spend dozens of hours researching, but I'm also not sure your paper proves anything in the first place.

In addition, a search for the word "automation" gets not a single result, so the paper analyzes data all the way back to the 1970s and proposes solutions without taking into account any near-future changes such as automation. What use are economic growth and lower taxes if automation puts millions of people out of work?

Arguments like this one are also far from clear:

Because the supply of capital is highly elastic, especially in an
open economy, capital taxes discourage investment disproportionately
and, consequently, reduce productivity. Furthermore,
taxes on capital income tax intermediate inputs (capital) into
future outputs, the production and consumption of which are
themselves taxed

The supply of capital can not only be made less elastic, e.g. through treaties that require capital income to be taxed in many countries, there are also still lots of disadvantages to not investing at all, such as inflation reducing the capital. And the last argument about outputs already being taxed is also highly debatable since the outputs can be taxed less if the inputs are taxed more. Plus, capital income is not an input, it's an output of the same processes that prosduce the other output. The investment is an input, but the reuturn on investment, from which you get the capital income, is an output.

The whole conclusion of the study appears to depend on whether you agree with all things the authors see as givens, which are all derived from the libertarian world view and the assumption that the current capitalist model is entirely future-proof and the economy can just grow and grow and grow endlessly on a planet that isn't endless.

a completely inoffensive name

07-05-2018, 01:48

Montmorency

07-05-2018, 02:50

How much of capitalism as we currently conceive, depends on assumptions currently proving to be false?

It is difficult in my opinion to hold too much faith in the status quo of mixed economies based on three factors:
1. The inability of wall street to learn from its mistakes. Much as governments have grown in their ability to annihilate each other, our economic institutions also have the ability to destabilize the entire world based on bad practices in one sector. 2008 housing crisis is nothing compared to a theoretical slow down of the Chinese market from 6-7% to 2-3%. With the recent repeal of most of Dodd Frank, it seems old practices are still in demand.

2. Related to point one, the ability of governments to regulate bad behavior in free markets seems more limited as both the complexity and the resistance of the economic institutions grow. Again, see the failure of Dodd frank to last beyond one administration.

3. Developed nations are continuing a trend of downward population growth. Several states are in the negative, many more are strateling the line, propped up barely by immigration. What does this say about how we view the metric of growth when we also recognize the impossibility of several billion people living 1st world standards and encourage developing nations to adhere to the above trend?

Related to point three, the only way out of this conflict seems to be faith that while we live in a limited resource environment, productivity per person is boundless (doubtful). If this was magically the case, we are still on the wrong path since we have seen a decoupling of productivity and real income since the 1970s.

Do we need a new paradigm beyond free markets for the mid 21st century?

Mistake: our markets are not "free". We have state-subsidized, government-mandated markets.

1. De-marketize society.

So we need something other than commercial relations as a basis for society. In pre-modern times, it was pure subsistence, religion, violence, and autocratic whim. The 20th century saw attempts at world-historical projects that were too destructive for our prospect.

2. The only future for humanity that isn't a horror-show or outright AI posthumanity (far likelier biological than computational) is a subsistence economy, but with luxurious subsistence as a minimum standard, on the basis of a shared core value in mutual altruism.

Housing, food, healthcare, education, etc. The primary goal of politics becomes assuring the provision of the minimum standard, and expanding it continuously.

3. Automate as much as possible, but leave technological development, especially in biotech like genetic engineering, heavily restricted according to ethical standards like the precautionary principle.

All utopian ideologies depend on shared humanity. Allowing the advent of categorical cleavage in beings not only wrecks that, it obviates 5,000 years of history and philosophy utterly and forever. Everything we have ever done as a species becomes a sick joke.

4. Probably do something about population... There exists a gap between population growth and desired childmaking outcomes, which suggests widespread prosperous subsistence would lead to a baby boom.

????

5. Collectivize childrearing.

5. Everyone has the moral agency to choose their own way of life.

5. Can't we just be pessimists and fatalists? I want to watch my vitreous jelly sucked out by a cyberpunk abomination.

a completely inoffensive name

07-05-2018, 07:19

I am not sure of the direction you are taking. But I don't necessarily see anything so drastic.

Personally, I think that we need to go back to the philosophy of Locke and other's who built the groundwork of private property and revisit it in the context of today's state. We should strive more towards the idea that the property belongs to those who put effort or improve upon the land.

What sort of society do we have if we view our relationship through the lens of conditional ownership based around utilization of the land?
Most of society can move on as it is currently because for the most part companies utilize land for the purpose of generating value.

I find there to be something wrong about the inability of cities to clamp down on ghost apartments used by the wealthy overseas to dump money which only serve to remove supply and drive up prices with no value added.
Or how cities must go through a lengthy process just to buy out land that is sitting unused by a stubborn owner that could be used for public transit or a revitalization process.
This isn't to say I want a society where the government owns all of the land and simply hands it out by its corruptible criteria of merit. But the government should have a more active role in remediating rent seeking activities and rewarding those who put forth plans to provide actual value.

And perhaps when it is all said and done a free-ish market like what we have today is the best way to generate wealth. But if that is the case then we are in trouble because more and more the perception of the average citizen like me is that 21st C capitalism is an exercise in manipulating supply and applying magical formulas to optimize self destructive bets and counter bets on each others businesses in order to generate wealth.

EDIT: In my dream society, California would have passed SB827 years ago. We know we need more housing, the land is being mismanaged by local politicians held hostage by NIMBYs. This is clear case of what the people need, and the deference to the local communities has gone beyond the pale.

a completely inoffensive name

07-05-2018, 08:07

Follow up about the cities buying out land. I understand there is a process of eminent domain for certain public projects, but I am more frustrated over situations like this.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-broadway-manchester-revival-20180310-htmlstory.html

Key point:
"One way way out of the impasse could arise from Kleinman’s own disengagement.
Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector records show that 2015-16 property taxes on his properties are in default and the first installment on this year’s taxes of $18,251.84 has not been paid. If the default is not cleared by July 1, 2019, the tax collector would initiate a process to sell the properties within four years."

So if he wasn't in default, that land would remain a patch work of abandoned, decrepit buildings for homeless people until death? Also, why does it take 3 years to clear a default payment and then another 4 to sell off the property? A child could go through middle and high school before a shovel even touches the ground.

Husar

07-05-2018, 12:48

We should strive more towards the idea that the property belongs to those who put effort or improve upon the land.

In capitalism, these people are the capitalists. And the more we progress, the more everything depends on them and their capital.

We might also want to be careful not to get too far away from the Brexit discussion here. Perhaps a mod could open a new topic about the end state of capitalism?

As for the Free Market, if you think it rules supreme, let's take the following example:

You're the consumer, who makes an informed decision to buy a shampoo, as the free market principles dictate:
Shampoo A: http://mostlysunnyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Aesop-Calming-Shampoo-ingredients.jpg
Shampoo B: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tWJ66.jpg

Now answer the following questions in a detailed way:
- Which shampoo is better for your skin and why?
- Which shampoo is less harmful to the environment and why?
- What criteria do you apply when you buy Shampoo?
- Why do you have these criteria and how exactly do they maximize your welfare?
- How do you know that your decision was best and benefits the market, and in extension everyone?

I mean, obviously all this should be easy to explain since the market always makes the best product win through the customer choice, no?

Montmorency

07-05-2018, 13:01

First, let me say I positively squint at the use of eminent domain for the interests of private developers. If there's a housing crisis (which there is (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/08/17/tenants-under-siege-inside-new-york-city-housing-crisis/), buddy, real estate interests in Albany), then have the city or the state fund, or preferably build, co-living (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohousing) apartments (less trendily known as communal apartments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_apartment)).

I don't see what the special focus on residential land usage is, or how its reform alone contributes to an ideal society. It seems like something that follows from the parameters of the larger frame. Right now, that is rewarding mass speculation (financial rent) and luxury, high-rise, and McMansion development. Why do NIMBYs exist? Is it because they are rich and crotchety? Upper middle-class and anxious about property values? (Only activists have cared much about the concerns of lower-class NIMBYs.) If you don't have to worry about wealth or property values or basic survival, then these concerns can be dminished.

You can only fruitfully speculate on the new shape of these things once you know how the systemic parameters determine where, how, and why people live or go to live, work, and operate in the first place. Right now, almost all movement between locales is for retirement or in pursuit of economic opportunities, largely toward legacy urban centers that arose for all the reasons towns and cities arose. A degree of re-ruralization with infrastructure is one possibility.

A market like we have today is unsustainable, as you should be aware. Markets are indeed highly efficient - at concentrating wealth and power. Our essential and recurring problem is such concentrations of wealth and power. If you don't endeavour to flatten society of wealth and power, you accept that these crises will recur cyclically until such time as humans are replaced as labor capital, civilization is disintegrated technologically or ecologically, or most human energy is bent toward colonizing other worlds.

Unfortunately, we also need to retain enough of our consumption to keep "living standards" high, or reform becomes politically untenable. Therefore, one of the biggest challenges:

1. Match modern living standards and consumption with ecological sustainability*
2. Modern life depends on the extractive industries, which depend on the extreme poverty and suffering of many millions of laborers - eliminate this exploitation, or equality is a lie.

*This isn't to say that we need to preserve this saturated wonderland of conveniences and goodies, which did not exist before the 1990s. The problem is more soluble if you take "modern" as anything post-war, though transport and communication capabilities can't be allowed to degrade.

Furunculus

07-05-2018, 13:24

Why do you care so much about not being labeled a neoliberal?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053778878&viewfull=1#post2053778878

I don't. It appears to be only your fetish.

rory_20_uk

07-05-2018, 14:00

Pannonian

07-05-2018, 15:14

Significant political change generally comes about when there has been a significant problem or less frequently when there's those who believe in what they're doing - beyond the usual desire to enrich themselves.

Historically, the cycle of wealth was auto-corrected due to invasions or revolutions. It was physically stolen by the victors and generally a lot of it went missing. Now since most wealth is electronic it moves with a speed no single country can match - and there's generally one that's happy to take a cut for shielding it all.

As to sustainability, i rarely hear anyone who concludes with the phrase "thus I need to travel less / have less holidays" etc etc. Always others need to do more; when I knew several people who had chronic illnesses their view was very much redistribution of wealth... to people like themselves, not those earning less than a dollar a day.

Equality is a lie. Always was, always will be. In all placental mammals there is not equality. There is the odd commune here or there, but they indirectly rely massively on the developed world around them for tools, the very foods they eat and security. They never seem to be set up in the middle of the Sahel. Societies beyond subsistence (where everyone is living on the edge) is increasingly unfair. And societies that try to create fairness (as they see it) generally mean others get rich providing the services that are not officially allowed.

But next time... It might all be different.

~:smoking:

But what is wrong with aspiring towards equality of opportunity? That is what is meant by "Libraries gave us power". That is what was intended by things such as Sure Start, that aimed to provide for individuals at the stage where cost most efficiently translates into later opportunity. Socialism doesn't have to only mean redistribution of wealth at the point of use. Something the early C20 socialists were big on, and ironically Blair and Brown were also big on, is giving people the chance to better themselves through their own effort, by providing opportunity that would normally only be available to the already wealthy.

Redirecting this towards the thread topic: there are opportunities in Brexit, but only for those who already have. Once the economy properly declines, there will be a chance for those with ready capital to buy up and own ever bigger chunks of the existing economy, while those who are trapped by their inability to escape the rent circle can only watch. In 1990s Russia this led to the rise of the oligarchs. 2020s UK may not be as free of law as Russia was, but the gap between rich and poor will still similarly increase, through the above mechanism. One can already see the leading Brexiteers preparing for it.

rory_20_uk

07-05-2018, 15:51

But what is wrong with aspiring towards equality of opportunity? That is what is meant by "Libraries gave us power". That is what was intended by things such as Sure Start, that aimed to provide for individuals at the stage where cost most efficiently translates into later opportunity. Socialism doesn't have to only mean redistribution of wealth at the point of use. Something the early C20 socialists were big on, and ironically Blair and Brown were also big on, is giving people the chance to better themselves through their own effort, by providing opportunity that would normally only be available to the already wealthy.

Redirecting this towards the thread topic: there are opportunities in Brexit, but only for those who already have. Once the economy properly declines, there will be a chance for those with ready capital to buy up and own ever bigger chunks of the existing economy, while those who are trapped by their inability to escape the rent circle can only watch. In 1990s Russia this led to the rise of the oligarchs. 2020s UK may not be as free of law as Russia was, but the gap between rich and poor will still similarly increase, through the above mechanism. One can already see the leading Brexiteers preparing for it.

Have you considered attending church? They are big on aspiration as well. Stating that divergence between rich and poor is bad is the really easy thing. Stating you'd like a fix is just as easy. Now... HOW are you going to stop things being Bad? Many state those who voted for leave were sick of being ignored by all the tiers of government who mainly enrich themselves and their fellows both in role and also after leaving with some nice directorships. Brexit probably won't really fix this but then what, exactly, will?

Grammar schools? Some say they help, others say they help the middle and upper middle classes get ahead and that's about it. I'm a school governor at a Primary School. The teachers are told to throw money at the less able who are generally the poorer ones knowing that it makes sod all difference since there is no follow through in the evenings / weekends / holidays. What to do? Take all children to be looked after in a lovely egalitarian gulag until they're 18 which might equalise outcomes (for those who don't flee the country) at the cost of individual liberty.

Brexiteers aren't all moral angels? How dare they! But then pro-EU politicians all seem to have their little off shore funds which surely hurt no one. I imagine that those in Finance will descend as the do on any other event they can enrich themselves on - Soros made a fortune on the run on the pound. And after causing almost incalculable damage to the world with his amoral collecting of wealth he's doing some bits to give his soul a wash and brush up.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-05-2018, 15:57

Mistake: our markets are not "free". We have state-subsidized, government-mandated markets.

1. De-marketize society.

So we need something other than commercial relations as a basis for society. In pre-modern times, it was pure subsistence, religion, violence, and autocratic whim. The 20th century saw attempts at world-historical projects that were too destructive for our prospect.

2. The only future for humanity that isn't a horror-show or outright AI posthumanity (far likelier biological than computational) is a subsistence economy, but with luxurious subsistence as a minimum standard, on the basis of a shared core value in mutual altruism.

Housing, food, healthcare, education, etc. The primary goal of politics becomes assuring the provision of the minimum standard, and expanding it continuously.

3. Automate as much as possible, but leave technological development, especially in biotech like genetic engineering, heavily restricted according to ethical standards like the precautionary principle.

All utopian ideologies depend on shared humanity. Allowing the advent of categorical cleavage in beings not only wrecks that, it obviates 5,000 years of history and philosophy utterly and forever. Everything we have ever done as a species becomes a sick joke.

4. Probably do something about population... There exists a gap between population growth and desired childmaking outcomes, which suggests widespread prosperous subsistence would lead to a baby boom.

????

5. Collectivize childrearing.

5. Everyone has the moral agency to choose their own way of life.

5. Can't we just be pessimists and fatalists? I want to watch my vitreous jelly sucked out by a cyberpunk abomination.

1. Thus far, every effort beyond the village/hunter-gatherer band level to 'eschew' markets has met with a poor end result.

2/3. I have read about the concept you evoke in points 2 and 3. In that rendering, a post-market society becomes doable because the use and reuse of resources, 3d printing and technology, etc. lowers the unit production cost of basic items to such a level that making subsistence items ceases to matter on a 'market' level. Though I still think a market would exist for other items/needs etc. for which higher unit costs persisted and/or for which tangible resources were somewhat irrelevant.

4. Thus far, improvements in health, longevity, and standard of living appear to mitigate against population growth. This may speak against the baby boom you suggest. On the other hand, this 'self-imposed' limitation in birth rate has been observed only in Western cultures and in Japan -- I cannot guarantee that other cultures with somewhat different value systems would replicate this trend.

Pannonian

07-05-2018, 17:09

Have you considered attending church? They are big on aspiration as well. Stating that divergence between rich and poor is bad is the really easy thing. Stating you'd like a fix is just as easy. Now... HOW are you going to stop things being Bad? Many state those who voted for leave were sick of being ignored by all the tiers of government who mainly enrich themselves and their fellows both in role and also after leaving with some nice directorships. Brexit probably won't really fix this but then what, exactly, will?

Grammar schools? Some say they help, others say they help the middle and upper middle classes get ahead and that's about it. I'm a school governor at a Primary School. The teachers are told to throw money at the less able who are generally the poorer ones knowing that it makes sod all difference since there is no follow through in the evenings / weekends / holidays. What to do? Take all children to be looked after in a lovely egalitarian gulag until they're 18 which might equalise outcomes (for those who don't flee the country) at the cost of individual liberty.

Brexiteers aren't all moral angels? How dare they! But then pro-EU politicians all seem to have their little off shore funds which surely hurt no one. I imagine that those in Finance will descend as the do on any other event they can enrich themselves on - Soros made a fortune on the run on the pound. And after causing almost incalculable damage to the world with his amoral collecting of wealth he's doing some bits to give his soul a wash and brush up.

~:smoking:

Funding libraries and what they stand for, Sure Start and similar schemes, such as previous governments had done, would be one way of realising these aspirations. What I'm asking for isn't unrealistic; it's what had been done in the past. What is different is the normalisation of concentration of wealth and power, starting with Austerity and continuing with Brexit. Starve existing programmes that provide opportunity, and call the vacuum that eventuates society as it naturally is. No it's not. It's society as you've shaped it.

Pannonian

07-05-2018, 17:15

1. Thus far, every effort beyond the village/hunter-gatherer band level to 'eschew' markets has met with a poor end result.

2/3. I have read about the concept you evoke in points 2 and 3. In that rendering, a post-market society becomes doable because the use and reuse of resources, 3d printing and technology, etc. lowers the unit production cost of basic items to such a level that making subsistence items ceases to matter on a 'market' level. Though I still think a market would exist for other items/needs etc. for which higher unit costs persisted and/or for which tangible resources were somewhat irrelevant.

4. Thus far, improvements in health, longevity, and standard of living appear to mitigate against population growth. This may speak against the baby boom you suggest. On the other hand, this 'self-imposed' limitation in birth rate has been observed only in Western cultures and in Japan -- I cannot guarantee that other cultures with somewhat different value systems would replicate this trend.

In housing, the state had previously had recourse to social housing to provide for those who cannot find private housing. And given the evidence, the amount of social housing also helped keep rent down in private housing. Much of this social housing has been moved into private hands, to be let out again to renters. This has been a lucrative market for those who can afford to buy to let, while an ever larger proportion of the population has become renters as they can't afford the first step on the property ladder, and simultaneously rent has become an ever larger proportion of expenditure of those who have to pay it. Is this example of the free market an efficient use of resources?

Husar

07-05-2018, 17:22

Equality is a lie. Always was, always will be. In all placental mammals there is not equality. There is the odd commune here or there, but they indirectly rely massively on the developed world around them for tools, the very foods they eat and security. They never seem to be set up in the middle of the Sahel. Societies beyond subsistence (where everyone is living on the edge) is increasingly unfair. And societies that try to create fairness (as they see it) generally mean others get rich providing the services that are not officially allowed.

That may well be true, and I'm not sure who here is arguing for full equality and kumbayah.
It still doesn't mean we have to devote our societies to increasing inequality, wish for ourselves and others to be worse off and generally engage in some kind of nihilism if we're not among the rich elites.
One could just as well say that the fight for more equality is about as old and inevitable as the inequality itself.
Besides, humans have a tiny bit more intelligence, technology and potential than quite a few of the other mammals, so far at least.

But next time... It might all be different.

Is that what you tell failed business entrpreneurs?

rory_20_uk

07-05-2018, 17:48

That may well be true, and I'm not sure who here is arguing for full equality and kumbayah.
It still doesn't mean we have to devote our societies to increasing inequality, wish for ourselves and others to be worse off and generally engage in some kind of nihilism if we're not among the rich elites.
One could just as well say that the fight for more equality is about as old and inevitable as the inequality itself.
Besides, humans have a tiny bit more intelligence, technology and potential than quite a few of the other mammals, so far at least.

Is that what you tell failed business entrpreneurs?

We don't have to - but that is the psyche of many. In the USA most know things are unequal but with their optimism that flies in the face of all the evidence they think they'll get in on the gravy train before long rather than realising that they would be helped. That doesn't really bode well for having more intelligence - or indeed potential than other mammals...

If resources were given to activities that the average person wanted, museums and theatres would be in trouble whereas the BBC would have rights to all the footie.

Entrepreneurs often try something different to get a different result, accepting that reality will be the same so their approach has to differ. To undertake the same activity hoping that reality will alter to get a different result is less likely to work.

Funding libraries and what they stand for, Sure Start and similar schemes, such as previous governments had done, would be one way of realising these aspirations. What I'm asking for isn't unrealistic; it's what had been done in the past. What is different is the normalisation of concentration of wealth and power, starting with Austerity and continuing with Brexit. Starve existing programmes that provide opportunity, and call the vacuum that eventuates society as it naturally is. No it's not. It's society as you've shaped it.

Get up to the 21st Century! There are hundreds of thousands of books for free download, thousands of free online courses. If people can afford their latest phone I'm sure they could get a kindle and read, or a laptop. Schooling used to be limited to 12, then 14, 16, 18 and now increasingly until 21. The increased investment in education has been immense. Of course, the amount that has been learned has remained about the same.

What do Libraries stand for? Hope against reality? The few times I have visited they're hardly packed with people. I do not see how giving more money is going to somehow change the nature of people. It is so sweet that you so desperately want people to be wanting more education and to better themselves and think that if only for the want of investment all would improve. But that is a fantasy. For the few who genuinely do want to escape the dross they have been born into, there's also the "crab bucket" effect to contend with.

Could you point to the Golden Ages of yore of which you speak? Pre-1918 when most were disenfranchised? Pre WW2 and the Great Recession? The good old days of going to the IMF and the three day week? Did your version of Boys from the Blackstuff have them all reading slim versions of Keats of an evening and were oh so grateful that the library was well stocked?

A system such as the Nordics would be very different. But even there as their countries start being less homogeneous more are wondering whether they are seeing value for money.

I've shaped society? I've never even lived in a marginal seat my entire adult life! As I've often said, the electoral system in the UK is rotten to the core

~:smoking:

Furunculus

07-05-2018, 18:59

Inequality rising?

https://news.sky.com/story/inequality-in-the-uk-is-not-getting-worse-but-it-is-changing-11232312
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/an-up-to-date-account-of-economic-inequalities-in-britain-since-2008/

Husar

07-09-2018, 13:22

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-davis-factbox/david-davis-quits-uk-government-who-is-he-and-why-does-he-matter-idUSKBN1JZ02Q

Brexit Secretary David Davis has resigned because he was not willing to be “a reluctant conscript” to Prime Minister Theresa May’s European Union exit plan, delivering a blow to a British leader struggling to end divisions in her cabinet.

Brexit coming along as planned. Sounds like he is an expert on exiting something. A true Daxit.

Furunculus

07-09-2018, 15:19

Bo-jo too.

Husar

07-09-2018, 15:46

Bo-jo too.

Yes: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/boris-johnson-resigns-brexit-today-2018-07-09-live-updates/

Makes you wonder whether the May-flower will ever reach the promised land. :clown:

Beskar

07-09-2018, 23:10

Majority of people were happy with Bojo going.

Unfortunately 'unt is still sat there peachy...

Pannonian

07-10-2018, 00:19

Majority of people were happy with Bojo going.

Unfortunately 'unt is still sat there peachy...

Angus Deayton should be the new Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson's only qualification for his political career has been his experience at hosting HIGNFY, and Deayton has him beat there.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-10-2018, 00:25

Yes: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/boris-johnson-resigns-brexit-today-2018-07-09-live-updates/

Makes you wonder whether the May-flower will ever reach the promised land. :clown:

It made it, but then anchored for the winter and 1/3 of them died.

Beskar

07-10-2018, 01:26

Angus Deayton should be the new Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson's only qualification for his political career has been his experience at hosting HIGNFY, and Deayton has him beat there.

On plus side, 'unt is no longer secretary for health.

edyzmedieval

07-10-2018, 01:48

Wasn't there a protest for Pro-Remain recently?

Pannonian

07-10-2018, 02:49

On plus side, 'unt is no longer secretary for health.

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

Furunculus

07-10-2018, 04:29

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

Don't utter specious foolishness.

If you want to tax more to spend more on worthy social interventions, then get YOUR side to win some elections.

Until then spending will be made to fit the tax base. And the tories are pretty certain that the electorate will remain broadly content with taxation and spending sticking to the historic trend of high thirties.

Don't be disappointed when people who disagree with you don't do the things you want. Win the argument.

rory_20_uk

07-10-2018, 10:11

The new Health Secretary has IEA links. Cue arguments for selling off parts of the NHS to the US as per neoliberal doctrine. Or classical liberal doctrine, as Furunculus calls it.

All GPs have always been Private. Do you know how much GPs are whining that they might be made salaried?
Most consultants do Private work. Some earn more from the private work than from the NHS. Bevan famously described as having bought the support of the consultants by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” The NHS right from the start bought off the doctors. There was no selfless sacrifice, only greed.
Many others have their hands out to receive money from Pharmaceutical companies. Some for clinical studies, others just to parrot their selling message.

Many of the buildings are PFI - which is basically privatising by the back door. But that was Labour so it's fine.

But you're right. Privatising itself is Eeeeevil and no further details are required! If it worked for British Leyland it must work for all the NHS!!!

~:smoking:

Montmorency

07-10-2018, 12:32

All GPs have always been Private. Do you know how much GPs are whining that they might be made salaried?
Most consultants do Private work. Some earn more from the private work than from the NHS. Bevan famously described as having bought the support of the consultants by “stuffing their mouths with gold.” The NHS right from the start bought off the doctors. There was no selfless sacrifice, only greed.

What you notice is that radical restructuring of society or government requires stakeholders be brought on board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/nhs_at_50/special_report/119803.stm

Overnight, the patchwork provision of medical services, which left millions of people with little or no reliable health care, was swept away. But the establishment of the new health service was strongly opposed by the Conservative Party and by the Doctor's professional body, the British Medical Association (BMA).

But if Bevan was to establish his health service, he needed the co-operation of the doctors. After all, the NHS could not operate without doctors.

Non co-operation

Once the Health Bill became an act in the closing months of 1946, the BMA immediately adopted a policy of non co-operation with the health service and refused to negotiate with the minister on their conditions of service.

But Bevan was determined to prevent a sectional interest derail an act of Parliament. He described the BMA as a, "small body of politically poisoned people" who had decided "to fight the Health Act itself and to stir up as much emotion as they can in the profession."

But as Bevan's stormy relationship with the BMA carried on into 1948, the minister luckily managed to strike up a working relationship with the Royal College of Physicians headed by Churchill's personal doctor Lord Moran.

'Stuffing their mouths with gold'

By allowing the consultants to work inside the health service and at the same time still treat their lucrative private patients, Bevan bought the backing of the consultants by, as he put it, "stuffing their mouths with gold."

Opposition among BMA members was now declining as well. The doctors began to realise that by refusing to treat health service patients they would lose a substantial source of income, and when Bevan promised legislation that ensured they would not become salaried civil servents, the doctors ended their resistance.

But Bevan had managed to take from them the right to buy and sell practices.

Pessimism has value, but sometimes one has to recall one's capacity to do when there exists commitment.

And an interesting factoid about the Labor Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV) is that, before being amended in 1995, the Party Constitution/Rule Book said this:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

It was replaced (in '95) with:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'.

Apparently Corbyn doesn't feel like amending it further.

rory_20_uk

07-10-2018, 13:11

What you notice is that radical restructuring of society or government requires stakeholders be brought on board.

"Brought on board" sounds so much nicer than "bribed", doesn't it? Such realities are lost in the rosy-eyed mists of how the NHS was created and everyone did it for the goodness of all, rather than venal self interest.

So, a radical change required paying off one set of doctors and not addressing the other lot - there never has been a completely government run NHS. So when those worry about "privatisation" - which I agree is certainly not something to allow without considerable oversight - the context needs to be given which is that a large portion already is Private and was never, ever not Private.

Labour might have that in their manifesto, but their party is littered with names who have accrued all the power and privilege they can lay their hands on with scant regard for the masses.

~:smoking:

Montmorency

07-10-2018, 13:50

"Brought on board" sounds so much nicer than "bribed", doesn't it? Such realities are lost in the rosy-eyed mists of how the NHS was created and everyone did it for the goodness of all, rather than venal self interest.

So, a radical change required paying off one set of doctors and not addressing the other lot - there never has been a completely government run NHS. So when those worry about "privatisation" - which I agree is certainly not something to allow without considerable oversight - the context needs to be given which is that a large portion already is Private and was never, ever not Private.

Labour might have that in their manifesto, but their party is littered with names who have accrued all the power and privilege they can lay their hands on with scant regard for the masses.

~:smoking:

I'm sure the mid-century socialists wanted to keep expanding public oversight of these sectors, and being pragmatic knew that you can't have everything at once. It was in their party line, after all -literally. The question is then, is/was the NHS a sturdy base from which to expand?

In the second part, I was specifically calling attention to the change in wording between the 20th and 21st century Labor parties, which jells with (as noted in your aside) a more privatization-friendly party. And so making it more noteworthy that Corbyn has hesitated to offer his own amendment.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-11-2018, 02:33

So, how long before "Leave" starts asserting that this year's FIFA performance is because of the leave vote generating a greater sense of British national pride?

Pannonian

07-11-2018, 05:46

So, how long before "Leave" starts asserting that this year's FIFA performance is because of the leave vote generating a greater sense of British national pride?

It would depend on how much the claimer knows about football. England's football so far has been ugly as heck.

1. Get the ball to the final third as quickly as possible.
2. Collapse at the slightest contact, drawing a free kick or a corner.
3. Load the box with big men.

Scientific football at its most cynical. Hugely helped by two knock out opponents who had no intention of playing football.

Oh, and Facebook have been given the maximum fine for their Cambridge shenanigans. While Aaron Banks has been meeting up with the Russian ambassador regularly, way more frequently than he's admitted to. While his business partner has been given lucrative oligarch-style business contracts. Leave was funded by Russia.

rory_20_uk

07-11-2018, 12:58

It wasn't the maximum fine by about £480 million or so.

They took roughly 80 million users data over years and paid 1/2 a million. Many firms would pay a lot more for that data for a single use. Facebook got a bargain.

~:smoking:

Husar

07-11-2018, 13:07

Leave was funded by Russia.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Russia is using a psychological divide and conquer strategy to basically break up NATO and the EU. And the refugee stuff is helping them a lot as well, which might explain some of their actions in Syria. If they can manage to get the EU to disband itself while the US isolates itself, they will be the European hegemon more or less. They will control a lot of resources (gas), have the largest population and the strongest military. And the euro far right parties often like them anyway because they like strong, manly leaders with homophobia and xenophobia or whatever. :shrug:

rory_20_uk

07-11-2018, 13:51

If European NATO members spent the 2% Europe would be a lot stronger given some are closer to 1 % and so would (if they wanted) almost double the offensive capacity of their military. To compare, Russia spends over 5%. That strength doesn't need the EU.

Russia is fighting to keep warm water ports for its Navy... Which the USA / UK / France and others already have - and most in safer places.

Russia's population is actually declining. Their economy is pretty bad with massive upset as the pension age is now above life expectancy (which is rather low). They have fractious Islamists along most of their south border... except for when it is China and North Korea. Lucky them.

Yes, they are a regional power, and one to be respected if not liked. Most Europeans have been happy to have the USA as their safety blanket and skimp on paying themselves. But if they are more powerful than Germany and France, that is the choice of Germany and France.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-11-2018, 13:56

Husar

07-11-2018, 14:27

If European NATO members spent the 2% Europe would be a lot stronger given some are closer to 1 % and so would (if they wanted) almost double the offensive capacity of their military.

That's not the whole story. The German military didn't even spend its entire budget in past years and was still unable to keep its machinery in operational condition. Not every problem is fixed just by throwing money at it.

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...
And then, before you know, it, France is not using its military to keep Russia at bay, but to stop the AfD forces from conquering the French Airbus factories so they can keep their job promises... :creep:

Furunculus

07-11-2018, 17:27

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Russia is using a psychological divide and conquer strategy to basically break up NATO and the EU. And the refugee stuff is helping them a lot as well, which might explain some of their actions in Syria. If they can manage to get the EU to disband itself while the US isolates itself, they will be the European hegemon more or less. They will control a lot of resources (gas), have the largest population and the strongest military. And the euro far right parties often like them anyway because they like strong, manly leaders with homophobia and xenophobia or whatever. :shrug:

much of the west european populist right is very gay friendly these days, so i'm told.

the fronte nationale even have a chap called Florian Philipott!

the eastern european populist right is rather different, admittedly. in poland right now, and left or right they're grumbling about nord-stream, and less than sympathetic to the excuses of those nations with better things to do than fund collective defence.

"hello, this is what the front line looks like..."

rory_20_uk

07-11-2018, 18:05

That's not the whole story. The German military didn't even spend its entire budget in past years and was still unable to keep its machinery in operational condition. Not every problem is fixed just by throwing money at it.

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...
And then, before you know, it, France is not using its military to keep Russia at bay, but to stop the AfD forces from conquering the French Airbus factories so they can keep their job promises... :creep:

I imagine that Industry needs to be assured that they will get work every year otherwise the investment in factories etc will be wasted. No, not just money but a 5 or better 10 year plan where 2% is to be spent every year.

Every country for one country? Really, Russia is the only problem in the European sphere? I think not. And I understand that Germany has some reservations about the Military tail wagging the dog, but I think that even 2% GDP will not suddenly mean there'll be issues.

And yes, part of having the ability to have a military means ongoing expenditure since procurement is often years, so it is not possible to only have resources when they are required.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-12-2018, 04:46

Croatia ekes out a win in overtime. Sadly, this likely means a French victory. If I could only learn to like the French....but alas, other than our Louis, I rarely can.

Gilrandir

07-12-2018, 05:34

Croatia ekes out a win in overtime. Sadly, this likely means a French victory. If I could only learn to like the French....but alas, other than our Louis, I rarely can.

And this news bears on Brexit because...

Fisherking

07-12-2018, 07:55

And this news bears on Brexit because...

It is Brexit "The World Cup" :laugh4:

spmetla

07-12-2018, 19:45

And besides that, if every single nation has to maintain a big military just to keep one common enemy at bay, that's terribly inefficient. In addition you get side effects such as the military gaining more power and people thinking that since they have such a big, expensive hammer, every problem is likely a nail...

Two percent doesn't pay for a 'large' military, most militaries cost a lot more now for a lot less soldiers and equipment than in the past. The maintenance of a minimum spending at the very least allows for a respectable skeleton force that has enough experience and personnel to expand if say a new WW3 or something was on the horizon.
The danger of the military being used for every problem isn't too common outside the context of the current 'regional hegemons' and the USA. I highly doubt we'll see the militaries in Europe exerting the type of influence like the used to in Pre-WW2 Germany and France or so bold as to do attempted coup attempts anymore like in 1961 French-Algeria.
You pointed out the problems of the budget not being spent yet the German military having too much equipment 'down', which is a problem throwing more money at won't help. It should however cause Germany for example to at the least take a look at how to correct these down times for equipment.
As a pro-NATO guy and an anglophile I do worry though about the effects that BREXIT will have on the UK and its role in NATO. If this causes Scotland and Northern Ireland to split I fear that the remaining England will only maintain a token capability for force projection and just be a territorial and coastal defense force. France would be the only credible military in Western Europe but they really only care for using their military in maintaining influence in their former African colonies and the Mediterranean periphery.

For perspective here's some historical NATO spending by percentage:
Military Expenditure Trends for 1960–2014 and
What They Reveal
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1758-5899.12328
20899

The above shows at the least that Trumps four percent goal wasn't even attained by most NATO countries during the Cold War after the various colonial wars ended.

Pannonian

07-12-2018, 20:44

As a pro-NATO guy and an anglophile I do worry though about the effects that BREXIT will have on the UK and its role in NATO. If this causes Scotland and Northern Ireland to split I fear that the remaining England will only maintain a token capability for force projection and just be a territorial and coastal defense force. France would be the only credible military in Western Europe but they really only care for using their military in maintaining influence in their former African colonies and the Mediterranean periphery.

Russia has got excellent value for the money it's spent on Leave. And Leave supporters won't even admit Russia's part in their cause.

Fragony

07-13-2018, 06:31

Office topic but kinda on, why is that guy called Juncker, shouldn't it be Druncker? Manmanman that guy..... completily wasted at the Nato-summit. Backproblem, but of course...

Shamefull..... A perfect fit voor the EU, a senile old alcoholic

Pannonian

07-13-2018, 06:35

Furunculus

07-13-2018, 06:42

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

Pannonian

07-13-2018, 06:52

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

Isn't it in a recent interview?

In other news, in addition to the Sun giving Trump a platform to say the above on a visit to the UK, the Telegraph is now accusing May of treason. Do Leavers want another Jo Cox on their hands?

Furunculus

07-13-2018, 07:09

In other news, in addition to the Sun giving Trump a platform to say the above on a visit to the UK, the Telegraph is now accusing May of treason. Do Leavers want another Jo Cox on their hands?

Jo Cox is not on 'Leavers' hands.

Thoughts on the White Paper:

Excellent: "In keeping with the spirit of Article 50, and both sides’ commitment to the principle that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, the Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship are inextricably linked-concluded together"

Suspected as much: "These arrangements, which could take the form of an [Association Agreement], would ensure the new settlement is sustainable – working for the citizens of the UK and the EU now and in the future."

Tee-hee, what's the phrase - nothing is agreed until... "Europe’s security has been and will remain the UK’s security, which is why the Government has made an unconditional commitment to maintain it." ... everything is agreed!

Clever - given the progressivist nature of EU social democracy, they will diverge from us rather than us from them: "reciprocal commitments to maintain current high standards through non-regression provisions in other areas, such as environmental and employment."

So, they don't collect, we just deduct from remittances sent on to the EU? "tariff revenue formula, taking account of goods destined for the UK entering via the EU. However, the UK is not proposing that the EU applies the UK’s tariffs and trade policy at its border"

Two bites at the cherry? I presume we'd also have individual membership at the likes of UNECE: "UK would also seek participation – as an active participant, albeit without voting rights–in EU technical committees that have a role in designing and implementing rules"

Careful, you could get Corbyn! "The UK has an excellent record on compliance, and has been among the lowest granters of state aid as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the EU. In 2016 the UK gave 0.3% of GDP as state aid, half the EU average of 0.7%."

ROFL, virtually nothing flies over Ireland that hasn't already flown over the UK, geddit? "the UK’s geographical position in the network is key, with around 80 per cent of all North Atlantic traffic passing through UK or Irish controlled airspace."

Don't lose sight of the fact that the UK is a security exporter! "UK created over 1.4 million alerts on SIS II. UK authorities registered almost 10,000 hits against alerts put on the system by other countries,many of which were related to people linked to terrorism"

This exposes why regulatory sovereignty on services is necessary, it's a foreign policy WMD: "Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act provides for national powers to impose sanctions. These powers will enable the UK to act in support of foreign policy objectives."

Galileo and Trumpian sympathy for accepting the security but rejecting the invoice: "The EU has put forward proposals which have the effect of ending UK participation. UK and the EU must work through issues relating to access to security-related elements urgently"

Rejecting the Swiss guillotine: "Joint Committee should consider the possibility to recognise equivalence of legislation. Where there was no agreement over these measures, or they were not possible, the relevant part of the future relationship could be suspended."

Trying to dodge the CJEU's penchant for judicial activism in pursuit of ever-closer-union? "The CJEU would only have a role in relation to the interpretation of those EU rules to which the UK had agreed to adhere as a matter of international law."

This is relevant to all areas covered by the common rulebook, but what about many of the many areas that are not? Efta... "The UK recognises that only the CJEU can bind the EU on the interpretation of EU law, and therefore in these instances"

Efta again...? "However, there may be times where unexpected events mean that the parties need to respond quickly, and with provisions that would otherwise be in breach of the agreements. Any measures would be subject to challenge through independent arbitration."

Seems perfectly acceptable, but let's see what it looks like out the other end of the sausage machine. Perhaps hopeful that May seems to have sewn up a deal with Merkel, but Merkel has already screwed up once, with cameron in the renegotiation in January 2016!

Pannonian

07-13-2018, 07:32

In this hypothetical situation; how incapacitating was his sciatica at the time he gave this advice?
n.b. my answer will likely be calibrated to your response.

BBC interviewed the Sun reporter who said Sanders tried to end the interview but Trump “swatted her away” and “kept on talking” well beyond the allotted 10 min

His final impression: “He is unchallenged in his own organization, it’s like being in the court of a medieval emperor”

It doesn't seem that hypothetical to me. Even the Sun reporter getting a headliner thought Trump was going beyond the pale. I'd like to know how you thought his sciatica was affecting what he was saying though.

Furunculus

07-13-2018, 07:43

It doesn't seem that hypothetical to me. Even the Sun reporter getting a headliner thought Trump was going beyond the pale. I'd like to know how you thought his sciatica was affecting what he was saying though.

i was taking the mickey out of all the #FPBE twitterbots excusing Junkcers NATO performance as 'sciatica', rather than the result of being completely hammered.

Fragony

07-13-2018, 07:44

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

Did he

Pannonian

07-13-2018, 07:55

Did he

Yeah he did. Even the tabloid reporter interviewing him was appalled and tried to end the interview. I don't know what Juncker did and I don't care either if it doesn't affect Britain. But what do you think of Trump telling us that we should do Brexit differently, and that someone else would make for a better PM? IIRC you've talked before about being dictated to by the EU. Does this count as being dictated to by the US?

Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.

Furunculus

07-13-2018, 08:33

Does this count as being dictated to by the US?

Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.

If we felt like we had to abide by his views, yes. Otherwise, he's just another blow-hard.

The same as I think of lefty's screaming "FASCIST!" at everything with a pulse. If we were being run by a fascist I'd feel justified at taking a pop, under the principle of lawful rebellion, but unfortunately for me I consider it an obligation to weigh judgment on what other people say before I rush to act, you know; like we expect of any adult of sound mind. and as such I'd conclude that these words are not merited and nor too would any consequent action be. Free to act, obliged to live with the consequences of [my] actions.

Fragony

07-13-2018, 10:51

[QUOTE=Pannonian;2053779659
Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.[/QUOTE]

Design by media, it happens. They are ding the exact same tuingereedschap tot Thierry Baudet (rising star) as they die wih Fortuyn. What can I say it is wrong

Husar

07-13-2018, 13:45

Two percent doesn't pay for a 'large' military, most militaries cost a lot more now for a lot less soldiers and equipment than in the past. The maintenance of a minimum spending at the very least allows for a respectable skeleton force that has enough experience and personnel to expand if say a new WW3 or something was on the horizon.

Well, WW1 has shown that uparming can make a World War more likely. I'll also give you that WW2 has shown that total appeasement can also make a World War more likely. Noone here is arguing for total disarmament though.

You pointed out the problems of the budget not being spent yet the German military having too much equipment 'down', which is a problem throwing more money at won't help. It should however cause Germany for example to at the least take a look at how to correct these down times for equipment.

Funnily enough, now that you say it, I don't recall where, but I remember hearing lately that this was caused by introducing the American model of not stockpiling spareparts to save storage costs. Kind of a just-in-time delivery except that the reality turned out to be more of a way-too-late delivery of spare parts. :sweatdrop:
Maybe the US industry is much more used to constantly supplying new things or has more competition left that forces them to step up their game a bit.I think EADS is basically almost a monopoly in many European countries now since the smaller manufacturers all consolidated into that one to stay able to compete. Otherwise we'd be comparing F-35s to SU-35s now I guess, decisding whose pawn we'd want to be.

The above shows at the least that Trumps four percent goal wasn't even attained by most NATO countries during the Cold War after the various colonial wars ended.

What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give. ~;p

By the way: the American NATO general, while saying we should become better, still sees Germany as the second most important contributor to NATO and says there's reason to appreciate German efforts now already: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/nato-partner-deutschland-1.4052868

Germany is an excellent ally

Pannonian

07-13-2018, 14:22

What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give. ~;p

Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?

Husar

07-13-2018, 14:57

Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?

Not yet/that I know of. Do you have a link about that?

Fragony

07-13-2018, 15:04

Not yet/that I know of. Do you have a link about that?

Het basicly said that he doesn't care, that's what I got from it

Seamus Fermanagh

07-13-2018, 16:08

How would you describe Trump telling us to change PM and change Brexit policy?

Trump's usual subtle style in working with others.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-13-2018, 16:12

Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?

You do realize that both of our countries have done that sort of thing for a century regarding other nations around the world (though generally sub rosa).

Trump is simply tacky enough to do it to you, and to do so to your face. Proving he is an asshat, and that he believes in achieving the interests of the USA (as he sees them, and quite possibly short-sightedly). If that bugs you, he'll twitter something along the lines of GFY. The man oozes charm from every pore. ~:rolleyes:

Fragony

07-13-2018, 17:28

It's effective though. What I like about Trump is that's he simply doesn't give a hoot, I kinda enjoy the astonished faces

Husar

07-13-2018, 17:31

What I like about Trump is that's he simply doesn't give a hoot

That must be why he keeps whining about his critics on Twitter.

Fragony

07-13-2018, 17:45

That must be why he keeps whining about his critics on Twitter.

That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. Idontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayism

Montmorency

07-13-2018, 17:50

You do realize that both of our countries have done that sort of thing for a century regarding other nations around the world (though generally sub rosa).

Trump is simply tacky enough to do it to you, and to do so to your face. Proving he is an asshat, and that he believes in achieving the interests of the USA (as he sees them, and quite possibly short-sightedly). If that bugs you, he'll twitter something along the lines of GFY. The man oozes charm from every pore. ~:rolleyes:

Not sure if he's made the explicit threat before, but apparently he threatened (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/12/how-trumps-nato-summit-meltdown-unfolded) to pull out of NATO.

The most stunning comment came from a source reported by Reuters: “He said they must or the United States would go it alone.”

This was greeted with shocked silence. It had seemed unthinkable: a US president threatening to that the US has regarded as a cornerstone of its military strategy for 69 years.

No one appears to be disputing the words. What is being disputed is the interpretation. Reuters reported Trump as having threatened to quit Nato but then rescinded this. Macron insisted this had not been Trump’s meaning.

But just as alarming was the apparent ultimatum. European leaders who have so far failed to reach Nato’s 2% are talking about achieving this years from now, not by January.

Good thing it's a ratified treaty.

How bad a negotiator do you have to be to constantly make threats that everyone knows you can't fulfill, and without parley enact those threats that are simply easy to unilaterally implement?

That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. Idontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayism

Why do you think so?

Husar

07-13-2018, 17:59

That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. Idontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayism

That must be why he tells his followers that he and they are the actual elites who represent some majority, that his inauguration crowd was huge and that he actually did win the popular vote if it weren't for "fake votes" or whatever he calls them.
I can see how he wants to be an outsider when he claims he is friends with all the best people, stuffs lots of lobbyists in his cabinet, claims he is more popular than Obama and Abraham Lincoln................

Seamus Fermanagh

07-13-2018, 18:17

Not sure if he's made the explicit threat before, but apparently he threatened (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/12/how-trumps-nato-summit-meltdown-unfolded) to pull out of NATO.

He bruited about over leaving NATO in his first 6 months or so as well.

He loves taking a choreographed meeting and tossing some kind of turd into the punchbowl. I believe he feels that he is advantaged whenever the others are uncomfortable or wrong footed. Neanderthal negotiation.

Fragony

07-13-2018, 18:26

That must be why he tells his followers that he and they are the actual elites who represent some majority, that his inauguration crowd was huge and that he actually did win the popular vote if it weren't for "fake votes" or whatever he calls them.
I can see how he wants to be an outsider when he claims he is friends with all the best people, stuffs lots of lobbyists in his cabinet, claims he is more popular than Obama and Abraham Lincoln................

Should be easy to handle no? Except it isn't, not in the way things used to work and they have no answer to it. They respond with contempt and dedain, not understanding they lost again when doing that.

Husar

07-13-2018, 21:36

Should be easy to handle no? Except it isn't, not in the way things used to work and they have no answer to it. They respond with contempt and dedain, not understanding they lost again when doing that.

The Trump camp has plenty of contempt and disdain, has to be losing as well.

How would you answer him? With compassion and love like a real Gutmensch?

Fragony

07-13-2018, 22:23

How would you answer him?

Unpredictably

Furunculus

07-13-2018, 23:29

He bruited about over leaving NATO in his first 6 months or so as well.

He loves taking a choreographed meeting and tossing some kind of turd into the punchbowl. I believe he feels that he is advantaged whenever the others are uncomfortable or wrong footed. Neanderthal negotiation.

agreed, because trump isn't playing their game. he delights in being controversially wrong, because the outrage that ensues provides 100% wall to wall coverage of the issues he wants discussed, and his target audience doesn't give monkeys about the details.

it is not a shiny new technique, either. he did the same to beat hillary - hillary: "we wanna talk about hope an schooling" donald: "wanna talk about the 50,000 illegals climbing the fence each month" media: "LIES - it's only 10,000 a month!" donald: *smiles* "now we're talking"

spmetla

07-14-2018, 06:06

Well, WW1 has shown that uparming can make a World War more likely. I'll also give you that WW2 has shown that total appeasement can also make a World War more likely. Noone here is arguing for total disarmament though.
WW1 shows the dangers of entangling alliances and 'red lines,' all the major powers in Europe had been well armed continuously since the end of the Napoleonic wars brought in relative peace to Europe until the rise of nationalist movements and the post 1848 effects in regards to socialist/liberalism. The Austrians assumed the Russians would stay out of their fight with Serbia, the Germans thought the British would ignore their attack on Belgium, and so on for several years.
South Korea and North Korea have been geared for war since the Korean war and that mutual deterrent has aside from 'border skirmishes' kept the peace.
Being well armed deters aggression, do you think the Ukraine would have been messed with by Russia over Crimea if they hadn't voluntarily surrendered their nuclear arsenal? The only alternate to being well armed is being allied to or guaranteed by a great power ie: Taiwan, the Baltic States, North Vietnam (its alliance with the PRC deterring a US invasion to topple it during Vietnam and instead fighting mostly in South Vietnam).

Maybe the US industry is much more used to constantly supplying new things or has more competition left that forces them to step up their game a bit.I think EADS is basically almost a monopoly in many European countries now since the smaller manufacturers all consolidated into that one to stay able to compete. Otherwise we'd be comparing F-35s to SU-35s now I guess, decisding whose pawn we'd want to be.
It's really an issue of economies of scale. The US has so much equipment and personnel that the reduced rate of readiness is not so easily felt. Our air force has over 5000 planes of many types, Germany has a bit less than 500. If we have an aircraft carrier that needs to be dry docked there are many more available to fill its role. If the F-16 is grounded for safety issues we have other aircraft in large quantities that can be used in their place to continue the mission. Ex: in my national guard unit this year we had most of our trucks deadlined (not allowed for operational use) due a recall of the tires they are using a week before our annual training exercise. We were able to source enough replacement vehicles from within the State of Hawaii to borrow for our training exercise that were able to still get all our training completed while still supporting the lava disaster relief going on in Puna district. If those other trucks hadn't been available we would have been severally hampered in our annual training exercise.
Germany has sold off most of its cold war military stock for easily understandable reasons but seeing as the replacement vehicles and equipment are bought in such small quantities there will never be a ready supply of spares. Look at France, each time their aircraft carrier goes in for maintenance and repairs they essentially lose most of their navy's potential to fight a war or project their will short of lots of midair refueling (like the RAF did during the falklands with the remnants of their V-Bombers).

Kind of a just-in-time delivery except that the reality turned out to be more of a way-too-late delivery of spare parts.
That is very true and frustrating. It is more cost effective but it is at the expense of 'readiness' which in a smaller military like Germany has much larger impacts. My deadlined tires will probably be replaced several months down the line.

What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give.
I wholeheartedly agree and I appreciate that Merkel is working toward 2% though it is at a very slow rate. I understand though that getting any money toward the military in Germany is much more difficult. Spending more than needed and agreed upon however is not something I advocate. So long as our allies contribute to our common defense I'm happy and I truly appreciate their pitching in, in Afghanistan for almost 17 years now when we invoked article 5 after 9/11.

agreed, because trump isn't playing their game. he delights in being controversially wrong, because the outrage that ensues provides 100% wall to wall coverage of the issues he wants discussed, and his target audience doesn't give monkeys about the details.
We are sadly falling for his game every time. His followers will think he's being tough with our allies and getting them to contribute better when he's really causing the viability of NATO as a concept to be doubted by our closest friends.
Telling the UK that we might not make a trade deal with them if they make one with the EU is absolutely insane. Just because Trump wants to dismantle the world order the US and UK built after WW2 and the end of the cold war shouldn't mean he's able to try and blackmail our closest ally. I really wish our Congress would have some stones and do the checks and balances on his apparent ability to create chaos with Tweets and speeches.

AE Bravo

07-14-2018, 08:36

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less. I have cited a case study (by the MIT journal of international security) here before with damning evidence of their conduct in Libya. If it is not to be dismantled, it is in need of major reforms in both policy and procedure on the ground, which it shouldn't be involved in to begin with on most accounts. If Trump's antics are a driving force for either or, than I'm all for it.

Fragony

07-14-2018, 09:55

Montmorency

07-14-2018, 11:08

Being well armed deters aggression

It's not that simple, since you introduce the equation of compelling other powers to up-arm recursively (c.f. arms race). Perhaps it works more the way you imagine when it's a small country deterring a large one, rather than multiple large countries of comparable resources. But that's also an empirical question.

We are sadly falling for his game every time. His followers will think he's being tough with our allies and getting them to contribute better when he's really causing the viability of NATO as a concept to be doubted by our closest friends.
Telling the UK that we might not make a trade deal with them if they make one with the EU is absolutely insane. Just because Trump wants to dismantle the world order the US and UK built after WW2 and the end of the cold war shouldn't mean he's able to try and blackmail our closest ally. I really wish our Congress would have some stones and do the checks and balances on his apparent ability to create chaos with Tweets and speeches.

Fun fact: One of the major instigators of impeachment proceedings in early-modern Parliament was royal ministers engaging in foreign policy contrary to the position of Parliament. George Mason, one of the firmest proponents of broad impeachment provisions at the Constitutional Convention, responsible for advancing finally the British formula of "high crimes and misdemeanours", even said:

Treason, as defined in the Constitution, will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of treason.

Warren Hastings was a Governor-General of India contemporaneously being impeached for improperly advancing British interests in relation to the Indian states. :whip:

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less. I have cited a case study (by the MIT journal of international security) here before with damning evidence of their conduct in Libya. If it is not to be dismantled, it is in need of major reforms in both policy and procedure on the ground, which it shouldn't be involved in to begin with on most accounts. If Trump's antics are a driving force for either or, than I'm all for it.

How are you distinguishing between "viability" per se, and the convenience of NATO dissolution towards adversaries of NATO?

Beskar

07-14-2018, 11:35

The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less.

So... Russia and China... ? :laugh4:

AE Bravo

07-14-2018, 11:57

Fragony It's behind a paywall online but I have the whole thing if you would like me to email it to you, no problem.

How are you distinguishing between "viability" per se, and the convenience of NATO dissolution towards adversaries of NATO?
It’s a good question, but it assumes that NATO makes decisions to overcome its opposition when it is equally possible that it is made up of loose cannons with a mutual focus on low risk (relations-wise) endeavors. Qaddafi’s final years were his most benign, and he had made the most concessions to the west he ever had in his life. In other words, he could have been bought.

Viability as in not only its stated humanitarian principles, but the legality and legitimacy of its actions. The fact that it dives into these operations with the knowledge that the outcomes will probably be suboptimal. A waste of resources on goals that go beyond the national interest of the participants, to third parties more often than not. Another lesson is the empowerment of non-state actors to be a huge factor in the NATO decision-making process with their ability to encourage these interventions.

All of this is detrimental to NATO operations worldwide. It has shot itself in the foot numerous times through these operations.

Gilrandir

07-14-2018, 14:07

I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********.

Come on, it can't be THAT long. **** maximum.

Husar

07-14-2018, 14:30

Come on, it can't be THAT long. **** maximum.

You're just jealous of how long mine is.

Fragony

07-14-2018, 16:22

Just finnished reading it, it does raise an eyebrow so to say

Montmorency

07-14-2018, 18:28

Fragony It's behind a paywall online but I have the whole thing if you would like me to email it to you, no problem.

It’s a good question, but it assumes that NATO makes decisions to overcome its opposition when it is equally possible that it is made up of loose cannons with a mutual focus on low risk (relations-wise) endeavors. Qaddafi’s final years were his most benign, and he had made the most concessions to the west he ever had in his life. In other words, he could have been bought.

Viability as in not only its stated humanitarian principles, but the legality and legitimacy of its actions. The fact that it dives into these operations with the knowledge that the outcomes will probably be suboptimal. A waste of resources on goals that go beyond the national interest of the participants, to third parties more often than not. Another lesson is the empowerment of non-state actors to be a huge factor in the NATO decision-making process with their ability to encourage these interventions.

All of this is detrimental to NATO operations worldwide. It has shot itself in the foot numerous times through these parallel operations.

To my knowledge, the only substantial military engagements NATO has been involved in since 2000 have been Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq mission was training, non-combat, though some members of NATO did separately contribute combat forces. The Kosovo mission is a peacekeeping/training force left over from 1999.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_52060.htm

So this is a bit too abstract for me.

About Libya: what should America or NATO high command have done? Let's say actively aiding Gaddafi was out of the question for obvious reasons. Let's say the neocolonial option was too expensive and unsavory. No action whatsoever? That might require America to strongarm France and the UK to prevent their uni/bi-lateral action - not an easy choice. And then, what if the rebels win anyway? Or what if the civil war persists, and Libya becomes what we know Syria as now (Islamists diverted to Libya rather than Syria)? But maybe that's unfair to bring into consideration, because it's too dependent on hindsight. Regardless, what's the right move politically - not abstractly! - in 2011? Difficulty: no prescriptions that are only possible in a world where America retrenches its international role post-Cold War.

More importantly, does the absence of NATO framework going forward restrain the bad habits of American or the European powers, or does it unleash them?

I wonder whether the mere existence of the NATO alliance is a greater strategic deterrent to Russia than any potential extent of European rearmament, that dissolving NATO and expecting EU states to build up their own militaries would just be a waste of money in aligning with the current effect.

AE Bravo

07-15-2018, 05:24

If you don’t count Somalia and Bosnia in the early 1990s, there’s also the regional spillover from Libya that hit Mali hard.

Not foster the rebellion from the start? Reviewing the first month of the conflict prior to intervention, the government counteroffensive was making significant gains in retaking the country and rebel progress was short-lived. That the rebels win anyway is a non-starter as they only had the means to start a rebellion, not win one. That it would end up like Syria is also a non-starter given that intervention is prolonging conflict.

The right move politically, for one, is to not host and embrace militia leaders, military dissidents, Islamist mercenaries, and welcome the rebel bureaucracy into intergovernmental organizations.

More importantly, does the absence of NATO framework going forward restrain the bad habits of American or the European powers, or does it unleash them?

I wonder whether the mere existence of the NATO alliance is a greater strategic deterrent to Russia than any potential extent of European rearmament, that dissolving NATO and expecting EU states to build up their own militaries would just be a waste of money in aligning with the current effect.
We can find examples for both. NATO enlargement has been used for imperial overstretch.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Ukraine%20Article%20in%20Foreign%20Affairs.pdf

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Military%20Review.pdf

I don't think the financial setbacks are something that can inhibit the US from managing a post-NATO order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

spmetla

07-15-2018, 19:45

It's not that simple, since you introduce the equation of compelling other powers to up-arm recursively (c.f. arms race). Perhaps it works more the way you imagine when it's a small country deterring a large one, rather than multiple large countries of comparable resources. But that's also an empirical question.

Multiple countries with similar resources and alliances complicate the questions, hence Putin's drive (surprisingly through the POTUS) to dismantle the EU and NATO. Russia could through its weight around quite easily in Europe without those two organizations, France and the UK are no longer in position to play great power games independently anymore.
The credibility of NATO's mutual defense has largely centered around the US, if the US with its extreme resources were to leave the alliance NATO would really just be a hollow bureaucratic shell of an organization and as it stands there's no one in Europe to take over that leadership. Since the 1966 Defence White Paper the UK has essentially renounced its Great Power status and any attempts to maintain that sort of influence independent of major allies anymore. Where the US to leave NATO the UK is no longer in a position to drive the alliance leaving it to Germany and France both of which have too many historical problems to be the drivers of Europe's military defense against Russia.

The nice part of NATO though was that the major European powers didn't need to divert massive amounts of money to their militaries because of the shared mutual defense, if that all goes to nothing there is very little indication that they would rearm to credibly defend themselves and would aside from the nuclear powers be open to Russia's use of hard power. If the Baltic States weren't part of NATO what would stop Russian tanks from rolling in and defacto annexing them? Sanctions may hurt Russia but they haven't got the Crimea back to the Ukraine or stopped the separatist movements in the East of Ukraine and who knows if the POTUS concedes those to Putin this week?!

To my knowledge, the only substantial military engagements NATO has been involved in since 2000 have been Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq mission was training, non-combat, though some members of NATO did separately contribute combat forces. The Kosovo mission is a peacekeeping/training force left over from 1999. .

While not a large combat deployment the anti-piracy operations off of Somalia (Operation Ocean Shield) were largely a NATO led effort which involved a significant naval effort that independent nations besides the US could not maintained.
The Baltic Air Policing over those states has been a significant NATO effort with regular rotating contingents that while forgotten by most are a very visible show of NATO defense for some of our most vulnerable allies. Again not a combat operation but it uses a significant amount of air-power that most NATO nations could not do independently.

About Libya: what should America or NATO high command have done? Let's say actively aiding Gaddafi was out of the question for obvious reasons. Let's say the neocolonial option was too expensive and unsavory. No action whatsoever?
As I've voiced in the Libya thread I'd advocate for the neo-colonial option (all the options minus letting Gaddafi do what he wants are expensive and unsavory). It is expensive but at present the EU has FRONTEX essentially doing coast guard operations for Libya, their air space is really secured by NATO, and if a migrant deal is worked out with immigration centers to be built out of Europe, Libya would be the logical choice seeing as its the current major departure point. Remember that the European powers only got involved in colonizing North Africa because of the constant harassment by the Barbary Pirates following the decline in the ability or desire of the Ottoman Empire to actually govern its North African provinces. The current mess in Libya is untenable and waiting for the largest militia or the rump state of government in existence there to be able to control its own territory would take decades if ever to have a return to stability (think Somalia post US withdrawal in the 90s). It would not have been easy and who knows how bloody of an occupation it'd be but at the least it wouldn't have destabilized its neighbors like Mali. Who knows? In the possibilities of the actions not taken its entirely possible that we'd be handing back power to locally elected Libyans at this point, its also possible that it'd end up being an Iraq scale occupation/debacle.

As for no action? That would have been a better option than helping overthrow Gaddafi and then naively hoping that this group of Islamist militias would be the nice ones that would bring Democracy to North Africa. Same for Syria, if we are to hope Assad is overthrow then do it outright, not foster then abandon a democratic rebellion leading to years of civil war that have scarred the region irreparably. Less Syrians would have died at this point if Assad had been allowed to do his brutal repression or of he had been toppled after he cross that red-line. At the very least it wouldn't have allowed for the conditions to let ISIS become an independent though thankfully short lived State.

Montmorency

07-15-2018, 23:05

The right move politically, for one, is to not host and embrace militia leaders, military dissidents, Islamist mercenaries, and welcome the rebel bureaucracy into intergovernmental organizations.

Now it's time to develop your case: what did this have to do with NATO? The crisis developed over a month, and various countries, in particular UK and France, were calling for regime change within a couple of weeks of the outset. From my perspective the best that could have managed through NATO command would have been to set of stringent operational parameters at the outset to the effect of hitting Gaddafi hard for a few weeks and using the leverage of potential reintensification to force all parties into negotiations.

But I guess too many in our governments saw the crisis from the beginning as a regime-change opportunity, contemplating backward from desired ends than stochastically from available facts. No point in restraint if a small further investment- "smart power" in SecState Clinton's words - secures you more of what you think you want. Is this then a flaw of NATO, when it's a general pattern in Anglo-American foreign policy logic over generations?

We can find examples for both. NATO enlargement has been used for imperial overstretch.

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Ukraine%20Article%20in%20Foreign%20Affairs.pdf

http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/Military%20Review.pdf

I don't think the fact that Russia feels entitled to a regional sphere of influence is a good argument against NATO, and in fact its very levying implies that in the short term taking NATO out of the picture would be destabilizing in favor of Russia. In the same way, various Ukrainian factions desiring a closer relationship with Europe to balance against Russia has not made a case against the EU or other European associations. ('Ukraine can't surrender aspects of sovereignty to EU! It already surrendered them to Russia!' Mafia knows you can't juggle business arrangements.)

Ultimately NATO expansion is a distraction, because Russia under Putin has long felt it needs a much broader role in Europe and throughout the world; between 1990 and 2008, Russia was rebuilding. NATO is a pretext for an aspect of a long-term development, not an instigator in its own right. And don't leave out domestic developments, the continuing need around Obama's first term for Putin to consolidate power, growing public unrest with the government, examples of governments falling to popular unrest around the (Arab) world...

So it came about that Putin figured he could find more advantage in antagonizing the West than in cooperating with it. The Ukraine crisis is where he threw his chips down and committed to his strategy. He became convinced that the status quo presented a threat to his regime, and so made it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

A "neutral" Ukraine arrangement is no compromise since it requires Russia to give up more than Europe or the US, not least the psychological-historical identity connection. You would need the threat of disincentives for Russia elsewhere to conform to such a deal (generously assuming it's desirable or achievable on its own terms, or held desirable by the crucial country of Ukraine itself). NATO is one such leverage, sanctions are another, and I'm not sure that there's much else, which is to say there aren't enough available to us. There's the American post-war order as a whole, but it's fading fast in part thanks to Trump, and is anyway one of Russia's consistent targets; undermining the Western world order is a core Russian interest, and that's not subject to moderation through concessions. Because Putin's strategy is specifically to undermine our hard and soft powers to disincentivize Russian policies, there are no direct diplomatic means for resolving our conflict with Russia, which is quasi-existential and not based in concrete disagreements. I think the only way to substantially change Russian behavior is to promote a Western economic realignment that is more attractive to other countries than extractive-regime fascism, that leaves fewer entries for Russian manipulation.

Military buildup, by the way, will never bring any of our aspirations to fruition. Putin would love to be able to play along in such an easy, no-stakes (for him) contest, the kind of posturing he thrives on before his base.

(How many more tens of billions $ have NATO countries (https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_07/20180709_180710-pr2018-91-en.pdf) added to their military budgets since 2014? More than Russia's entire yearly defence budget? Welfare for people, not for military industrial complex pl0x.)

Same for Syria, if we are to hope Assad is overthrow then do it outright, not foster then abandon a democratic rebellion leading to years of civil war that have scarred the region irreparably. Less Syrians would have died at this point if Assad had been allowed to do his brutal repression or of he had been toppled after he cross that red-line. At the very least it wouldn't have allowed for the conditions to let ISIS become an independent though thankfully short lived State.

This is a separate topic, but I don't think Assad alone had the means to win outright even absent any foreign aid to rebels. After the northwest near the Turkish border, Aleppo and so on, the entire eastern half of the country was the next major region the Syrian government lost control of, to Kurds and Al Qaeda-linked groups a year or two (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMKy0_RE9HM) before IS emerged from the shadows. IS was very carefully organized by former Baathist officers over years, and had the advantage of using western Iraq as a springboard into the anarchy of Eastern Syria. Recall this was all before US or Russian coalition forces became significantly involved in ground or air operations, effectively helping Assad from their entry. It did take mass civil resistance more than a year to morph into a full civil war (in 2012), so maybe Assad got complacent when he could have brought conclusive force to bear against a civilian movement, I don't know. But a few American guns weren't the thing preventing Assad from defeating the rebels by 2014.

Husar

07-16-2018, 03:40

Well, Trump weighed in with some great advice for May: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/15/theresa-may-donald-trump-told-me-to-sue-the-eu

Theresa May has revealed that Donald Trump advised her to “sue the European Union” rather than negotiate with the 27-country bloc, in a private conversation that the US president referred to during his visit to the UK on Friday.

Makes me wonder which court would be responsible.

rory_20_uk

07-16-2018, 09:33

Exactly the first thought I had on the matter.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-16-2018, 13:51

Resurrect the PCIJ maybe?

AE Bravo

07-16-2018, 15:46

Now it's time to develop your case: what did this have to do with NATO? The crisis developed over a month, and various countries, in particular UK and France, were calling for regime change within a couple of weeks of the outset. From my perspective the best that could have managed through NATO command would have been to set of stringent operational parameters at the outset to the effect of hitting Gaddafi hard for a few weeks and using the leverage of potential reintensification to force all parties into negotiations.
Because these actions brought about the expectation of a NATO intervention, prompting or initially sustaining the rebellion. In fact, the strategy of the rebel political wing depended on forthcoming NATO intervention which they had grounds to expect based on the early signals of support by its members. Would they have dared to challenge the regime without NATO support? Not likely. I do understand your position of being precise about NATO high command and how responsible it is definitively, but I see this connection to be enough proof of its ability to unleash rather than restrain.

I don't think the fact that Russia feels entitled to a regional sphere of influence is a good argument against NATO, and in fact its very levying implies that in the short term taking NATO out of the picture would be destabilizing in favor of Russia. In the same way, various Ukrainian factions desiring a closer relationship with Europe to balance against Russia has not made a case against the EU or other European associations. ('Ukraine can't surrender aspects of sovereignty to EU! It already surrendered them to Russia!' Mafia knows you can't juggle business arrangements.)

Ultimately NATO expansion is a distraction, because Russia under Putin has long felt it needs a much broader role in Europe and throughout the world; between 1990 and 2008, Russia was rebuilding. NATO is a pretext for an aspect of a long-term development, not an instigator in its own right. And don't leave out domestic developments, the continuing need around Obama's first term for Putin to consolidate power, growing public unrest with the government, examples of governments falling to popular unrest around the (Arab) world...
Right but you are still starting from a position of Russia’s sense of entitlement rather than it responding to NATO’s offensive posturing. Russian military planners and policy makers now assume that the only way to stop NATO's encroachment on Russia's perceived spheres of influence is to clearly signal red lines and act firmly to defend Russia's interests as it was done with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia made it clear that it is not afraid of taking risks if its needed for enforcing its definition of core geopolitical interests.

As for domestic developments, wouldn't you describe the critics of Russia and supporters of western hegemony in the international system to be the dominant group, constraining attempts to reach out to Russia in a meaningful way? Especially in the US's current political climate.

Military buildup, by the way, will never bring any of our aspirations to fruition. Putin would love to be able to play along in such an easy, no-stakes (for him) contest, the kind of posturing he thrives on before his base.

(How many more tens of billions $ have NATO countries added to their military budgets since 2014? More than Russia's entire yearly defence budget? Welfare for people, not for military industrial complex pl0x.)
You're right. I oversimplified.

Elmetiacos

07-16-2018, 20:25

The fiasco continues as the late Theresa May, for fear of losing the vote in Parliament, has now been forced to accept amendments to her white paper by the Brexit mujaheddin which wreck it and mean that ultimately, Davis, Johnson and the others have resigned over what hasn't happened anyway. This also reduces the chance of the EU negotiators being able to accept the paper from "cat in Hell" down to "snowball in Hell".

In other news, I get to say "I told you so". Just as I predicted back in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/151784-Brexit-Thread/page5) the latest immigration figures (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44846002) are out and the result of Brexit, no doubt to the delight of the not-at-all xenophobic or racist people who voted for it, is more Pakistanis, Indians and Africans entering the UK. 'Kippers up and down the land will no doubt be raising a toast even as I type to this triumph in promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural Britain.

Pannonian

07-16-2018, 21:39

Can any Brexit supporters respond to the points in Anna Soubry's speech here (https://twitter.com/AbdiwaliUK/status/1018918424066560001)?

Furunculus

07-16-2018, 21:51

In other news, I get to say "I told you so". Just as I predicted back in this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/151784-Brexit-Thread/page5)

the latest immigration figures (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44846002) are out and the result of Brexit, no doubt to the delight of the not-at-all xenophobic or racist people who voted for it, is more Pakistanis, Indians and Africans entering the UK. 'Kippers up and down the land will no doubt be raising a toast even as I type to this triumph in promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural Britain.

Thanks, enjoyed going back two years to see what was discussed.
Found these two gems:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/151784-Brexit-Thread?p=2053707265&viewfull=1#post2053707265
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/151784-Brexit-Thread?p=2053710468&viewfull=1#post2053710468

Re: immigration - there are good reasons to be against freedom of movement:

The problem is that it essentially means unrestricted mass migration, which is something that has never had the consent of the people. Quite the reverse. It is objectively true to say that the electorate is actually quite supportive of immigration per-se (among the most positive in the EU in fact!), but does demand that there is "control of immigration".

Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where 5% of the worlds population hoovered up over half of the 'allocation' of immigration, with 90% having to fight over the rest.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where Janek the unskilled bob-a-job guy with a conviction back home for violent assault could come and stay as he pleased, but Marie-Jeanne the Post-Doc biologist from Canada was on an endless fight with the Home Office to extend her stay six more months, after being in living here for six years.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where we've introduced a regime that benignly smiles on anyone from across the channel, while hounding people out of the country who have been british citizens for fifity years.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where Arjun the third generation immigrant from India has to jump through endless hoops to bring his intended wife back from the home country, while looking on as europeans drift in and out of the country with an absolute entitlement to permanent residence.

Yes, these examples are deliberately extreme, but they are a perfectly reasonable prism through which to view Freedom of Movement.

Now, if someone holds the view that immigration should be completely unrestricted then I have two things to say to them: 1. Fair enough, I get that your frustrated at seeing FoM with the EU end, and; 2. First, you need to win that argument with the electorate.

Husar

07-16-2018, 22:05

What we ended up with is a daft situation where 5% of the worlds population hoovered up over half of the 'allocation' of immigration, with 90% having to fight over the rest.

That never seems to bother you classical liberals when it comes to wealth or income allocation, so why here?
Everyone can get to the UK if they just want it enough, no?!? Are you arguing for immigration socialism and quotas instead of using merit and efficiency?

Furunculus

07-16-2018, 23:39

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

Pannonian

07-17-2018, 01:16

Any Brexit supporters care to answer Anna Soubry's points?

Fragony

07-17-2018, 05:11

That never seems to bother you classical liberals when it comes to wealth or income allocation, so why here?
Everyone can get to the UK if they just want it enough, no?!? Are you arguing for immigration socialism and quotas instead of using merit and efficiency?

What merit

Pannonian

07-17-2018, 06:05

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

Soubry makes the point that those with "gold plated pensions and inherited wealth" won't be affected, and it is they who argue that "the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it in regaining their sovereignty". She also argues that "people didn't vote to make themselves poorer". Given the discrepancy between what Leave promised in their campaign and what they're ending up with, especially the hard/no deal Brexit angled for by Rees-Mogg, how does that square with your outrage that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth? Should Brexit go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU? NB. her point about modern trade and industry before you talk about new markets.

Furunculus

07-17-2018, 07:52

That point still doesn't really go anywhere, as framed by Husar, but to address your points:

By my reckoning, lefties have cost the country 0.5% gdp growth, compound for about the last twenty years.
By my reckoning, the likes of Clegg et-al were equally deceitful/hopeful in promising an EU that would be the same in future.
Sorry, do I have "outrage" that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth?
Brexit should go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU, I consider it slightly immoral that the great tariff wall of the EU adds so much 'friction' to trade with the developing world. Obviously, as a free-trader, I want minimal friction all round.

Husar

07-17-2018, 14:19

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

No, it does not, because unlike my question, it is not related to what you said. Unless you're admitting to being a neoliberal or that they run your country. Neoliberals will get their cheap labor anyway.

What merit

The merit of being born in the right place. When you say British jobs for British workers, you're applying exactly the same standard.

Pannonian

07-17-2018, 20:56

The Electoral Commission have found Leave guilty of breaking electoral law and have fined one of their carrier mules, and handed over the case to the police with the admission that it deserves more action that's not within their power.

And May's government have broken a pairing agreement a Labour MP, agreeing to pair off with said Labour MP who's just given birth and is on maternal leave, then having their MP vote anyway.

Does Parliament have effective sovereignty any more, or does it not matter as long as Leave get their wish?

Montmorency

07-18-2018, 01:16

Because these actions brought about the expectation of a NATO intervention, prompting or initially sustaining the rebellion. In fact, the strategy of the rebel political wing depended on forthcoming NATO intervention which they had grounds to expect based on the early signals of support by its members. Would they have dared to challenge the regime without NATO support? Not likely. I do understand your position of being precise about NATO high command and how responsible it is definitively, but I see this connection to be enough proof of its ability to unleash rather than restrain.

So long as we're being precise, I challenge you to clarify who exactly the rebels were expecting help from: Was it NATO? Was it Europe? Was it the US?

Now recall that you said this:

I don't think the financial setbacks are something that can inhibit the US from managing a post-NATO order.

Is NATO really the crux of the matter here, if nothing changes but the existence of NATO?

I think you're too caught up in the identification of the name NATO with the history of "Western" actions, you end up losing sight of an organization like NATO not being an organic entity but a vehicle and front for the action of individual members - which is what it was created for in the first place.

Right but you are still starting from a position of Russia’s sense of entitlement rather than it responding to NATO’s offensive posturing. Russian military planners and policy makers now assume that the only way to stop NATO's encroachment on Russia's perceived spheres of influence is to clearly signal red lines and act firmly to defend Russia's interests as it was done with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia made it clear that it is not afraid of taking risks if its needed for enforcing its definition of core geopolitical interests.

As for domestic developments, wouldn't you describe the critics of Russia and supporters of western hegemony in the international system to be the dominant group, constraining attempts to reach out to Russia in a meaningful way? Especially in the US's current political climate.

This was my whole point. The Western order IS (as of yet) dominant, and Russia has identified its interests with undermining that order. Both the US and Russia are now set into an intractable conflict in which there is no return to a status quo because both sides seek to neutralize the capacity of the other side to resist the imposition of their side's interests.

That's why I called the conflict "quasi-existential" - the object to be eliminated is not the existence of any country as sovereign state, but the ability to maintain a sovereign foreign policy that could be used to harm the other side.

Who can back down when the fight is over the destruction of national power? I can't reiterate enough that this conflict is not about a concrete disagreement between parties, not something that can be resolved with rhetoric, or horse-trading, or good-will concessions.

You're right. I oversimplified.

That wasn't aimed at you, since you weren't (?) advocating for a US or NATO or EU need to rearm to deter Russia. It was not aimed at a specific person.

Re: immigration - there are good reasons to be against freedom of movement:

Without diving very deep into UK immigration history, there are signs that your hypotheticals don't represent the UK experience with immigration.

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

Looking at the graph on net migration, before freedom of movement there was 1-2 to 2/3 less immigration to the UK, unclear what national breakdown but apparently not many from what was later the EU. With freedom of movement of persons, EU intake increased by orders of magnitude but non-EU immigration increased concomitantly. EU-source immigration has always been much lower than non-EU (i.e. all other sources) immigration, and without more information it doesn't look obvious that at any point EU immigration suppressed, or allowed the suppression of, non-EU immigration. So your take on the allocation of immigrants is probably wrong.

The wiki entry points out that a lot of the "Janek" influx is cyclical, not permanent in nature, and indeed one of the primary advantages of a free movement regime is its facilitation of such short-term stays for work, education, etc. It would be useful to find data comparing immigrant populations on this factor.

But I didn't address your point that residency is more difficult to attain as a procedural matter for Commonwealth and other citizens than EU members. First we should realize that this is by definition, since the UK had freedom of movement within the EU and not without. Second, if your point was that the UK government from the recent past imposed more restrictions on immigration from outside the EU (in order to balance the overall numbers given the influx from the EU), it's again not obvious from the numbers and should be justified with some references. Third, if you are correct and if you like British subjects so much, you ought to advocate for lesser imposed restrictions and hurdles on that demographic so that more can come and stay more easily. Another 50-100K a year from Canada plus the rest shouldn't approach so uncomfortably close to a regime of absolute unrestricted immigration as to overwhelm your British affinity, should it? Especially taking account that UK net immigration has been numerically at least half of net immigration since the millenium. This could all be done without entanglement with any EU-faced policy (though now made moot by Brexit).

Pannonian

07-18-2018, 01:52

Furunculus

07-18-2018, 08:01

EU-source immigration has always been much lower than non-EU (i.e. all other sources) immigration, and without more information it doesn't look obvious that at any point EU immigration suppressed, or allowed the suppression of, non-EU immigration. So your take on the allocation of immigrants is probably wrong.

I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.

How would this all round frictionless trade work? NB. we still have to comply with WTO regulations, unless you want to break free of the WTO as well.

Do you recognise that the EU custom's union is a protection racket for internal business?
"You can sell us your coffee beans, but who, if you want to add value to your export by grinding them then you'll pay a much higher tariff!"
"p.s. we're very sorry you're poor, would you like some gender diversity officers from our national aid quango?"

Pannonian

07-18-2018, 08:22

I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.

Do you recognise that the EU custom's union is a protection racket for internal business?
"You can sell us your coffee beans, but who, if you want to add value to your export by grinding them then you'll pay a much higher tariff!"
"p.s. we're very sorry you're poor, would you like some gender diversity officers from our national aid quango?"

I live in England. As the US has shown, others will screw us given the opportunity. Why do we need to volunteer the opportunity? And you still haven't answered the question of how you propose we should follow WTO regulations. Unless your answer is that we should withdraw from the WTO as well.

In other news, the EU has voted to ban imports of palm oil. Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your view? Do you think the EU is unfairly penalising farmers in third world countries who rely on palm oil as a cash crop?

AE Bravo

07-18-2018, 10:45

So long as we're being precise, I challenge you to clarify who exactly the rebels were expecting help from: Was it NATO? Was it Europe? Was it the US?
The rebels viewed NATO intervention as vital in light of the government’s superior military resources. Like I said, the early signals of support from NATO countries brought about the expectation of support from NATO itself.

Is NATO really the crux of the matter here, if nothing changes but the existence of NATO?

I think you're too caught up in the identification of the name NATO with the history of "Western" actions, you end up losing sight of an organization like NATO not being an organic entity but a vehicle and front for the action of individual members - which is what it was created for in the first place.
I am responding to your claim regarding NATO not being an instigator per se. NATO’s security strategies from the 1990s embraced various concepts of sovereign inequality, ranging from humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, regime change, countering rogue states, and the global war on terror. A dangerous precedent is set by its missile defense system as well, which is bereft of any international treaty or political assurances to regulate and constrain its advancement.

This was my whole point. The Western order IS (as of yet) dominant, and Russia has identified its interests with undermining that order. Both the US and Russia are now set into an intractable conflict in which there is no return to a status quo because both sides seek to neutralize the capacity of the other side to resist the imposition of their side's interests.

That's why I called the conflict "quasi-existential" - the object to be eliminated is not the existence of any country as sovereign state, but the ability to maintain a sovereign foreign policy that could be used to harm the other side.

Who can back down when the fight is over the destruction of national power? I can't reiterate enough that this conflict is not about a concrete disagreement between parties, not something that can be resolved with rhetoric, or horse-trading, or good-will concessions.
The fact that this framework exists to prevent potential Russian aggression makes hostilities a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think its absence has the potential to be destabilizing in favor of Russia, you cannot ignore the current state of affairs that are destabilizing in favor of western powers.

You’ve mentioned this before and used a similar approach to China. Why is that? Where is the proof of a problem that a new framework won’t fix?

Montmorency

07-18-2018, 12:57

I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.

But you said

Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely.

The rebels viewed NATO intervention as vital in light of the government’s superior military resources. Like I said, the early signals of support from NATO countries brought about the expectation of support from NATO itself.

So you mean, the United States?

I am responding to your claim regarding NATO not being an instigator per se. NATO’s security strategies from the 1990s embraced various concepts of sovereign inequality, ranging from humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, regime change, countering rogue states, and the global war on terror.

This is the US national orientation from the same period.

A dangerous precedent is set by its missile defense system as well, which is bereft of any international treaty or political assurances to regulate and constrain its advancement.

This is specifically a US technology. Anyway, we should not be made to feel rueful by complaints against a purely defensive technology that literally cannot be used except against large missiles. If Russia or China are concerned about the mitigation of their second strike capability, they ought to invest in a defense system of their own. If it were admissible as a bargaining chip, I would support looking into whether we can outright gift some aspects of this technology to shut them up.

You keep talking about US orientations and practices, yet name NATO as though it were the source or chief expression. NATO isn't managing small-force combat operations in dozens of countries. Are you sure you aren't just hostile to a concept of a Transatlantic Alliance, which is what NATO formalizes?

The fact that this framework exists to prevent potential Russian aggression makes hostilities a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think its absence has the potential to be destabilizing in favor of Russia, you cannot ignore the current state of affairs that are destabilizing in favor of western powers.

It was not a self-fulfilling prophecy until recently, or was it? If it was, then only in the sense that any dominant order (status quo) attracts (revisionist) challengers. I'm not extensively read on Putin's career, but to my knowledge even he found use in international institutions in his early years at the top.

I think it has been stabilizing in favor of Western powers, especially in the 20th century. The problem now is exactly that it is being destabilized, and there is no easy answer. If overwhelming Russian intransigence through diplomatic or economic means were a simple proposition, its undertaking would be favorable. For the time being the only prospects for the present conflict are stalemate or surrender. I prefer stalemate until the logic of the "liberal alliance" can be changed to a more social democratic one (at least), which I believe would be constitutionally resistant to Russian blandishments and techniques.

You’ve mentioned this before and used a similar approach to China. Why is that? Where is the proof of a problem that a new framework won’t fix?

Refresh my memory? Anyway, I have been saying even in this chain of posts I am in favor of a new framework. China is clearly a much bigger challenge to US standing than Russia. (No wonder the two are eager to embrace each other). China has a neo-colonial/mercantilist program to bend the world toward its interests which it calls "community of common destiny". I hope the "West" can offer the same in more collaborative fashion under leftist and democratic principles.

Furunculus

07-18-2018, 17:46

But you said

"Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely."

you misunderstand me: I question whether your skim reading a wiki article leaves you in a sound position to come to the conclusion you have.

Pannonian

07-18-2018, 23:18

Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?

Fragony

07-19-2018, 06:18

Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?

Seems to be heading that way regardless, the deal is hardly a deal.

More EU lulz, Druncker is confabulating korsakovski that he is. He doesn't remember being drunk at the Nato-top, his leg hurted. My leg also has hurted at times like that and I also don't remember it but it must have been funny just like the Nato-top summit, I was also very cheerful and couldn't stand straight and liked hugging and kissing, I heard.

Attention, Druncker was not drunk, I repeat, Druncker was not drunk. I say it twice because that's how he sees things

rory_20_uk

07-19-2018, 10:02

Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-19-2018, 12:03

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

~:smoking:

So if it came down to no deal, you'd support it whilst blaming the EU?

rory_20_uk

07-19-2018, 12:07

So if it came down to no deal, you'd support it whilst blaming the EU?

You going to address me post?

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-19-2018, 13:06

You going to address me post?

~:smoking:

Why would I have any strong feelings about that? I voted for the status quo. I didn't ask for no deal. Did you?

Montmorency

07-19-2018, 13:51

you misunderstand me: I question whether your skim reading a wiki article leaves you in a sound position to come to the conclusion you have.

Yes, let me try it this way: what's your basis for your claim?

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

~:smoking:

This angle brought up a connection to the fore:

Trump exits Iran deal. 'Worst deal ever, we'll negotiate a much better one this time!' Iran deal was multilaterally negotiated according to the geopolitical parameters of its time. In a different era, negotiating a similar deal is impossible or much less favorable.

So, timing and context affect the process and the outlook. It's not just that it comes down to bad timing for the UK though, a complex and deep set of arrangements like EU membership is sure to be destabilizing to sever, for all parties involved, much more so than a more traditional diplomatic pact. More so even than a mere body of rules on trade and customs.

"But it was promised that we could leave at any time." On paper, yes, but in practice it's like melding as a conjoined twin into someone's body, then ripping yourself out again once all the bone is set, vascular network enmeshed... At this time the EU is too drunk, per Fragony, to successfully perform the delicate surgeries necessary for an amicable and propitious result.

In short, this type of enmity and chaos is almost assured when picking apart such a tangled clump of economics and politics. I predict no more large countries will attempt to leave the EU, unless during a whole-cloth unraveling.

a completely inoffensive name

07-20-2018, 07:05

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 07:38

You would put pride above security?

I've seen the quote "52 has been rounded up to 100, while 48 has been rounded down to 0". The close numbers should mean a moderate solution that changes things in a certain direction whilst bearing the other half in mind. Instead, we are heading for the most drastic solution, which even the most radical campaigners promised would not happen. And unlike Trump's presidency, this solution aims to not be undoable within multiple generations, with the typical Leave boast being "You can have another vote in 40 years time".

rory_20_uk

07-20-2018, 09:40

You would put pride above security?

Where is this trade occurring?

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 13:50

From the Adam Smith institute, 30th March 2016, "The liberal case for Leave" (https://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave/)

This Brexit vision is therefore a global, outward-looking and ambitiously positive one. It eschews the inward-looking outlook of both the Remain lobby and the shouty anti-immigration lobby.

So a parochial inward-looking “little Europe” and a demographically declining one, ranged against an expansive, liberal and global outlook. This vision certainly doesn’t want to go back to the past: of barriers, blocs, and narrow-mindedness.

The crux of the matter is that we in Britain want trade and cooperation; our EU partners want merger and a leashed hinterland. Are we prepared to spend another generation or more dancing around this basic fact while the rest of the world moves on?

No, it is time to leave and embrace the world.

From twitter, 16th July 2018 (https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1018800271013613568)

Thank you. There are a number of us in this part of the spectrum. Some broke for Leave, others for Remain. Those who broke for Remain are being proven right (preeminently @davidallengreen and @s8mb ) and I'm being proven wrong.

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 16:43

Where is this trade occurring?

~:smoking:

The terms of Brexit as set by May violates the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI, which was facilitated by their mutual EU membership. The EU has offered terms to allow both Brexit and the GFA, but the DUP and hard Brexiteers are both driving in the opposite direction. This problem was incidentally highlighted by Major and Blair, both NI experts, before the referendum.

Furunculus

07-20-2018, 17:53

I've seen the quote "52 has been rounded up to 100, while 48 has been rounded down to 0". The close numbers should mean a moderate solution that changes things in a certain direction whilst bearing the other half in mind. Instead, we are heading for the most drastic solution, which even the most radical campaigners promised would not happen. And unlike Trump's presidency, this solution aims to not be undoable within multiple generations, with the typical Leave boast being "You can have another vote in 40 years time".

i agree, and I think the white paper is a very moderate solution.

The terms of Brexit as set by May violates the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI, which was facilitated by their mutual EU membership. The EU has offered terms to allow both Brexit and the GFA, but the DUP and hard Brexiteers are both driving in the opposite direction. This problem was incidentally highlighted by Major and Blair, both NI experts, before the referendum.

the EU offered terms of:
1. EEA+CU, two things that 'many' consider to be in breach of the spririt of brexit in general, and in breach of the Tory manifesto specifically.
2. An internal border within the territory of the UK which no british gov't can be expected to tolerate.

Beskar

07-20-2018, 18:03

2. An internal border within the territory of the UK which no british gov't can be expected to tolerate.

This was a border around Northern Ireland. Though there is already such an unofficial border in place anyway. Many things in the UK regularly put into fine-print: "Does not include Northern Ireland".

Was a good solution to the problem as it never affected things where it was necessary for the working Joe Bloggs and you already needed papers and identification to leave to the Main land from Northern Ireland anyway.

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 18:24

i agree, and I think the white paper is a very moderate solution.

the EU offered terms of:
1. EEA+CU, two things that 'many' consider to be in breach of the spririt of brexit in general, and in breach of the Tory manifesto specifically.
2. An internal border within the territory of the UK which no british gov't can be expected to tolerate.

There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave

Are Leavers going to keep any of their promises?

Furunculus

07-20-2018, 18:35

Yes, let me try it this way: what's your basis for your claim?

1.4
UK Immigration Policy
Until the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, all Commonwealth citizens could enter and stay in the United Kingdom without any restriction. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 made citizens of the United Kingdom and its Colonies whose passports were
not directly issued by the United Kingdom Government subject to immigration control. By 1972, only holders of work permits, or people with parents or grandparents born in the UK could gain entry which significantly reduced primary immigration from Commonwealth countries. The British Nationality Act 1981 distinguished between a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. The former holds nationality by descent and the latter holds nationality other than by descent. Citizens by descent cannot automatically pass on British nationality to a child born outside the United Kingdom or its Overseas Territories (though in some situations the child can be registered as a citizen). After 1997, the previous Labour Government passed more than 10 Acts that dealt directly with immigration and asylum alongside a raft of policy
initiatives, while developments within Europe further changed the policy backdrop to
immigration. 17 The UK signed up to the right to the free movement of people within the EU as codified in EU Directive 2004/38/EC, which included provision for the free movement of workers within the territory of the Member States and the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. Since the expansion of the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK has accepted immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus (ie the A8 countries). There are restrictions on the benefits that members of the A8 countries can claim, which are covered by the Worker Registration Scheme. The Government announced that the same rules would not apply to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria when those countries acceded to the EU in 2007. Instead, restrictions were put in place to limit migration to students, the self
employed, highly skilled migrants and food and agricultural workers.The UK has for some time operated a managed migration approach, which describes various schemes that control all legal labour and student migration from outside of the EUand this accounts for a substantial percentage of overall immigration figures for the UK.Many of the immigrants who arrive under these schemes bring skills which are in short supply in the UK. This area of immigration is managed by the UK Border Agency. Applications are made at UK embassies or consulates or directly to the UK Border Agency, depending upon the type of visa or permit required.In April 2006 changes to the managed migration system were proposed that would create a points based immigration system for the UK in place of all other schemes.
Tier 1 in the new systemwhich replaced the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme gives points for age, education, earning, previous UK experience but not for work experience. The points based system was phased in over the course of 2008 and is composed as follows:
Tier 1 for highly skilled individuals, who can contribute to growth and productivity;Tier 2 for skilled workers with a job offer, to fill gaps in the United Kingdom workforce; Tier 3 for limited numbers of low skilled workers needed to fill temporary labour shortages; Tier 4 for students; Tier 5 for temporary workers and young people covered by the Youth Mobility Scheme, who are allowed to work in the United Kingdom for a limited time to satisfy primarily non-economic objectives.
18 In June 2010, the Coalition Government brought in a temporary cap on immigration of those entering the UK from outside the EU, with the limit set at 24,100, in order to stop an expected rush of applications before a permanent cap is imposed in April 2011.

https://www.parliament.uk/pagefiles/10493/LLN%202010-023%20ImmigrationFP.pdf

Furunculus

07-20-2018, 18:38

This was a border around Northern Ireland. Though there is already such an unofficial border in place anyway. Many things in the UK regularly are regularly put into fine-print: "Does not include Northern Ireland".

Was a good solution to the problem as it never affected things where it was necessary for the working Joe Bloggs and you already needed papers and identification to leave to the Main land from Northern Ireland anyway.

there was a limit in phyto-sanitary measures, and a few other areas. EEA+CU would have made NI a separate economic unit from the UK.
why is this more acceptable than than those same measures on the Ir/NI border? Either way, paddy's will threaten to kill other paddy's.

Furunculus

07-20-2018, 18:40

Are Leavers going to keep any of their promises?

you will note the separation between between a campaign group and a gov't.

do you not think the white paper is a very moderate solution?

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 19:18

you will note the separation between between a campaign group and a gov't.

do you not think the white paper is a very moderate solution?

Compared with hard Brexit, maybe. But it has also been shelved by the Tory loons led by Rees Mogg.

Also, where does May get her mandate from? The Tories don't have a majority.

Beskar

07-20-2018, 19:46

there was a limit in phyto-sanitary measures, and a few other areas. EEA+CU would have made NI a separate economic unit from the UK.
why is this more acceptable than than those same measures on the Ir/NI border? Either way, paddy's will threaten to kill other paddy's.

I cannot remember where you are, so I am going to just place you in.. Bristol for hypothetical purposes. Now, you got some hypothetical family living in Cardiff, or maybe you sometimes do some work over there. I am not sure why, but you really like commuting to Cardiff. In the current situation this is friction-less. You just get in your car, bus or train and you are in your merry way to Cardiff.

So let's say Wales was part of the EU (and separate from the UK). Due to Brexit, there needs to be a hard border between England and Wales. Now your trip is not friction-less, and as Joe Public, your enjoyment or travel to Cardiff just got pretty terrible by consequence. You can no longer just travel there to see your family where you please, needing your passport/photographic ID in order to travel there and having to go to a border stop just as if you were travelling off the Mainland as if to Ireland/NI, France, Channel Islands, wherever.

Now let's say for convenience, the UK and EU governments decide to enforce the border at the coast. As a result of this, it doesn't affect you, as you can happily see your family in Cardiff with no problems at all. Nothing in a real terms situation has changed.

Furunculus

07-20-2018, 20:42

I cannot remember where you are, so I am going to just place you in.. Bristol for hypothetical purposes. Now, you got some hypothetical family living in Cardiff, or maybe you sometimes do some work over there. I am not sure why, but you really like commuting to Cardiff. In the current situation this is friction-less. You just get in your car, bus or train and you are in your merry way to Cardiff.

So let's say Wales was part of the EU (and separate from the UK). Due to Brexit, there needs to be a hard border between England and Wales. Now your trip is not friction-less, and as Joe Public, your enjoyment or travel to Cardiff just got pretty terrible by consequence. You can no longer just travel there to see your family where you please, needing your passport/photographic ID in order to travel there and having to go to a border stop just as if you were travelling off the Mainland as if to Ireland/NI, France, Channel Islands, wherever.

Now let's say for convenience, the UK and EU governments decide to enforce the border at the coast. As a result of this, it doesn't affect you, as you can happily see your family in Cardiff with no problems at all. Nothing in a real terms situation has changed.

lovely hypothetical, but all the fun and jazz about hard borders has zero impact on the common travel area.

Compared with hard Brexit, maybe. But it has also been shelved by the Tory loons led by Rees Mogg.

Also, where does May get her mandate from? The Tories don't have a majority.

I believe it was the largest vote share ion 20 years.
It is a moderate proposal, in keeping with the 52/48 result.
What's to complain about?

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 21:22

lovely hypothetical, but all the fun and jazz about hard borders has zero impact on the common travel area.

I believe it was the largest vote share ion 20 years.
It is a moderate proposal, in keeping with the 52/48 result.
What's to complain about?

If you want to talk about vote share as opposed to Commons seats, IIRC Major's 1992 government was the most popular in living history in terms of votes received. Was it?

As to the moderation of the proposal: it's already been rejected by the ERG faction, even prior to its rejection by Barnier (which was predictable, as it broke the rules that the UK had a part in setting out. I'm assuming you're saying that May has a mandate for a moderate Brexit. If the ERG force a hard Brexit, does May have a mandate for that too? Cf. that VoteLeave quote I posted above. Also read "The Liberal Case for Leave" that I linked to above, and the author's recent follow up to it.

You know what, Thatcher would have been horrified by the ERG. I'm reading a speech of hers proclaiming the creation of the Single Market, not just in terms of tariffs, but in terms of regulations, standards, and everything else, proudly claiming Britain's lead in this project.

Furunculus

07-20-2018, 21:35

she has a mandate for whatever she can get through the commons, that is what parliamentary sovereignty is about.
the erg haven't invalidated the white paper.

Pannonian

07-20-2018, 21:47

she has a mandate for whatever she can get through the commons, that is what parliamentary sovereignty is about.
the erg haven't invalidated the white paper.

What do we default to if nothing gets through the HoC? AFAIK there are various mutually contradictory red lines in domestic and international law, unless the decision is made by the executive to put them aside. And that's even before you start involving the EU.

Beskar

07-20-2018, 23:13

lovely hypothetical, but all the fun and jazz about hard borders has zero impact on the common travel area.

I thought it did and that was the biggest objection to it? I might have been mistaken then

Furunculus

07-21-2018, 06:32

What do we default to if nothing gets through the HoC? AFAIK there are various mutually contradictory red lines in domestic and international law, unless the decision is made by the executive to put them aside. And that's even before you start involving the EU.

at this point, hard brexit or indefinate extension (otherwise known as remain).

Fragony

07-21-2018, 07:07

More EU-lulz comming up. Druncker is going to Washington to meet Trump. Trump is mean enough to actually give him water when Druncker wants water, in Brussel it means he wants gin, he will be desperate. He gots two hours or so before he will start violently shaking, after six hours without alcohol at the press conference he will probably have an insult and will have to be rushed to intensive-care. Kinda hoping he will try to kiss Trump, he will still be drunk enough to try he always licks faces

Pannonian

07-21-2018, 09:26

at this point, hard brexit or indefinate extension (otherwise known as remain).

Would you be happy with either? Or are you going the rory route and saying it's bad, but it's the EU's fault?

Furunculus

07-21-2018, 16:39

i'm a classical liberal free marketeer that likes my government lean and my public servants keen.

from a personal point of view, i'd be willing to tolerate a level of creative destruction with regulation going back to "demonstrable harm" from "precautionary principle", and spending droping to ~35% of GDP... because I believe it will lead to higher GDP growth in the medium to long term. we'd all be richer, which right-minded person wouldn't support this!?!?!?!?

but, i don't live in a country populated by me. there are other people who're quite happy to reach into their pocket to fund another diversity awareness officer, and to take sweets from kids lest we give peadophiles another tool with which to do harm.
these people exist, and I as a responsible citizen have a duty to take their view into consideration too.

thus, i'm willing to curb my inner red-blooded-capitalist, and suck up a softer brexit than is to my own personal taste. that means I'm willing for May to build a compromise package that seeks to minimise the damage even as it minimises the benefit. so be it.

but, like rory, I believe it is abolsutely the solemn duty of the EU to consider this compromise package with sincere good will, with the intention of finding a new relationship that works for both (all?) parties. if they don't, then hey "we tried", but Singapore. it. will. be.

Pannonian

07-21-2018, 16:48

Furunculus

07-21-2018, 17:21

Have you read the piece I linked to above, "The Liberal Argument for Leave", and the recent follow up by the same author? If the first is too long for you, the second is shorter, and more importantly, more relevant as it's a reflection on current reality and an update on the first.

Yes I have. I think I read it at the time it was published some years back, I also read it when it you linked it a few days back, and again just now.

Good article, broadly agree with everything it says. Particularly amused by:
"This shifts the equilibrium: it is now possible for people to be part of the same economic area, without having to be part of the same political entity. They are able to trade with one another without having to agree on politics."

Given the most trade in goods is indeed regulated by the likes of UNECE, etc, it almost feels like we've entered a mirror world:
"They are able to politically integrate with one another without having to worry about how many threads should be found on a 15mm flanged gasket." Well quite, and I have NO interest in political integration.

I wouldn't mind the EEA, though I'd be happy to ditch the flanking policies as they have nothing to do with trade.
But I certainly don't mind HMG aiming to go better than that, and separate goods (ECJ makes the rules), from Services (where we do), because the EEA places us in a position of jeapardy with our greatest economic advantage. Our services industry, something for which the continental countries have always had a slight natural aversion. An aversion to the anglo-saxon free-booting finance model.

The same can be said for things like fracking, and biotech/gmo: We don't really like it very much, so we'll make up a reason to strictly control it, and we'll call it "The Precautionary Principle!" Competition, hmmm, we don't like that very much, so we'll make up a reason to strictly control it, and we'll call it "Product Safety Standards!" Yes, that's why you pay a 25% tariff on ground coffee, but only 5% on coffee beans.

So, no, I have no objection to the UK trying to do better than the EEA, and I'm more than willing to accept the risk of no deal as a natural consequence of bargaining hard to get what we want. But, at the end of the day, I won't cry if we do arrive back at EEA/Efta. Personally, I'm hoping we end up in Efta regardless; a marvellous geopolitical tool to lever away the periphery of Europe from subservience to the EU. What fun, do they realise we'll have a field day in Efta at their expense?

I think the liberal case for leave was excellently made. Would you agree? :D

Pannonian

07-21-2018, 17:47

I think the liberal case for leave was excellently made. Would you agree? :D

Have you read his more recent comments from a few days back? I quoted some of them earlier.

Furunculus

07-21-2018, 17:54

Have you read his more recent comments from a few days back? I quoted some of them earlier.

These ones, yes:

"I'm withdrawing my support for Brexit. Did not sufficiently account for: the incompetence of UK politics; the madness of Brexiteers; the deep aversion to EEA; NI; Customs; and of course Trump. Not switching to Remain but if we do now remain I'll shrug. /1"

"I therefore don't think I have much value to add anymore, so I expect to reduce tweets on this subject. That is all. /2"

"Some interesting replies from Leavers and certain "Academic" sub-tweeters to this & derivative threads: basically saying I was never a Leaver in the first place and that EFTA-EEA is not leaving. If true, then the "real Leave" majority doesn't exist. And it never existed."

"Nope. The strategy was all discussed and agreed with Richard and understood by The Leave Alliance. He even boasted about it here. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86087 … I did my very best to take Flexcit to places it didn't reach, and for that I had buckets of slime thrown at me. Nice."

Like about 0.01% of the UK population I have in fact read flexcit, and I think there is a lot to commend it.
I too was surpised that May decided to make such a fuss about freedom of movement. It isn't something I really care about, and I didn't expect a free-marketeer tory party in gov't to make such a fuss about it either.

Pannonian

07-21-2018, 19:04

"The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years"

Jacob Rees Mogg, 21st July 2018.

I guess I won't be alive to see it then.

a completely inoffensive name

07-21-2018, 21:11

Where is this trade occurring?

~:smoking:

In your hypothetical scenarios the EU and USA respectively have the UK by the balls. A military embargo or economic sanction by either entity would devastate the UK. But your response implies the proper response is to thumb your nose at them and take the hit...

Pannonian

07-22-2018, 00:33

Like about 0.01% of the UK population I have in fact read flexcit, and I think there is a lot to commend it.
I too was surpised that May decided to make such a fuss about freedom of movement. It isn't something I really care about, and I didn't expect a free-marketeer tory party in gov't to make such a fuss about it either.

According to the Times 24% are prepared to back an explicitly far right anti-immigration anti-Islam party. This isn't the Britain I grew up in.

Gilrandir

07-22-2018, 09:34

"The overwhelming opportunity for Brexit is over the next 50 years"

Jacob Rees Mogg, 21st July 2018.

I guess I won't be alive to see it then.

You have too little faith in NHS.

Elmetiacos

07-23-2018, 16:19

According to the Times 24% are prepared to back an explicitly far right anti-immigration anti-Islam party. This isn't the Britain I grew up in.
Yes, it is. It's just that prior to the Brexit vote, these people didn't feel confident enough to state their actual views.

Fragony

07-23-2018, 17:26

According to the Times 24% are prepared to back an explicitly far right anti-immigration anti-Islam party. This isn't the Britain I grew up in.

That's what political correctness inevitably spawns after a very long incubation-time, nothing has changed it's always there

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2018, 03:50

Yes, it is. It's just that prior to the Brexit vote, these people didn't feel confident enough to state their actual views.

I am not sure that all 24% held such views prior to the kerfluffle surrounding the Brexit, but your general point that some number of persons held these views well prior and now feel comfortable enough to publicly state them is a virtual certainty.

Pannonian

07-24-2018, 05:42

I am not sure that all 24% held such views prior to the kerfluffle surrounding the Brexit, but your general point that some number of persons held these views well prior and now feel comfortable enough to publicly state them is a virtual certainty.

Nigel Farage (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/16/nigel-farage-defends-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants), fronting the drive for Brexit for years. And now Steve Bannon is planning to support other far right causes in Europe, with Farage also having lent his voice to them. Lovely people, Brexiteers. And of course, one of them assassinated an MP campaigning at the time for Remain.

rory_20_uk

07-24-2018, 09:41

Lovely people, Brexiteers. And of course, one of them assassinated an MP campaigning at the time for Remain.

That comment is just as ignorant as saying "Lovely people, Muslims. And of course some of them raped young white girls."

~:smoking:

Furunculus

07-24-2018, 10:33

Lovely people, Brexiteers. And of course, one of them assassinated an MP campaigning at the time for Remain.

Lovely people, Germans. And of course, one of them set about to solve the Jewish 'problem'. Do you see how this logic takes you to unhelpful places?

Husar

07-24-2018, 10:43

Lovely people, Germans. And of course, one of them set about to solve the Jewish 'problem'. Do you see how this logic takes you to unhelpful places?

Austrian! He was Austrian! If you're going to reduce it to "the one", then the origin is pretty clear.

Gilrandir

07-24-2018, 15:19

Austrian! He was Austrian! If you're going to reduce it to "the one", then the origin is pretty clear.

Lovely people, Germans. And of course, one of them insists on unnecessary precision. ~;)

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2018, 15:55

Alles ist in Ordnung. Hervorragende.

Husar

07-24-2018, 16:02

Lovely people, Germans. And of course, one of them insists on unnecessary precision. ~;)

Only Bavarians can think that Austria belongs to Germany ("unnecessary precision"), don't be like a Bavarian!
Bavaria is basically the buffer zone between Austrian and German culture. :sweatdrop:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-24-2018, 16:13

Gilrandir

07-25-2018, 10:27

Only Bavarians can think that Austria belongs to Germany ("unnecessary precision"), don't be like a Bavarian!
Bavaria is basically the buffer zone between Austrian and German culture. :sweatdrop:

To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different. Or to shepherds.

LOTR, The fellowship of the ring, BOOK II, Chapter 1 MANY MEETINGS

Husar

07-25-2018, 13:15

To sheep other sheep no doubt appear different. Or to shepherds.

LOTR, The fellowship of the ring, BOOK II, Chapter 1 MANY MEETINGS

You really shouldn't go there, Mr. Russian Guy. :sweatdrop:

Pannonian

07-25-2018, 13:51

rory_20_uk

07-25-2018, 14:07

"It is about time we brought the Treason Act up to date and made it apply to those seeking to destroy or undermine the British state. That means extreme jihadis. It also means those in future actively working undemocratically against U.K. through extreme EU loyalty"

David Bannerman, MEP (Conservative Party, 25th July 2018

The logical next step from calling opponents of Brexit "Enemies of the People"; make it legally treasonous to do so.

Given that Treason is disloyalty to the Crown, that can pretty much mean anything one wishes it to mean. Of course there would be a Constitutional Crisis if the Crown were to use the powers apart from delegating to the PM.

Politicians spouting meaningless rhetoric... whatever next!

~:smoking:

Elmetiacos

07-25-2018, 20:51

"It is about time we brought the Treason Act up to date and made it apply to those seeking to destroy or undermine the British state. That means extreme jihadis. It also means those in future actively working undemocratically against U.K. through extreme EU loyalty"

David Bannerman, MEP (Conservative Party, 25th July 2018

The logical next step from calling opponents of Brexit "Enemies of the People"; make it legally treasonous to do so.
We might invent a new game where we try to guess whether something was said by David Bannerman or by Recep Tayip Erdoğan...

Pannonian

07-25-2018, 21:12

We might invent a new game where we try to guess whether something was said by David Bannerman or by Recep Tayip Erdoğan...

Apparently the above quote was the second version of his tweet. The original omitted "future", meaning current opposition to Brexit would count as treason. Nice people, these Brexiteers.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-26-2018, 00:12

You lot are getting to be as politically bi polar as we yanks.

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 01:05

You lot are getting to be as politically bi polar as we yanks.

In this case, it's because the decision, once implemented, cannot be reversed within a generation or more. I certainly don't expect to see any reversal within my lifetime, and I'm not exactly old. Normal elections run in cycles of a maximum of 5 years; there have been 3 general elections since 2010. If there is a referendum to suspend democratic elections for 50 years, as Jacob Rees Mogg claims it will take for the benefits of Brexit to become clear, then I'd say that even a victory for suspension would not be democratically valid.

Oh, and do you remember Monty mocking my predictions of chaos should no-deal occur? The UK government is now preparing on that basis, taking steps to ensure "an adequate food supply" and the NHS stockpiling essential supplies. A 10 mile motorway has also been designated as a lorry park after incoming customs checks cause queues. That's now the expected outcome, rather than an improbable what-if.

Montmorency

07-26-2018, 01:50

In this case, it's because the decision, once implemented, cannot be reversed within a generation or more. I certainly don't expect to see any reversal within my lifetime, and I'm not exactly old. Normal elections run in cycles of a maximum of 5 years; there have been 3 general elections since 2010. If there is a referendum to suspend democratic elections for 50 years, as Jacob Rees Mogg claims it will take for the benefits of Brexit to become clear, then I'd say that even a victory for suspension would not be democratically valid.

Oh, and do you remember Monty mocking my predictions of chaos should no-deal occur? The UK government is now preparing on that basis, taking steps to ensure "an adequate food supply" and the NHS stockpiling essential supplies. A 10 mile motorway has also been designated as a lorry park after incoming customs checks cause queues. That's now the expected outcome, rather than an improbable what-if.

I bloody well told you that I was reprinting your prediction because I took it seriously and found it important.

Now, are there any legal conditions to Brexit that prevent a reversal for many decades, or is just a request for the benefit of the doubt from Team Brexit? If the latter, you're clear to offer them a two-fingered salute as soon as the unionist worm turns. Obviously it would thereupon take many years to negotiate this new arrangement, but my question is about what prevents the initiation of the attempt.

(And as long as I'm posting, I'd like to contend that there is no such thing as meaningless rhetoric.)

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 02:45

I bloody well told you that I was reprinting your prediction because I took it seriously and found it important.

Now, are there any legal conditions to Brexit that prevent a reversal for many decades, or is just a request for the benefit of the doubt from Team Brexit? If the latter, you're clear to offer them a two-fingered salute as soon as the unionist worm turns. Obviously it would thereupon take many years to negotiate this new arrangement, but my question is about what prevents the initiation of the attempt.

(And as long as I'm posting, I'd like to contend that there is no such thing as meaningless rhetoric.)

Admission into the EU requires ratification by all existing members. Every single one of them has a veto should the UK change its mind. The Brexiteers have been doing their best to burn all bridges and boats.

a completely inoffensive name

07-26-2018, 02:54

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 03:03

The EU is aware of the internal politics of the UK. The best way to defeat the Brexiteers isn't to take the bait to their insults and burned bridges.

Let them back in, no matter what they say or threaten to do.

And why would the 27, every single one of them, do so? Why wouldn't at least one of them set red lines that everyone knows the UK can't meet? A small part of Belgium held up a trade agreement with Canada for over a decade, that everyone else had agreed to.

a completely inoffensive name

07-26-2018, 03:11

And why would the 27, every single one of them, do so? Why wouldn't at least one of them set red lines that everyone knows the UK can't meet? A small part of Belgium held up a trade agreement with Canada for over a decade, that everyone else had agreed to.

There are much bigger stakes here. If you set the precedent that one rogue state will be allowed to prevent re-entry, than all the right-wing movements just bide their time until they have enough power to trigger Article 50(?) and then they are free forever.

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 03:28

There are much bigger stakes here. If you set the precedent that one rogue state will be allowed to prevent re-entry, than all the right-wing movements just bide their time until they have enough power to trigger Article 50(?) and then they are free forever.

Support for the EU has risen in the 27 since Brexit and its evident effects on the UK. We haven't even left yet, and the UK government's prognosis is that things will get far worse.

Edit: at least one of our historical allies has called for us to be made to suffer as an example.

Fragony

07-26-2018, 06:57

Edit: at least one of our historical allies has called for us to be made to suffer as an example.

You get to know a sect when you walk out the door

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 12:50

And speaking of treason, Stephen Glover (Daily Mail) wants the death penalty to be brought back for high treason. Should there be a referendum on that?

rory_20_uk

07-26-2018, 13:05

And speaking of treason, Stephen Glover (Daily Mail) wants the death penalty to be brought back for high treason. Should there be a referendum on that?

Only if we can have another if some are unhappy... :clown:

People tend to be pro-death penalty (as am I - in theory). But in practice, given the errors in the Justice System this is impracticable at this point.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

07-26-2018, 16:15

The death penalty can stop individual recidivism, but its usefulness as a deterrent is doubtful.

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 17:39

The death penalty can stop individual recidivism, but its usefulness as a deterrent is doubtful.

Given that the same author also describes opposition to Brexit as treachery against the People, the question is, does the death penalty deter opposition to Brexit, or does it only physically stop individuals from said opposition?

Pannonian

07-26-2018, 19:27

Some of the official Leave campaign's Facebook adverts (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966969). Nearly every one involves lying or deception of some kind, with one phishing effort promoting a supposed football prediction contest (fronted by a celeb sportsman), that was in reality a data gathering effort targeted at football fans. Brexiteers have since disowned the promises and claims made in these adverts, whilst owning the result of the vote.

Fragony

07-26-2018, 20:04

Have you always been this observant on steering? I could go on and on about the subject, eurocraten basicly try to push anyone who is sceptical into the facist camp. There is so much wrong with the EU and the only answer they know is more EU, there are very valid reasons to not want to be a part of it as it's out of control. I think a re-referendum is apropiate though

Furunculus

07-26-2018, 22:41

welcome to the future.
circa 2010 onward.

Pannonian

07-29-2018, 21:07

A rightwing thinktank has been offering potential US donors access to government ministers and civil servants as it raises cash for research to support the free-trade deals demanded by hardline Brexiters, according to an investigation.

The director of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) was secretly recorded telling an undercover reporter that funders could get to know ministers on first-name terms and that his organisation was in “the Brexit influencing game”.

Mark Littlewood claimed the IEA could make introductions to ministers and said the thinktank’s trade expert knew Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Davis and Liam Fox well.

The IEA chief was also recorded suggesting potential US donors could fund and shape “substantial content” of research commissioned by the thinktank and that its findings would always support the argument for free-trade deals.

Speaking about what kind of Westminster access the IEA could provide donors with, Littlewood told the investigator: “I have absolutely no problem with people who have business interests, us facilitating those.”

The investigation, undertaken in May and June, also revealed the thinktank had already provided access to a minister for a US organisation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/29/rightwing-thinktank-ministerial-access-potential-us-donors-insitute-of-economic-affairs-brexit

Remember all those IEA articles Furunculus posted supporting Brexit?

Furunculus

07-30-2018, 07:53

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 09:25

And?

It isn't a revelation that beyond a certain point of productive spending and regulation, increasing both further decreases gdp growth.
Some people will happily take that trade-off, in order to achieve further social good (i.e. equalise income distribution).
Others will not.

You missed the bit about the thinktank's research being shaped by donors. So if you're in the Brexit game, if you're willing to cough up, you can find both buyable "academics" supporting your agenda with suitable articles and a government to shmooze with who is willing to act on said "research". The IEA is deeply corrupt.

Furunculus

07-30-2018, 09:40

rory_20_uk

07-30-2018, 09:51

You missed the bit about the thinktank's research being shaped by donors. So if you're in the Brexit game, if you're willing to cough up, you can find both buyable "academics" supporting your agenda with suitable articles and a government to shmooze with who is willing to act on said "research". The IEA is deeply corrupt.

I think you will find this is true of almost all "think tanks", both the independent ones and those inside governments as all have their paymasters. So all should be viewed with a critical eye - not just blaming anything the "other" lot create as corrupt whilst everything close to one's own point of view is obviously the Truth.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 11:26

I think you will find this is true of almost all "think tanks", both the independent ones and those inside governments as all have their paymasters. So all should be viewed with a critical eye - not just blaming anything the "other" lot create as corrupt whilst everything close to one's own point of view is obviously the Truth.

~:smoking:

If you discount theoretical arguments made by "think tanks", as per your contention that none of them are free from the taint, then the overwhelming majority of practical expert sources, eg. people underpinning the critical parts of the UK's economy, are anti-Brexit. See the lorry driver's testimony I linked to a few pages ago talking about how border checks affect his schedule and how it cost his client, relate it to how the same severely damaged the KFC business over a mere month, and relate it to the government's assumption that the likelihood is that this will be the case across the whole economy for a prolonged period in the case of no-deal, which is now looking like the most likely eventuality. Would you like to discuss this scenario, which the government thinks is likely to happen, and is making disaster-level preparations for (they're preparing to call the troops out)? Or would you prefer to retreat to theoretical arguments made by think tanks like iEA? We know about the practical costs of Brexit. What are the practical benefits of Brexit?

rory_20_uk

07-30-2018, 11:51

If you discount theoretical arguments made by "think tanks", as per your contention that none of them are free from the taint, then the overwhelming majority of practical expert sources, eg. people underpinning the critical parts of the UK's economy, are anti-Brexit. See the lorry driver's testimony I linked to a few pages ago talking about how border checks affect his schedule and how it cost his client, relate it to how the same severely damaged the KFC business over a mere month, and relate it to the government's assumption that the likelihood is that this will be the case across the whole economy for a prolonged period in the case of no-deal, which is now looking like the most likely eventuality. Would you like to discuss this scenario, which the government thinks is likely to happen, and is making disaster-level preparations for (they're preparing to call the troops out)? Or would you prefer to retreat to theoretical arguments made by think tanks like iEA? We know about the practical costs of Brexit. What are the practical benefits of Brexit?

So as far as you are concerned, UK Plc is looking for a merger, with the sole metric of success is economic? OK fine. But surely we should shop around. See if any others offer a better deal.

I have repeatedly said that the driver for me personally was judicial freedom as without we are not an independent country. Although I am generally a very practical person I still have some issue with the sovereign nation being in essence sold off, as if that was a logical conclusion to British Leyland et al in the 1970's.

It would have been against most of the way we restricted our access to markets outside of the EU for the last 25 years via treaties that apparently did not require any interaction from the populace. So, yes there will almost certainly be a cost to undo all the decisions that have been made in our name but the populace had no control over.

But if we leave, planes can not land in Europe. They can from Russia, from Iran, from the USA. But apparently not us. Medicines will stop. Sure, we can get them into Syria to bombed out hospitals but the UK might prove to be an insurmountable problem. Food? Might be a challenge. Sure, we are an island nation and as yet have a currency that has value but we might end up starving.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 12:10

So as far as you are concerned, UK Plc is looking for a merger, with the sole metric of success is economic? OK fine. But surely we should shop around. See if any others offer a better deal.

I have repeatedly said that the driver for me personally was judicial freedom as without we are not an independent country. Although I am generally a very practical person I still have some issue with the sovereign nation being in essence sold off, as if that was a logical conclusion to British Leyland et al in the 1970's.

It would have been against most of the way we restricted our access to markets outside of the EU for the last 25 years via treaties that apparently did not require any interaction from the populace. So, yes there will almost certainly be a cost to undo all the decisions that have been made in our name but the populace had no control over.

But if we leave, planes can not land in Europe. They can from Russia, from Iran, from the USA. But apparently not us. Medicines will stop. Sure, we can get them into Syria to bombed out hospitals but the UK might prove to be an insurmountable problem. Food? Might be a challenge. Sure, we are an island nation and as yet have a currency that has value but we might end up starving.

~:smoking:

Should we still be subject to rulings by the ECHR and ICJ?

rory_20_uk

07-30-2018, 12:23

Should we still be subject to rulings by the ECHR and ICJ?

ICJ - sure, it settles disputes between sovereign states, is part of the UN... or perhaps follow the "Land of the Free" and just agree on the case by case basis.
ECHR - sure, it has a very narrow remit and in c. 99.9% of the time we would be following the rules even if it were not there. And one can opt-out of the bits one doesn't like.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 12:31

BTW, when you ridicule the stuff about food not being as available as now, how do you explain the KFC affair? Did that not happen? Was I imagining it?

rory_20_uk

07-30-2018, 12:45

BTW, when you ridicule the stuff about food not being as available as now, how do you explain the KFC affair? Did that not happen? Was I imagining it?

My explanation is quite simple, and is based on what happened. To quote the Right Wing, pro-Brexit rag, the Guardian Link (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/08/kfc-returns-to-original-supplier-after-chicken-shortage-fiasco):

The American fast food chain was forced to temporarily close hundreds of stores after it ran out of chicken following the botched handover of its logistics contract to DHL and QSL. “To put it simply,” KFC tweeted at the time, “we’ve got the chicken, we’ve got the restaurants, but we’ve just had issues getting them together.”

But yes, sure - it is evidence of foot shortages due to Brexit. It appears to be a classic case of finding things that support the position you already hold and not bothering to check as long as it fits.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 13:40

My explanation is quite simple, and is based on what happened. To quote the Right Wing, pro-Brexit rag, the Guardian Link (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/08/kfc-returns-to-original-supplier-after-chicken-shortage-fiasco):

But yes, sure - it is evidence of foot shortages due to Brexit. It appears to be a classic case of finding things that support the position you already hold and not bothering to check as long as it fits.

~:smoking:

It's evidence of the logistics train breaking down, and food being unuseable after just a short time because of the nature of food. What was that the lorry driver said about border checks leading to delays building up, leading to existing timetables being unuseable by his client? Our whole food system is based on JIT. The bloody government that you voted in reckons it will be one of the areas most affected by no-deal. The food retailers themselves are pointing to this being an issue. But you know better, of course. What does the IEA say about the logistics of a JIT-based economy?

rory_20_uk

07-30-2018, 14:05

Husar

07-30-2018, 14:27

I raised the idea paper to make the point about public spending/regulation and growth, i.e. Why I se an opportunity in being outside the orbit of the ecj.
I see nothing to invalidate that opinion, and remain quite content to offer that paper as evidence in future until someone can demonstrate why it is in accurate or false.

I can only assume that you believe in all the available gods then since plenty of papers say they exist while noone has managed to conclusively prove that they don't.

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 15:44

Erm... I know better than you: you gave this example and I managed to find was completely wrong with almost depressing ease. I never said it wasn't a problem, you appear to be desperately re-framing you stating the KFC situation was somehow relevant.

The government currently in is propped up by some Northern Ireland nutters. I personally dislike governments that are able to undertake activities without any input from the citizens. You know, like how the EU works.

And ironically, the KFC is an example of how JIT works in food - there is a large depot in the UK that sends the food out when required to the restaurants. I highly doubt that the chicken is sent straight from a container ship to the restaurant.

What do companies want? The ability to trade with as few borders as possible. Are you now so pro-company that whatever is best for companies is obviously best for everyone else?

~:smoking:

Go to any supermarket, and look at a pack of stewing vegetables, consisting of a mixture of root vegetables. Most of them come from non-UK EU countries. Or I can go to my local greengrocer, which labels where every item comes from. Most of them aren't from the UK.

There's a passage in Night Watch by Terry Pratchett, where Vimes notes the difference between Vetinari, who spent every day making sure food got from the hinterland into the city in a timely manner, and previous Patricians who assumed food appeared by magic via servants. And that the government would fall once the city went without a couple of meals.

Did you listen to that lorry driver I linked to, who described what happens when there are border checks? The guy representing the logistics industry says pretty much the same thing, again cited earlier in this thread.

rory_20_uk

07-30-2018, 16:10

BTW, when you ridicule the stuff about food not being as available as now, how do you explain the KFC affair? Did that not happen? Was I imagining it?

I thought it bears repeating. I responded directly to the KFC example you gave. What had no relevance whatsoever. They swapped logistics firms and all went wrong. The food was there.

I have no idea who on earth you are trying to argue with regarding logistics - unless you take exception to me stating we'll not starve.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 18:13

I thought it bears repeating. I responded directly to the KFC example you gave. What had no relevance whatsoever. They swapped logistics firms and all went wrong. The food was there.

I have no idea who on earth you are trying to argue with regarding logistics - unless you take exception to me stating we'll not starve.

~:smoking:

You're deliberately missing the point that, should logistics break down, food doesn't get to the needed areas in time. I point to KFC as an example of this breakdown which is a precursor of what will happen on a far larger scale in the event of no-deal, and all you can do is argue extreme specifics. Why don't you also argue that other firms aren't KFC and thus aren't affected like KFC? That would also be true, in your specific argument. It would also miss the point about logistics breaking down, just like your specific argument.

After the KFC stuff had been sitting in a warehouse for long enough, they tried to give it away for free as it wouldn't keep. And people turned it down as it wasn't any good after effectively waiting in transit for so long. Such is the nature of food. Academics have modelled the tailbacks in the event of no-deal and border checks at Dover, and came up with queues of 20-30 miles. The government has nominated a 10 mile stretch of motorway as a lorry park for the same purpose. But according to rory, delays caused by changing logistics firms are completely different from delays caused by border checks. Actually, he's probably right. KFC could store their stuff in customised warehouses, or at least could have done so if they'd made preparations to. All the food crossing the border in a no-deal will be waiting in lorries, without the same degree of specialist storage.

Seamus Fermanagh

07-30-2018, 18:25

You're deliberately missing the point that, should logistics break down, food doesn't get to the needed areas in time. I point to KFC as an example of this breakdown which is a precursor of what will happen on a far larger scale in the event of no-deal, and all you can do is argue extreme specifics. Why don't you also argue that other firms aren't KFC and thus aren't affected like KFC? That would also be true, in your specific argument. It would also miss the point about logistics breaking down, just like your specific argument.

After the KFC stuff had been sitting in a warehouse for long enough, they tried to give it away for free as it wouldn't keep. And people turned it down as it wasn't any good after effectively waiting in transit for so long. Such is the nature of food. Academics have modelled the tailbacks in the event of no-deal and border checks at Dover, and came up with queues of 20-30 miles. The government has nominated a 10 mile stretch of motorway as a lorry park for the same purpose. But according to rory, delays caused by changing logistics firms are completely different from delays caused by border checks. Actually, he's probably right. KFC could store their stuff in customised warehouses, or at least could have done so if they'd made preparations to. All the food crossing the border in a no-deal will be waiting in lorries, without the same degree of specialist storage.

you do realize that such conditions would not obtain permanently. Businesses would work out new logistic arrangements etc. Obviously, added costs from such new arrangements would be passed on to the consumer. After a rough transition period, though, a new SOP would emerge.

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 19:27

you do realize that such conditions would not obtain permanently. Businesses would work out new logistic arrangements etc. Obviously, added costs from such new arrangements would be passed on to the consumer. After a rough transition period, though, a new SOP would emerge.

They still have to go through the ports, which is the bottleneck. This isn't like the US with its dozens of land-connected states with a single market and no internal borders. There are limited connection points, and ins and outs need to be checked for the correct paperwork (see the lorry driver's testimony for what happens at border checks and how they affect timing). In his case, one little delay cascaded onto a next, until what he delivered could not be used until the next day. Nissan have said that each day's delay costs them several million, and their components don't go off. Food does go off, and it's waiting to transit in a lorry that's not custom-designed to keep it for prolonged periods. In one passage of Night Watch, the revolutionaries are given free steaks and onions because otherwise they're just standing in warehouses for no purpose, and they have a use by date (see the KFC example above).

Rory rubbishes the above scenario, but the logistics people have raised it as a real issue in the event of no-deal, and the government are now preparing for no-deal as the most likely eventuality. It is what we will default to on March 30th next year in the absence of any agreement, and there is no sign that we are approaching any agreement on principle, let alone in detail.

Pannonian

07-30-2018, 21:55

The casino industry donated thousands of pounds to the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) after the thinktank published a report on gambling policy that called for restrictions on the number of casinos to be lifted.

The National Casino Industry Forum (NCIF) confirmed it donated £8,000 to the IEA having fact-checked a draft of the report. Senior officials at the forum met the author before it was written and received feedback on its conclusions before its launch, according to an internal document seen by the Guardian.

The report was published as an “IEA discussion paper” with no mention that casino owners, who later made a donation, had been in any way involved.

The report concluded regulations were getting in the way of more casinos opening and there was “no obvious reason why a reasonably sized town or city should not host at least one small casino”.

The forum considered the report would be a more effective means of getting its message across than buying space in a magazine, according to the internal document.

The IEA contested that anyone outside the thinktank had seen the report before publication and denied its conclusions had been swayed or influenced.

Casino owners donated to IEA after thinktank's pro-gambling report (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/30/casino-owners-donated-iea-after-thinktanks-pro-gambling-report)

This is the think tank whose research Brexiteers swear by.

Furunculus

07-30-2018, 22:07

I can only assume that you believe in all the available gods then since plenty of papers say they exist while noone has managed to conclusively prove that they don't.

worthless statement.

Husar

07-31-2018, 00:42

worthless statement.

evasive reply.

Your paper doesn't contain real proof from what I could see. Everything said within seems based on a whole lot of assumptions about how things work. And you still want to believe it after you've been shown that the organization that made it conducts research with a set goal in mind.

So if you want me/us to prove that your paper is wrong, prove that God doesn't exist first, because I assume it's a similar amount of work compared to going through all the assumptions to see how correct they are...

Seamus Fermanagh

07-31-2018, 02:21

They still have to go through the ports, which is the bottleneck. This isn't like the US with its dozens of land-connected states with a single market and no internal borders. There are limited connection points, and ins and outs need to be checked for the correct paperwork (see the lorry driver's testimony for what happens at border checks and how they affect timing). In his case, one little delay cascaded onto a next, until what he delivered could not be used until the next day. Nissan have said that each day's delay costs them several million, and their components don't go off. Food does go off, and it's waiting to transit in a lorry that's not custom-designed to keep it for prolonged periods. In one passage of Night Watch, the revolutionaries are given free steaks and onions because otherwise they're just standing in warehouses for no purpose, and they have a use by date (see the KFC example above).

Rory rubbishes the above scenario, but the logistics people have raised it as a real issue in the event of no-deal, and the government are now preparing for no-deal as the most likely eventuality. It is what we will default to on March 30th next year in the absence of any agreement, and there is no sign that we are approaching any agreement on principle, let alone in detail.

I don't doubt that it would be a huge hassle at first, and likely continue to be more difficult than was the previous open border approach. I just don't think organizations and people involved will make adjustments and it won't stay AS bad as it is at the outset.

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 05:04

I don't doubt that it would be a huge hassle at first, and likely continue to be more difficult than was the previous open border approach. I just don't think organizations and people involved will make adjustments and it won't stay AS bad as it is at the outset.

The throughput will only improve once we've made agreements on standards, such as we already have now. The problem is, it is a point of principle for the ruling faction of the current government that we should not keep the same standards as exists within the EU. Brexiteers like to talk about tariffs as if it were the only thing. Thatcher's speech announcing the creation of the Single Market emphasises that lack of tariffs is not the only aspect of a single market, and is probably one of the less important ones.

You might say: weren't we supposed to have a common market already? Wasn't that the reason we joined Europe in the first place? Weren't we promised all this in 1973?

It's a fair question to ask. And the truthful answer is: Europe wasn't open for business. Underneath the rhetoric, the old barriers remained. Not just against the outside world, but between the European countries.

Not the classic barriers of tariffs, but the insiduous ones of differing national standards, various restrictions on the provision of services, exclusion of foreign firms from public contracts.

Now that's going to change. Britain has given the lead. [There was a tendency in Europe to talk in lofty tones of European Union.

That may be good for the soul. But the body—Europe's firms and organisations and the people who work in them—needs something more nourishing.]

We recognised that if Europe was going to be more than a slogan then we must get the basics right. That meant action.

Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practice their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community.

All this is what Europe is now committed to do. In 1985 the Community's Heads of Government gave a pledge to complete the single market by 1992. To make sure that it was not just a pious hope, they made that pledge part of the Treaty, as the Single European Act.

Margaret Thatcher, 18th April 1988

Fragony

07-31-2018, 06:19

It certainly has become more, it's a good thing eastern-europeans don't want to facilitate their replacement and their leaders listen to them much to the chagrin of the childless mutti. Kallergi-Kouwenhoven nothx

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 07:18

Fragony

07-31-2018, 08:37

How is your postulated white genocide related to Brexit?

Because the Kalergi-doctrine is one of the pillars of the EU and most Brits want a brexit, do you think it's all about economics

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 15:46

Because the Kalergi-doctrine is one of the pillars of the EU and most Brits want a brexit, do you think it's all about economics

Tells you everything really. For Brexiteers, Brexit was all about far right theories.

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 15:58

I don't doubt that it would be a huge hassle at first, and likely continue to be more difficult than was the previous open border approach. I just don't think organizations and people involved will make adjustments and it won't stay AS bad as it is at the outset.

I've found the current contingency plan, named Operation Stack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack).

Operation Stack is a procedure used by Kent Police and the Port of Dover in England to park (or "stack") lorries on the M20 motorway in Kent when services across the English Channel, such as those through the Channel Tunnel or from the Port of Dover, are disrupted, for example by bad weather, industrial action, fire or derailments in the tunnel.

According to Damian Green MP, by 2007 the system had been implemented 74 times in the 20 years after it was first introduced.
Operation Stack is implemented whenever there is an urgent need to inhibit the flow of traffic to the Channel Tunnel and the Port of Dover, which handle 90% of freight traffic between the United Kingdom and mainland Europe. There are officially only 550 parking spaces for HGVs in Kent, so if access to cross-channel services is restricted, congestion would quickly spread across the county.

The most common causes of Operation Stack are severe weather that either cancels or restricts ferry services, industrial action at the French ports of Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne, and electrical failures in the Channel Tunnel.

Kent county council, the authority that will be dealing with this, reckons that no-deal will result in queues from Dover all the way to Maidstone and beyond, that's 40+ miles. They also note that a permanent solution will not be in place before 2023 at the earliest, and NB. government projects aren't exactly known for timeliness.

Furunculus

07-31-2018, 18:21

Tells you everything really. For Brexiteers, Brexit was all about far right theories.

Do you expect that kind of generalisation to pass without robust challenge?

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 20:14

Do you expect that kind of generalisation to pass without robust challenge?

If you want to challenge it, I'd like you to also note the kind of fellow travellers cheering you on, and the kind of people you are adamant on dismissing. How would you respond to this guy (https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/the-van-driver-being-put-out-of-business-by-brexit/) and his concerns?

rory_20_uk

07-31-2018, 20:57

If you want to challenge it, I'd like you to also note the kind of fellow travellers cheering you on, and the kind of people you are adamant on dismissing. How would you respond to this guy (https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/the-van-driver-being-put-out-of-business-by-brexit/) and his concerns?

Really? That's the best excuse for trolling? Just because you can find one or even some who share the stereotype you have mentioned doesn't mean that this somehow means stating all is somehow now accurate.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 21:07

Really? That's the best excuse for trolling? Just because you can find one or even some who share the stereotype you have mentioned doesn't mean that this somehow means stating all is somehow now accurate.

~:smoking:

Look at the leaders of Leave, and what they've been getting up to since the referendum. Doing nothing to address the issues raised by their support for Leave, but looking after their own interests, often in opposition to what they say the public should do and believe (eg. Redwood advising his clients not to invest in the UK, Rees Mogg's businesses opening up branches in the EU, Farage getting his family German passports, etc.) whilst canoodling with the American/Russian far right. What is the Brexiteer response to the economic issues raised by those in the know? Going by their leaders, it is to repeat ideological arguments whilst insulating themselves by getting themselves an escape route to the EU.

Pannonian

07-31-2018, 21:10

Jersey Finance paid for IEA report rubbishing 'hotbeds of tax evasion' claims (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/31/jersey-finance-paid-iea-to-trash-hotbeds-of-tax-evasion-claims)

A report by the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) rubbishing the idea that offshore financial centres were “hotbeds of tax evasion” was paid for by the Jersey financial services sector.

Jersey Finance, which represents banks, law firms and accountants in the Channel Islands crown dependency, gave an undisclosed sum to support the publication. It claimed tax havens boosted the wider economy and that they did not diminish tax revenues in other countries. It also called for their status to be protected.

The IEA, which faces a Charity Commission investigation into its political independence and charitable status, did not disclose the support in what it billed as an IEA discussion paper.

The IEA’s director, Mark Littlewood, told an undercover investigator for Greenpeace how the report, published in June, would be used to “frame every debate and discussion we go to, about why we shouldn’t be shutting down Jersey and Guernsey as offshore centres”.

IEA, the school of classical liberalism apparently.

Fragony

08-01-2018, 06:25

Tells you everything really. For Brexiteers, Brexit was all about far right theories.

Far-right is obviously more vocal, doesn't mean it isn't true, it's no conspriracy it's policy. Could even be a good one as having a diverse gene-poole eliminates heriditary disfunctions but on the short-term it's dumb. And importing people who have been marrying relatives for centuries odd at best, ah well I'm not an EU cheermonkey it must make sense somehow to EU-cheermonkeys somehow. Reality is that people will hardly mix and that you import parrelel societies no matter how much you promote multiculturalism and you are just being an idiot

Husar

08-01-2018, 11:24

https://www.ft.com/content/6d375b7e-8f99-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

I'm looking forward to our new colony.
The rest of the article is mostly about how the secessionists have ended up actually saving the EU for the most part, it's a good read.

Furunculus

08-01-2018, 13:19

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

Pannonian

08-01-2018, 13:44

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

Should the rest of the country have to follow your lead too? I don't remember any of the Leave campaigners promising option 2 during the campaign. I distinctly remember Farage promising a Norway option, which would be 1.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-01-2018, 15:25

Should the rest of the country have to follow your lead too? I don't remember any of the Leave campaigners promising option 2 during the campaign. I distinctly remember Farage promising a Norway option, which would be 1.

The whole point of a republican democracy is that, once the decision has been made, even the opposition must abide by the decision. That's pretty basic to the concept of a republic Pann.'

Fraudulence in the tactics etc. used to make a given decision may invalidate that decision (and you have argued such here repeatedly), but once a decision is rendered fairly it is supposed to be binding for all.

Pannonian

08-01-2018, 16:21

The whole point of a republican democracy is that, once the decision has been made, even the opposition must abide by the decision. That's pretty basic to the concept of a republic Pann.'

Fraudulence in the tactics etc. used to make a given decision may invalidate that decision (and you have argued such here repeatedly), but once a decision is rendered fairly it is supposed to be binding for all.

The thing is, option 2 was pointed out by Remain as a possibility, only for Leave to dismiss it as "Project Fear". Leave promised option 1. Yet you have Furunculus, a Leaver, now saying that he'd choose option 2, while option 3 is dismissed as defying "the will of the people" by traitors. Why are Leavers allowed to change their mind about option 1 and choose 2 instead, but they're not allowed to change their mind and choose 3? What's democratic about the former, that makes the latter anti-democratic?

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."
David Davis, former head of the Department for Exiting the European Union

NB. David Davis has been pushing for no-deal or thereabouts for the last 2 years. That's if you can call his lack of activity as pushing. His last notable act, prior to his recent resignation, was to go back on promises made to the EU the day before, forgetting that these danged foreigners can read UK newspapers as well.

Furunculus

08-01-2018, 22:42

Should the rest of the country have to follow your lead too? I don't remember any of the Leave campaigners promising option 2 during the campaign. I distinctly remember Farage promising a Norway option, which would be 1.

Rest of the country can do as it pleases, as always.

for a little news on the brighter side:

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-fintech-finance-banking-jobs-city-of-london-slashes-brexit-job-loss-estimate/

rory_20_uk

08-02-2018, 10:27

Fragony

08-02-2018, 17:38

Voting no pffffft, just about everything EU gets no in referenda in the Netherlands, one tiny thing is changed, they call it something different, and proceed with the exact same thing. And then they wonder why people get cynical.

Pannonian

08-03-2018, 00:48

When did we vote to join something that was designed to be impossible to leave?

I know the Irish voted. They voted "no" and the rules were changed so that didn't matter.
I know the French voted. They voted "no" and the rules were changed so that it didn't matter.
I know the Danish voted. They voted "no" so the terms were tweaked so they voted "yes" next time.

Did Blair give us a vote? Or Thatcher, Major, Brown? That's close to thirty years with not so much as a single chance to have a say. Under each of them the institution morphed. At best the PM lauded the exceptions they'd managed to get and not the things they had agreed to. No, please do go on about the "democracy deficit".

Unless you accept that the binary in/out vote choice itself was supposed to bias people to remain since there was so little information, you have to accept that the structure was decided by a PM who was avowedly a "remainer". So don't blame those who voted for Brexit that details were overly vague.

~:smoking:

I'm not sure how the binary question biases people towards remain, as only one of the sides had a demonstrable manifesto, whereas the other was able to promise allsorts without any intention of keeping their promises. See the creationism debate, where one side has to stick to scientific evidence, whereas the other is able to pin everything on scripture, with every gap in science explainable by "God did it". Will you hold the Brexit implementers to the same standards that you hold the Remain campaigners? When we're out with no deal and Rees Mogg or someone similar is PM, will you demand that they keep all the promises made by Leave during their campaign?

rory_20_uk

08-03-2018, 10:45

I'm not sure how the binary question biases people towards remain, as only one of the sides had a demonstrable manifesto, whereas the other was able to promise allsorts without any intention of keeping their promises. See the creationism debate, where one side has to stick to scientific evidence, whereas the other is able to pin everything on scripture, with every gap in science explainable by "God did it". Will you hold the Brexit implementers to the same standards that you hold the Remain campaigners? When we're out with no deal and Rees Mogg or someone similar is PM, will you demand that they keep all the promises made by Leave during their campaign?

In fact, neither side had a demonstrable manifesto - remain can no more predict the future than exit. As I pointed out - there have been many changes over the decades: it is not a static state of affairs. So yes, I will. Neither side knows what the future holds. Both are lying if they say otherwise. The remain of course will state they can "steer" the EU to do what they want and would have championed every little "victory" and ignored every change. Or will the future be different?

To repeat myself again... I did not vote based upon the promises of any "Brexiteer". I didn't look at the "battle bus" and think "Oooooh - anyone who can pain a decal on a bus must be telling the truth!" I didn't think that the UK would recreate the Empire; I do not even know whether the Commonwealth really care any more since we've managed to slowly erode that over the last 50 years. I do not think that the rest of the world is lining up for trade agreements - although Cameroon did get Obama to say we're at the back of the queue so perhaps Trump will put us at the front just to do the opposite.

If the ECJ has been removed, what I wanted has been kept. It is "odd" how many people around the world value this thing called "self determination" and in many cases are prepared to die for it. But we in the UK really should be thinking about rebranding to something like "the EU Islands" because without the EU looking after us we're doomed... even if most of the damage would be done by the EU since we have tried to burn every other bridge.

It is very interesting that if we are out with "no deal" we do not even have the deals that existed before we entered. What is the reason given for that?

~:smoking:

Strike For The South

08-03-2018, 12:40

It is very interesting that if we are out with "no deal" we do not even have the deals that existed before we entered. What is the reason given for that?

Because the Union does not work when some can just opt in and out. Once the train leaves the station, it leaves the station. Granted, your politicians lied about that.

rory_20_uk

08-03-2018, 14:13

Because the Union does not work when some can just opt in and out. Once the train leaves the station, it leaves the station. Granted, your politicians lied about that.

There are three things to have a look at.

First, the areas where there are those who have opted in and out of different things. Such as on the Euro itself - which the UK is one of. And why was this? Oh - that's right! The vote was a "no" so they fudged the rules...

Secondly, the process being followed is to enable countries to leave - and surely this would be a system to ensure continuation after the end of the process? Apparently not. When countries stop being at war they appear to have more quickly agreed systems regarding air traffic control for example. So why sould this be an issue?

Thirdly, let us look at all the rules and regulations that the EU has with non-EU countries - gas from Russia comes in, as do planes and of course cars and trains. And from many other countries not in the EU - it is almost like there is a functioning world outside the EU! So clearly the EU does not generally act as though there is no interaction with those who are "out". What need is there to threaten to withdraw things that offer mutual benefit until something else is sorted out?

In short, systems that are intrinsically good (or at least better than the alternatives) have many applicants trying to get in - immigration to the UK and the USA are cases in point. Not as many are trying to get in to Qatar / Saudi Arabia / Israel although these countries are richer - in many cases, they'd merely be dying to get in. Hell, even the Commonwealth has had some countries applying for membership to something that is little more than a Club. But the EU has so little to offer it has to bully those to stay, possibly similar to the USA in the Civil War where only violence was enough. I suppose on that score we should be grateful.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

08-03-2018, 14:23

Because the Union does not work when some can just opt in and out. Once the train leaves the station, it leaves the station. Granted, your politicians lied about that.

Actually, the other partners allowed the UK a lot of opt outs, making the UK an EU member with enough Anglo-American elements to be different. Unfortunately, for the zealous, even this special position wasn't enough. Eg. the ECJ that rory complains about is a body consisting of representatives of all EU members, the UK included, that ensures that agreements between EU members are honoured; the laws that rory complains about are basically inter-member multilateral agreements. Not only is the UK represented in this body, but a majority (two thirds IIRC) of disputes involving the UK have been resolved in the UK's favour. Meaning the UK is a disproportionately influential and benefiting part of the supposedly alien ECJ. For an example of what Brexiteers mean by sovereignty, see the Irish border issue. The EU is calling on the UK to honour the Good Friday Agreement. Is this an outrageous demand by the EU? Not really, as the GFA was a bilateral treaty involving the UK and RoI, enabled by the EU, but not part of the EU structure. The EU is just standing up for one of its members and requesting that the UK fulfil its international treaties, something that should go without saying. Yet the Brexiteers want the UK to unilaterally break this agreement, and they blame the EU for demanding that the UK should keep its agreements.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-03-2018, 14:44

In short, systems that are intrinsically good (or at least better than the alternatives) have many applicants trying to get in - immigration to the UK and the USA are cases in point. Not as many are trying to get in to Qatar / Saudi Arabia / Israel although these countries are richer - in many cases, they'd merely be dying to get in. Hell, even the Commonwealth has had some countries applying for membership to something that is little more than a Club. But the EU has so little to offer it has to bully those to stay, possibly similar to the USA in the Civil War where only violence was enough. I suppose on that score we should be grateful.

I think Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was incorrect. Not addressing the issue may have been an oversight, but to assume that once admitted to the union a state could never be permitted to leave is not traceable to the language of the Constitution. Even then, the last remaining attendee of the Constitutional convention had been dead for 25 years, so there was no one who had been present left to consult on the issue. On the other hand, there was no process for secession specifically either.

Even so, it is within the power of a government to use force so as to deny secession by a part of its polity -- but of itself that is no guarantee that the government will succeed in doing so.

rory_20_uk

08-03-2018, 15:11

Actually, the other partners allowed the UK a lot of opt outs, making the UK an EU member with enough Anglo-American elements to be different. Unfortunately, for the zealous, even this special position wasn't enough. Eg. the ECJ that rory complains about is a body consisting of representatives of all EU members, the UK included, that ensures that agreements between EU members are honoured; the laws that rory complains about are basically inter-member multilateral agreements. Not only is the UK represented in this body, but a majority (two thirds IIRC) of disputes involving the UK have been resolved in the UK's favour. Meaning the UK is a disproportionately influential and benefiting part of the supposedly alien ECJ. For an example of what Brexiteers mean by sovereignty, see the Irish border issue. The EU is calling on the UK to honour the Good Friday Agreement. Is this an outrageous demand by the EU? Not really, as the GFA was a bilateral treaty involving the UK and RoI, enabled by the EU, but not part of the EU structure. The EU is just standing up for one of its members and requesting that the UK fulfil its international treaties, something that should go without saying. Yet the Brexiteers want the UK to unilaterally break this agreement, and they blame the EU for demanding that the UK should keep its agreements.

Aaaah yes. There are lots of opt outs. Except that the EU keeps saying things can not be "a la carte". Only opt outs when it suits, I suppose...

Merely that the UK won 2/3 is of course not the point, and you well know it. Merely that we have "influence" in something doesn't mean that means we have to be a member of it - and we voted to leave it And you are hilariously conflating winning 2/3 of votes as somehow being a "good outcome", and itself evidence of "influence". I have no idea what cases were won or what were lost. Do you? Should the UK have lost 90% of them or won 90% of them? Who is to know? And yet you are the first to continually mention the Brexiteers lied on their promises.

The UK is happy to not have a border in Northern Ireland. Ireland is also happy not to have a border. Whilst both are part of the same EU, this is not an issue. The UK chose to leave the EU. So, either there continues to be a border - which both countries either side are happy with - or else there is one - which the EU requires. So in fact this is a decision for Ireland. They can stay in the EU and have a border, try to get the EU to change their mind or leave and not have a border. The UK doesn't have to tell Ireland what to do. They are their own Sovereign state. Their politicians or populace can choose. They might not like the two choices, but part of being an adult is choosing between two bad options.

Treaties can be ended - and often are. They are not forever - and this is a power that sovereign nations have. Such as how Spain keeps wanting Gibraltar back even though they signed a treaty that it is UK sovereign territory...? Why on EARTH is the EU getting involved? You just said it has nothing to do with the EU. But then all of a sudden it does.

The Good Friday Agreement was to try to end the Terrorism that had been going on for decades and we now have a situation where we in essence pay off both their politicians / terrorists to not work in Westminster and also pay their salaries to not sit in Belfast. A great deal... only when the alternative is bombs going off in Ireland and the UK.

I think Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was incorrect. Not addressing the issue may have been an oversight, but to assume that once admitted to the union a state could never be permitted to leave is not traceable to the language of the Constitution. Even then, the last remaining attendee of the Constitutional convention had been dead for 25 years, so there was no one who had been present left to consult on the issue. On the other hand, there was no process for secession specifically either.

Even so, it is within the power of a government to use force so as to deny secession by a part of its polity -- but of itself that is no guarantee that the government will succeed in doing so.

Yes, might makes right. An ageless rule. Von Bismark would approve - one's borders are determined by the power to protect them. The EU pretends to be all for democracy but of course only when things are the "right" way - as we see with Hungry and others who have democratically voted for the "wrong" people. On one level I would not mind if there was no article 50, there was no choice and the EU brazenly said "too late, third time lucky!" But it is a technocratic dictatorship with the garnishing of some democracy where the polis can choose a few bits round the edges but everything meaningful just continues.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

08-05-2018, 09:05

Well worth a read:

https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

A few excerpts:

What gets lost in these debates is the actual evidence. Contrary to rumour, Brexit was supported by a broad and fairly diverse coalition of voters; large numbers of affluent conservatives; one in three of Britain’s black and ethnic minority voters; almost half of 25-49 year-olds; one in two women; one in four graduates; and 40 percent of voters in the Greater London area.1 Brexit appealed to white pensioners in England’s declining seaside towns but it also won majority support in highly ethnically diverse areas like Birmingham, Luton, and Slough.

Nor did these voters suddenly convert to Brexit during the campaign, which is another common misconception. One point that is routinely ignored is that British support for radically reforming or exiting the EU was widespread long before the referendum even began. Britain’s National Centre for Social Research recently pointed out that levels of British support for leaving the EU or radically reducing the EU’s power “have been consistently above 50 percent for a little over 20 years.” This is what the ‘short-termists’ cannot explain. If Brexit was an aberration, a by-product of wrongdoing, then why were so many people unhappy with this relationship long before the Great Recession, or the arrival of Twitter or Facebook? The currents that led to this seismic moment were decades in the making.

“We are one people in Europe,” proclaimed Natalie Nougayrède in the left-wing Guardian newspaper during the 2016 referendum. Yet the reality for most voters was altogether different. When asked how they thought of their identity, between 1992 and 2016 an average of 62 percent of Brits said they were ‘British only.’ Only 6 percent prioritized a ‘European’ identity.

During the 2000s, many working-class voters had started to drift into apathy, losing faith in politics. This was the canary in the Brexit coalmine. In more northern and industrial communities, working-class voters provided isolated pockets of support to a small far-Right party, but most simply stopped voting altogether. Debates about turnout routinely focus on differences between the young and old but many observers missed a more important gap in turnout among the different social classes.

One person who had noticed was the political scientist Oliver Heath, who noted that until the 1980s there had been little difference in the rates of turnout among the working-class and middle-class (less than 5 points). Yet, by 2010, this gap had widened considerably to 19 points, which made it just as significant as the difference in turnout between young and old. Whereas in earlier years the working-class and middle-class had been divided on who to vote for, now they were divided on whether to bother voting at all.

Though some journalists would later contend that voters were swayed by misleading economic data or social media campaigns, the reality is that Brexit was a natural extension of their pre-existing values; a vote to tip the scales back toward order, stability, and group conformity, and an attempt to defend the wider community that was seen to be under threat. Not every Leaver felt this way, but many did. This is why, though controversial, the anti-EU slogans of “Take Back Control” and “Breaking Point” (a reference to immigration and the refugee crisis) were not only emotionally resonant but more in tune with what was occupying the minds of voters—and had been for some time. Remainers did not even try to win these sceptics over. Instead, they focused almost exclusively on a narrative that was rooted in rational choice—transactional and incredibly dry arguments about economic self-interest.

When it came to Brexit, 70 percent of Leavers felt that exiting the EU would be ‘safe’ while only 23 percent saw it as a risk. But when it came to remaining in the EU, 76 percent felt that was a risk while 17 percent felt it was safe. This was the big miscalculation.

Pannonian

08-05-2018, 11:02

Well worth a read:

https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

A few excerpts:

Good point about the popular support for Brexit. And how do you propose to manage the logistics post-Brexit? Or do you suggest that, with enough popular support, we can magic the problems away? How many customs officers do we have at Dover? How many customs officers do we need at Dover? How long do we have until we need those officers in place? What will happen if those officers aren't in place?

Furunculus

08-05-2018, 11:14

These are decisions we pay governments to figure out.

If the price of democratic self governance is more customs officers and warehousing then that is a price that can be paid.

Pannonian

08-05-2018, 11:22

These are decisions we pay governments to figure out.

If the price of democratic self governance is more customs officers and warehousing then that is a price that can be paid.

Where do we find the room for warehousing? Where do we find the customs officers in time? What will happen if those officers aren't in place in time? Would you be happy with no deal, as you've previously stated, regardless? When we get no deal, as you've said you favour, will you and other Brexiteers accept responsibility as the natural consequences of your choice?

Furunculus

08-05-2018, 12:37

The consequence of continuing our national journey with a socio-economic model closer to canada/Australia rather than euro-social democracy? Yes, I'll accept that.

The transition costs? Well, why would I feel some personal shame when you're not bothered at the price your euro-social democracy has exacted for the last twenty years. **

** for ref - by my calculation that is 0.5% gdp growth, compound. ;)

Pannonian

08-05-2018, 13:11

Furunculus

08-05-2018, 13:24

Who made that calculation? Was it in an IEA article?

It was, any objections to that?
I've read the same elsewhere over the last decade, here is another:
http://ime.bg/uploads/OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf

“The research studies(8) using various empirical techniques and different sets of counties conclude that the optimal government size (total government spending as a share of GDP) is between 17% and 40% of GDP, and the mode of the estimates is inthe range of 20 to 30% of GDP, much lower than the current government share in most developed countries9. In 2007 the OECD average of total final government expenditures is 40.4% of GDP, while for the Euro area the average is 46.2% of the GDP.”

“Using general government expenditure ratio in a sample of 12 European countries for the 1950-1996 period, Primož Pevcin67 reports the following: “the panel data estimates of the Armey Curve suggest that optimal size of government in the samplof 12 European countries is approximately between 36 and 42 percent of GDP, indicating that potential scope for reduction of government spending ratio is from approximately 19 to approximately 30 percent.”

“Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, EC (2008)69 cites Buti, Martinez-Mongay, Sekkat and van den Noord (2003)70 who find that the maximum stabilizing size of government is lower for small open economies. Their model suggests a threshold of about 35% of GDP for small open economies and somewhat higher, or about 40% of GDP, for large open economies.”