EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.

I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

---

As a conservative, I wonder what you make of the people of Grimsby, who voted overwhelmingly for Leave, yet who are now asking to be exempt from the consequences of their vote. Is the fundamental basis of conservatism the primacy of the state over the supra-state, or is it the assumption of personal responsibility for personal decisions?

Does a conservative have a different view point than a liberal/progressive on the concepts of personal responsibility / collective punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

As a conservative, I wonder what you make of the people of Grimsby, who voted overwhelmingly for Leave, yet who are now asking to be exempt from the consequences of their vote. Is the fundamental basis of conservatism the primacy of the state over the supra-state, or is it the assumption of personal responsibility for personal decisions?

---

For American conservatism, the assumption of personal responsibility for personal decisions is integral to the concept of governance at the lowest practicable level. It should NOT be an either or.

Your derision of Grimsby for trying to -- pardon the regionalist/ethnic slur -- "welsh" on the bet is fully justified. You vote in favor of "A," end up getting "A," and then find you do not want "A" after all -- I believe reversing yourself would require the consumption of a lot of crow, and you are very much stuck with it until the decision is reversed. Exempted from it? Poppycock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Does a conservative have a different view point than a liberal/progressive on the concepts of personal responsibility / collective punishment?

---

It is collective responsibility only to the extent that the individual agreed to the social contract wherein their vote was part of the larger polity. It is not collective responsibility in the sense of being punished for someone else's actions, rather that all the individuals in that political collective agreed to abide by the decision of the vote in question and thereby freely participated in the 'collection' of responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Grimsby have asked the UK government to exempt it from Brexit, as the economic consequences would be hugely negative across a wide range of fields. NB. the town voted 70% for Leave in the 2016 referendum.

---

So, people want less political oversight abroad, and yet keep the economics. What would such a fantasy look like? Oh yes, the EEC.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So, people want less political oversight abroad, and yet keep the economics. What would such a fantasy look like? Oh yes, the EEC.

~:smoking:

---

Which the Brits supported emphatically as I recall. I don't remember hearing too many folks bitching about the evils of "one market."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Which the Brits supported emphatically as I recall. I don't remember hearing too many folks bitching about the evils of "one market."

---

indeed.

And so something that people enthusiastically wanted has been added to until we end up where we are: people are offered two choices that they don't want and no recourse to have what they did want.

~:smoking:

If the argument against Communism is that it just doesn't work due to human nature, then the argument against the EEC would be that it just doesn't work since it was obviously politically instable due to, eh, human nature. We just can't have either of these fantasies just because we want to. And just that someone at one point managed to make it work for a short time does not disprove that it always slips into failure due to the inherent instabilities. :creep:

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein So that's one more concept we can scrap.

A multilateral trade deal is inherently unstable, or politicians wanted more with no nasty oversight or fallback for people - Cortez burning the ships...

A monetary union without political union is inherently unstable and was probably designed to fail and need to be saved by moving into a new stable state.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

indeed.

And so something that people enthusiastically wanted has been added to until we end up where we are: people are offered two choices that they don't want and no recourse to have what they did want.

~:smoking:

---

There is the Blair solution, which is to remain in the EU, but have the UK government put in place all the controls that it had access to all along, but chose not to use. There are a hell of a lot of things that the EU is blamed for, but which is actually the domain and decision of the Westminster government. What would you say to that solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

A multilateral trade deal is inherently unstable, or politicians wanted more with no nasty oversight or fallback for people - Cortez burning the ships...

A monetary union without political union is inherently unstable and was probably designed to fail and need to be saved by moving into a new stable state.

~:smoking:

---

We're not in the monetary union. Or the Schengen area either. Nor do EU nationals have freedom of movement within the UK. Nor is Turkey joining the EU. Nor are the NHS getting 350 million p/w top up. That's 4 arguments off the top of my head that the Leave campaign used, which were false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

We're not in the monetary union. Or the Schengen area either. Nor do EU nationals have freedom of movement within the UK. Nor is Turkey joining the EU. Nor are the NHS getting 350 million p/w top up. That's 4 arguments off the top of my head that the Leave campaign used, which were false.

---

The Leave campaign lied - wow breaking story... :dizzy2:

Oh of course you're not in the monetary union. It is just everyone has to eventually join the Euro. And now the ECB has Euro Bonds to support currencies. And the EU is talking about oversight of government budgets. And they're talking about having a EU Finance Director. Financial integration? Oh no...!

Oh, and the EU would like to set up supra-national Diplomatic stations. Another thing that could be useful. Alongside the EU integrated armed forces. Like NATO - but more... EU

Not sure how Turkey not joining the EU is relevant. Neither is Russia. Or China. Or the USA. And?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The Leave campaign lied - wow breaking story... :dizzy2:

Oh of course you're not in the monetary union. It is just everyone has to eventually join the Euro. And now the ECB has Euro Bonds to support currencies. And the EU is talking about oversight of government budgets. And they're talking about having a EU Finance Director. Financial integration? Oh no...!

Oh, and the EU would like to set up supra-national Diplomatic stations. Another thing that could be useful. Alongside the EU integrated armed forces. Like NATO - but more... EU

Not sure how Turkey not joining the EU is relevant. Neither is Russia. Or China. Or the USA. And?

~:smoking:

---

From the official Leave campaign:
Countries set to join the EU - Turkey: Population 76.0 million

And AFAIK the UK was nowhere near deciding to ditch the GBP for the euro when it voted Leave last year. How was monetary union and its possibility/necessity with political union relevant to the UK's position in the EU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

There is the Blair solution, which is to remain in the EU, but have the UK government put in place all the controls that it had access to all along, but chose not to use. There are a hell of a lot of things that the EU is blamed for, but which is actually the domain and decision of the Westminster government. What would you say to that solution?

---

not for the first time (and probably not the last either), i'll make the point that the advance of QMV at the same time our post-lisbon vote weight has diminished, when the ECB has stated it intends to caucus eurozone decision making using the tools of the EBU, means that fundamental sovereignty for euro-outs is a myth.

knackering our ability to reliably form a blocking minority (by limiting the exemption from ever-closer-union to britain only) was simply the icing on the cake.

no place for us in the party any more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

not for the first time (and probably not the last either), i'll make the point that the advance of QMV at the same time our post-lisbon vote weight has diminished, when the ECB has stated it intends to caucus eurozone decision making using the tools of the EBU, means that fundamental sovereignty for euro-outs is a myth.

knackering our ability to reliably form a blocking minority by limiting the exemption from ever-closer-union to britain only was simply the icing on the cake.

no place for us in the party any more.

---

So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

not for the first time (and probably not the last either), i'll make the point that the advance of QMV at the same time our post-lisbon vote weight has diminished, when the ECB has stated it intends to caucus eurozone decision making using the tools of the EBU, means that fundamental sovereignty for euro-outs is a myth.

knackering our ability to reliably form a blocking minority by limiting the exemption from ever-closer-union to britain only was simply the icing on the cake.

no place for us in the party any more.

---

So is less voting power itself the loss of sovereignty (it's not), or another "slippery slope"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?

---

Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

Quote:

---

the EBA is a perfect illustration of the potential economic benefits of a ‘single rulebook’ for financial services pitted against the potential drawbacks for the UK of loss of control over a key economic sector. Clearly, the EBA can benefit the City of London and the UK economy by stamping out protectionist or diverging implementation of EU financial services regulation, and drafting sharp technical standards. But if that does not happen, the
UK is hugely exposed to unwanted financial rules. Crucially, the proposed banking union set up – and the eurozone crisis – increases the risk of the latter happening.

The eurozone already has a majority at the EBA in those instances where simple majority applies. With the help of a few countries it could also quite easily muster a majority under the current QMV rules. From 2014, the eurozone will also gain a permanent qualified majority of the votes within the EBA (mirroring the voting system in the Council of Ministers) – although until 2017 the current rules would apply for a vote if one EU member state requests it. Regardless of the system, it is clear that, if the voting weights are kept unchanged, every time the eurozone votes as a bloc, the eurozone’s decision will likely become the EBA’s
decision. This could cover decisions on technical standards, restrictions on financial activities (which may, in future, include short-selling), the size of the EBA’s budget and key appointments, for example. This is critical for two key reasons:

De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:

• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.

• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.

• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.

Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

So is less voting power itself the loss of sovereignty (it's not), or another "slippery slope"?

---

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

Again, I would draw your attention to what I said on the 25th of this month:

Quote:

---

1. Cameron's deal, but with the ever-closer-union exemption not limited to britain. #thanksbelgium
2. Norway, without the flanking social and environmental policies. #itsjustamarket
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism
4. If none of this is possible, slash tax and regulation and suck the life out of Eurozone growth potential. #friendsorelse

in order of preference

---

Shoot belgium in the face in January 2016, and I would have been content to accept #1 (Cameron's deal).
Get rid of the flanking policies in #2 and I'm happy to remain a-la Norway. keep the single-market option focused on market regulation.

I'm in no way to be considered the extremist here, even if it was far more fun for everyone to focus on #4. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

---

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

---

Ideologues apart, and you certainly qualify as one, the vast majority of Leavers complained either about foreigners being here, or government spending being unable to cope with the foreigners here. The chief of the official Leave campaign admitted that the 350 million p/w was the tipping point that won the referendum for his side, which has since been disclaimed by the Brexiters via lawyer-speak about promises, manifestos, and how they're not responsible for what they've promised as it's not a proper election, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leave campaign

We send the EU £350 million a week
let's fund the NHS instead
Vote Leave

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leave campaign

Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week
Vote Leave

---

Vote Leave camp abandon £350m-a-week NHS vow in Change Britain plans

Is it democracy if you're allowed to lie and make promises that you have no intention of keeping in order to win elections? Is it democracy to not honour promises made during the campaign? When the enacted result no longer resembles the campaign promises, how valid is the result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

---

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

Quote:

---

On 28 January 2016 the Commission presented its proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as part of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. On 20 June 2016 the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/1164 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.
In order to provide for a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures the Commission presented its proposalSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• on 25th October 2016, to complement the existing rule on hybrid mismatches. The rule on hybrid mismatches aims to prevent companies from exploiting national mismatches to avoid taxation.

In addition to the proposal the Commission also published its Staff Working DocumentSearch for available translations of the preceding link•••.

The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.

Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.

---

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

---

I think quite a few poor and middle class people support these neoliberal schemes because they believe their hard work will inevitably get them there. And when they retire without ever having gotten there, they still support it because why should the lazy children have it any better? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

---

I believe I have already told you that I don't fear the word "neoliberal".
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to find a compromise with social democracy, but that is because I'm a reasonable man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I believe I have already told you that I don't fear the word "neoliberal".
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to find a compromise with social democracy, but that is because I'm a reasonable man.

---

There's no reason to fear the word, it's just a morally reprehensible ideology. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Ideologues apart, and you certainly qualify as one, the vast majority of Leavers complained either about foreigners being here, or government spending being unable to cope with the foreigners here. The chief of the official Leave campaign admitted that the 350 million p/w was the tipping point that won the referendum for his side, which has since been disclaimed by the Brexiters via lawyer-speak about promises, manifestos, and how they're not responsible for what they've promised as it's not a proper election, etc.

---

ideaology - noun
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ideologue - noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

If you believe in a program of public policy to enhance social-democracy you are an ideologue following an ideology. If you believe in EU membership you are an idealogue following an ideology. If you are a german ordoliberal, or a french dirigiste, then guess what; you are an ideologue following an ideology.

Unless you are a pure utilitarian whose only thought on implementing public policy is technocratic managerialism, then you are an ideologue following an ideology!

If... you choose to focus on the second part of sentence defining an ideologue (something which I would separately class as "doctrinaire"), then I would refute any suggestion that that is something that would or should apply to me. What evidence have you for it? My chosen preferences in outcomes from the eu renegotiation? How so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Vote Leave camp abandon £350m-a-week NHS vow in Change Britain plans

Is it democracy if you're allowed to lie and make promises that you have no intention of keeping in order to win elections? Is it democracy to not honour promises made during the campaign? When the enacted result no longer resembles the campaign promises, how valid is the result?

---

Remember this started with me answering your question as to why eurozone regulation matters to euro-outs:

"So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?"

There is a lot of detail there to be teased at, refuted, or otherwise disliked, why breeze past it.

How did you fail to address that answer, and slide so smoothly into this distraction? It feels.... kinda like evasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

---

lol, i'm a basic rate taxpayer that works in the public sector in a poor part of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

There's no reason to fear the word, it's just a morally reprehensible ideology. ~;)

---

^ Perfect example of why Britain is leaving. ^ ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

^ Perfect example of why Britain is leaving. ^ ~;)

---

And the one reason I don't mind Britain leaving.
You can enjoy your trickle up economics without us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

---

Furunculus, I struggle to see your position if it doesn't demand that the UK either control or destroy the EU, not merely exist outside of it.

As the EU is more single economy than market (but not single political unit), and economies need central controls to manage them, you feel the UK's sovereignty is threatened by mere adjacency to the EU's supranational institutions - meaning the only options are for the EU to be dismantled, the UK to dominate Europe in or out of the EU, or for the UK to "surrender its sovereignty" to some other comity.

And the third option needs minding because, even if your position on the bigger picture of UK sovereignty with respect to the EU were correct, the old adage about both rich and poor being equally enjoined from sleeping under a bridge analogizes and makes a mockery of your sovereignty.

If this is where your beliefs must lead you (and I don't see how you can avoid it), then you should be extremely pessimistic about Brexit as it will not prove either restorative or protective of UK sovereignty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ideaology - noun
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ideologue - noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

If you believe in a program of public policy to enhance social-democracy you are an ideologue following an ideology. If you believe in EU membership you are an idealogue following an ideology. If you are a german ordoliberal, or a french dirigiste, then guess what; you are an ideologue following an ideology.

Unless you are a pure utilitarian whose only thought on implementing public policy is technocratic managerialism, then you are an ideologue following an ideology!

If... you choose to focus on the second part of sentence defining an ideologue (something which I would separately class as "doctrinaire"), then I would refute any suggestion that that is something that would or should apply to me. What evidence have you for it? My chosen preferences in outcomes from the eu renegotiation? How so?

Remember this started with me answering your question as to why eurozone regulation matters to euro-outs:

"So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?"

There is a lot of detail there to be teased at, refuted, or otherwise disliked, why breeze past it.

How did you fail to address that answer, and slide so smoothly into this distraction? It feels.... kinda like evasion.

---

Me, I'm just someone without aspirations to higher political theory, who wants tomorrow to be largely like today, and thus dislike revolution of any kind, which Brexit is. I do my best for myself and my community, holding responsibilities to me more important than rights, and thus my old school socialism fits in well with pre-Thatcher conservatives and Tories. Nonetheless I'm happy for others to have rights even if I don't personally benefit from them, and resent having them taken away without a clear argument for what they'll be replaced with. Can you explain what my benefits within the EU are going to be replaced with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Furunculus, I struggle to see your position if it doesn't demand that the UK either control or destroy the EU, not merely exist outside of it.

---

Why, I'm not talking about product standards, the thing the Single Market is actually supposed to be about? I talk only of tax-n-spend, and social legislation. I see no reason why such an antagonistic dualism must exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

As the EU is more single economy than market (but not single political unit), and economies need central controls to manage them, you feel the UK's sovereignty is threatened by mere adjacency to the EU's supranational institutions - meaning the only options are for the EU to be dismantled, the UK to dominate Europe in or out of the EU, or for the UK to "surrender its sovereignty" to some other comity.

---

No, I clearly stated that the EU has within its power the ability to caucus consensus of eurozone nations, in matters decided by QMV. It has it its disposal tools including the EBU, and it is has never been shy of judicial activism in extending the reach of single market remit into areas of social policy (such as the working time directive), and tax policy (such as the financial transactions tax).
This is the heart of the matter; the EU view is that the single market is an emergent ‘gift’ of ever-closer-union, not a virtuous goal in its own right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

And the third option needs minding because, even if your position on the bigger picture of UK sovereignty with respect to the EU were correct, the old adage about both rich and poor being equally enjoined from sleeping under a bridge analogizes and makes a mockery of your sovereignty.

---

You'll have to expand on that one soemwhat further, as I'm failing to see your point vis-a-vis:
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If this is where your beliefs must lead you (and I don't see how you can avoid it), then you should be extremely pessimistic about Brexit as it will not prove either restorative or protective of UK sovereignty.

---

As noted above, I think your reaching this dismal conclusion because you misunderstand my position. I make the point about tax-n-spend and social legislation/regulation as being innapropriate topics for the EU to deal with (for us).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Me, I'm just someone without aspirations to higher political theory, who wants tomorrow to be largely like today, and thus dislike revolution of any kind, which Brexit is. I do my best for myself and my community, holding responsibilities to me more important than rights, and thus my old school socialism fits in well with pre-Thatcher conservatives and Tories. Nonetheless I'm happy for others to have rights even if I don't personally benefit from them, and resent having them taken away without a clear argument for what they'll be replaced with. Can you explain what my benefits within the EU are going to be replaced with?

---

Guess what, I'm just a old-school classical liberal who was likewise happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But they didn't lie, eu integration has crept along pace by pace, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Frankly, I blame Labour for this whole mess for signing up to the social chapter after Major got us an opt out.

Surely this is all a bit theoretical, Mr Furunculus? Isn’t it just fluff around the margins of society, not really amounting to much of real consequence? Well, it might seem that way. If you inhabit the end of the political spectrum that believes we need more social justice, more social democracy, and a more ‘modern’ FP, then the drift to the continental model seems both natural and virtuous. After all, we agree to compromise on our divergent aims and expectations all the time, notably every five years. However, if you inhabit the other end of the political spectrum that desires more individual autonomy, less collectivist governance, and to act abroad where we have the means to do good, then this quiet drift appears to be tacit gerrymandering to achieve an outcome that we would not mandate at the ballot box.

As to what you'll be getting as a Brexit bonus, that is rather in the hands of our neighbours over the channel.
If we can get a decent trade deal that includes both goods and services, then the quid-pro-quo will no doubt include Britain remaining a social democracy, spending ~40% of GDP on a significant welfare state.
If we can't get anything decent, well! Tighten your seatbelt, because we're going for a ride: We'll drift out of being a social democracy and into a market economy, with spending down to 35% of GDP and regulation similarly trimmed. That is how we'll compete in the face of limited access.

Hey, i'm happy for you to have that social democracy, after all I'm a reasonable chap who's willing to compromise to get along. Fingers crossed, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

No, I clearly stated that the EU has within its power the ability to caucus consensus of eurozone nations, in matters decided by QMV. It has it its disposal tools including the EBU, and it is has never been shy of judicial activism in extending the reach of single market remit into areas of social policy (such as the working time directive), and tax policy (such as the financial transactions tax).
This is the heart of the matter; the EU view is that the single market is an emergent ‘gift’ of ever-closer-union, not a virtuous goal in its own right.

---

I would say the single market is a virtuous goal in itself because it is much easier to control politically. The political control over the market requires some degree of political union however, so this follows the market quite naturally, or is inherent as I said before. If you leave the market entirely uncontrolled, there is no big gain in the single market for 99% of the constituents of the EU.

Freedom of movement is one part of the completely uncontrolled one market. And also the reason wages go down because people from low wage countries undercut the higher wages elsewhere. Without political union, this can be used as a competitive edge by some countries or others can try to lower the living standards of their own people in an attempt to compete. See "Agenda 2010" in Germany for example. All this has brought so far were poverty wars, resentment between different poor people and misery, but perhaps that's exactly what you find to be a noble goal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Guess what, I'm just a old-school classical liberal who was likewise happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But they didn't lie, eu integration has crept along pace by pace, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Frankly, I blame Labour for this whole mess for signing up to the social chapter after Major got us an opt out.

Surely this is all a bit theoretical, Mr Furunculus? Isn’t it just fluff around the margins of society, not really amounting to much of real consequence? Well, it might seem that way. If you inhabit the end of the political spectrum that believes we need more social justice, more social democracy, and a more ‘modern’ FP, then the drift to the continental model seems both natural and virtuous. After all, we agree to compromise on our divergent aims and expectations all the time, notably every five years. However, if you inhabit the other end of the political spectrum that desires more individual autonomy, less collectivist governance, and to act abroad where we have the means to do good, then this quiet drift appears to be tacit gerrymandering to achieve an outcome that we would not mandate at the ballot box.

As to what you'll be getting as a Brexit bonus, that is rather in the hands of our neighbours over the channel.
If we can get a decent trade deal that includes both goods and services, then the quid-pro-quo will no doubt include Britain remaining a social democracy, spending ~40% of GDP on a significant welfare state.
If we can't get anything decent, well! Tighten your seatbelt, because we're going for a ride: We'll drift out of being a social democracy and into a market economy, with spending down to 35% of GDP and regulation similarly trimmed. That is how we'll compete in the face of limited access.

Hey, i'm happy for you to have that social democracy, after all I'm a reasonable chap who's willing to compromise to get along. Fingers crossed, eh?

---

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

---

Who knows, who cares.
I didn't believe it, I didn't care for the idea anyway.
I voted for my own reasons, and remain quite content with them.
Remember my preferred option one - if anything i'm disappointed in the EU for making a hash of the renegotiation.
If anything, I consider [you] to be the extremeists in finding nothing objectionable in Belgium's actions during the renegotiation.
It tipped me from being someone who could vote to remain into being someone who could not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I would say the single market is a virtuous goal in itself because it is much easier to control politically.

---

That is not an attitude that is apparent in my reading of EU politics in the last twenty years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Who knows, who cares.
I didn't believe it, I didn't care for the idea anyway.
I voted for my own reasons, and remain quite content with them.
Remember my preferred option one - if anything i'm disappointed in the EU for making a hash of the renegotiation.
If anything, I consider [you] to be the extremeists in finding nothing objectionable in Belgium's actions during the renegotiation.
It tipped me from being someone who could vote to remain into being someone who could not.

---

So manifesto promises hold no water?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So manifesto promises hold no water?

---

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

---

And there is that lawyer-speak I talked about, relieving Brexit supporters from responsibility for promises made by their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dominic Cummings

2. ‘The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would. There is no single definitive figure because there are different sets of official figures but the Treasury gross figure is slightly more than £350m of which we get back roughly half, though some of this is spent in absurd ways like subsidies for very rich landowners to do stupid things.)

Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way (see below).

---

NB. Dominic Cummings was director of the Leave campaign.

Immigration and the 350 million p/w for the NHS were the decisive factors. Are the implementers of Brexit going to deliver these promises? If they don't matter, does that mean all bets are off in future elections?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

---

I wouldnt get your hopes up for an epiphany, he's been clinging to that equivalence for 16 months now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And there is that lawyer-speak I talked about, relieving Brexit supporters from responsibility for promises made by their side.



NB. Dominic Cummings was director of the Leave campaign.

Immigration and the 350 million p/w for the NHS were the decisive factors. Are the implementers of Brexit going to deliver these promises? If they don't matter, does that mean all bets are off in future elections?

---

I know who Dominic Cummings is. I've read about him for eighteen months, ive read his blog for the last year, and I've just finished All Out War by shipman. I can only conclude that he is a singularly talented focused and driven individual, and I'm glad he was on the leave side.

I'm a right wing liberal, I don't care about immigration or labours secular religion, I'm not sure how many other ways I have got left to say I couldn't give a stuff about the £350m for the NHS. That didn't speak to me or my constituency, but as a labour voter I can understand you feel peeved he duped your constituency. It must hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I know who Dominic Cummings is. I've read about him for eighteen months, ive read his blog for the last year, and I've just finished All Out War by shipman. I can only conclude that he is a singularly talented focused and driven individual, and I'm glad he was on the leave side.

I'm a right wing liberal, I don't care about immigration or labours secular religion, I'm not sure how many other ways I have got left to say I couldn't give a stuff about the £350m for the NHS. That didn't speak to me or my constituency, but as a left leaning voter I can understand you feel peeved he duped your constituency. It must hurt.

---

What about immigration, the other point he mentioned above? Are the implementers of Brexit going to keep that promise and bring down immigration? Surely that's a right wing issue, if ever anything is.

And what do you think of Cummings's view that Brexit as currently executed is going to be a disaster?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What about immigration, the other point he mentioned above? Are the implementers of Brexit going to keep that promise and bring down immigration? Surely that's a right wing issue, if ever anything is.

And what do you think of Cummings's view that Brexit as currently executed is going to be a disaster?

---

You have to decide whether right wing means florid ex colenels from the shires with questionable views about Brown people, or evil neoliberals who care for nothing but cheap labour to supply their 21st century satanic Mills...
Maybe that caricature helps you forget it was the Labour working class (and the non voting working class that Labour claims to speak on behalf of) that the immigration message was tailored for.

Cummings may be right, but which party is offering a better alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

That is not an attitude that is apparent in my understanding of EU politics in the last twenty years.

---

I didn't say it was, for the last nine years the EU was too busy fixing the wonderful effects of neoliberalism and related greed-based ideologies like an enormous market crash and people fleeing from poverty and war. ~;)

The idea to have an EU-wide tax on income rather than profit was such a step though. Only happened (could happen?) after Britain left though.
Well, the idea being discussed happened, it's not nowhere near a law AFAIK. Maybe they're just waiting for lobbyists to convince them not to do it, maybe it will actually happen. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

You have to decide whether right wing means florid ex colenels from the shires with questionable views about Brown people, or evil neoliberals who care for nothing but cheap labour to supply their 21st century satanic Mills...

Maybe that caricature helps you forget it was the Labour working class (and the non voting working class that Labour claims to speak on behalf of) that the immigration message was tailored for.

---

And yet again avoiding responsibility for keeping campaign promises. Given that Cummings cites immigration and the NHS promise as the two main factors in winning the Leave campaign, and you push both as the domain of Labour voters, Labour must have one hell of a massive constituency. And yet we have a Tory government.

BTW, what do you think of this?

Quote:

---

But such faith in the current administration’s ability to haggle effectively seems complacent. The far-sharper Cummings was not nearly so sanguine. On May and Davis, he predicts that “schoolchildren will shake their heads in disbelief that such characters could have had leading roles in government.” In the event of a total Brexit disaster, there could even be an investigation into why it occurred—and civil servants are already scurrying to cover themselves. Officials are drafting their emails with a half an eye on “the inevitable inquiry,” Cummings said—“and the history books.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And yet again avoiding responsibility for keeping campaign promises. Given that Cummings cites immigration and the NHS promise as the two main factors in winning the Leave campaign, and you push both as the domain of Labour voters, Labour must have one hell of a massive constituency. And yet we have a Tory government.

BTW, what do you think of this?

---

I don't have to take responsibility for anything, all sides lied. Remain stated that Leave wanted MORE immigration (that is the right-wing-as-evil-neoliberals trope in case you missed it), they also invented glorious nonsense on the economic calamity pending a leave vote.
More importantly, the labour and non-voters were necessary to get Leave over the line. The Conservative/Liberal side was already in the bag. Again, Ashcroft polls, read them

Cummings may be right, but which party is offering a better alternative?

p.s. have you read All Out War? absolutely fascinating!

And a Tory MP currently advocating a no deal Brexit has advised his clients, in his second job as a financial adviser, that the UK's economy has gone downhill since the referendum result, and they should refrain from investing in the UK. What do the Brexit supporters think of this?

Professionalism combined with a lack of faith may will get a good deal? As said he's a no deal better than a bad deal man and I cant exactly fault him for expecting a bad deal considering the only reason Theresa may still has a job is entirely down to fear of the alternative.

I dont think he would have a job for long if he lied to his clients.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And a Tory MP currently advocating a no deal Brexit has advised his clients, in his second job as a financial adviser, that the UK's economy has gone downhill since the referendum result, and they should refrain from investing in the UK. What do the Brexit supporters think of this?

---

Is he offering good financial advice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Is he offering good financial advice?

---

So no comments on the financial advice he's offering versus the job he's doing as an MP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

---

Just after Mexico pays for the USA's new border fence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Just after Mexico pays for the USA's new border fence.

---

Sounds about right.

Unfortunately, I know people where the 350million moved to the NHS was a big selling point for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I dont think he would have a job for long if he lied to his clients.

---

You do hit a point on the head... he will still have his job as MP after lying to the electorate.

That, as always, is for his electorate to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

That, as always, is for his electorate to decide.

---

No questioning the ethics of an MP who recognises that Brexit is damaging the economy and advises his clients to avoid the UK, yet who is pushing for the most damaging form of Brexit? Is there a tipping point for you?

Sounds legit. Maybe he got elected to promote Brexit no matter what and he's honest to his clients, too, when he tells them he's going to ruin the country. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

No questioning the ethics of an MP who recognises that Brexit is damaging the economy and advises his clients to avoid the UK, yet who is pushing for the most damaging form of Brexit? Is there a tipping point for you?

---

yes. blair signing up to the social chapter. then, belgium demanding that even if britain got an exemption from ever closer union it must apply to no-one else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

yes. blair signing up to the social chapter. then, belgium demanding that even if britain got an exemption from ever closer union it must apply to no-one else.

---

So Belgium grandstanding on something that doesn't affect the UK was a tipping point for you, but economic disaster, corrupt Brexiters and Russian influence in UK politics aren't a tipping point? Are there any tipping points that might convince you that Brexit is a bad idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So Belgium grandstanding on something that doesn't affect the UK was a tipping point for you, but economic disaster, corrupt Brexiters and Russian influence in UK politics aren't a tipping point? Are there any tipping points that might convince you that Brexit is a bad idea?

---

You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention.

Belgium's act DOES affect the uk.

You have been labouring under the misapprehension that this whole brexit thing was an accident; the consequence of poor dialogue and badly calibrated decision making. In short, that a yes/no decision was a balance-of-probablities tactical decision seeking optimal economic outcomes. That this is a matter trade balances, calibration of welfare policies, complexity of customs arrangements, and that if the debate had better focused on these matters we’d have arrived at a more optimal decision.

It wasn’t. Rather, it is a moral strategic question of who you want to be, and whether your current path will achieve this.
And the renegotiation failed on those same terms; in finding tactical compromises that had no relevance to the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

Juncker’s warning in Sept on the necessity of eurozone accession, just as with Belgium in January 2016, was a stark warning to that blocking minority on who paid their wages. That’s a shame for them, because they quietly enjoyed us taking the flak for contentious positions they benefit from later (such as the 48hr working week exemption). It was an instructive lesson for Britain, that whatever the words say the project will march on and your friends won’t be able to help. That’s a shame for us, because it sufficiently preserved the fundamental sovereignty necessary to allow our continued membership.

"Economic disaster", pah! Nothing I have seen about this institution says that it is fit for anything but the good times and short term. It has nothing of the flexibility and adaptability that is the sine quo non of long term success in dealing with change.

How can you call it mere "grand-standing", it was the rigid enforcement of integrationist discipline on nations too small to argue for their own liberty. Can you not see how this attitude is crashingly disappointing in someone who likes to brand themself as a 'progressive'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention.

Belgium's act DOES affect the uk.

You have been labouring under the misapprehension that this whole brexit thing was an accident; the consequence of poor dialogue and badly calibrated decision making. In short, that a yes/no decision was a balance-of-probablities tactical decision seeking optimal economic outcomes. That this is a matter trade balances, calibration of welfare policies, complexity of customs arrangements, and that if the debate had better focused on these matters we’d have arrived at a more optimal decision.

It wasn’t. Rather, it is a moral strategic question of who you want to be, and whether your current path will achieve this.
And the renegotiation failed on those same terms; in finding tactical compromises that had no relevance to the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

Juncker’s warning in Sept on the necessity of eurozone accession, just as with Belgium in January 2016, was a stark warning to that blocking minority on who paid their wages. That’s a shame for them, because they quietly enjoyed us taking the flak for contentious positions they benefit from later (such as the 48hr working week exemption). It was an instructive lesson for Britain, that whatever the words say the project will march on and your friends won’t be able to help. That’s a shame for us, because it sufficiently preserved the fundamental sovereignty necessary to allow our continued membership.

"Economic disaster", pah! Nothing I have seen about this institution says that it is fit for anything but the good times and short term. It has nothing of the flexibility and adaptability that is the sine quo non of long term success in dealing with change.

How can you call it mere "grand-standing", it was the rigid enforcement of integrationist discipline on nations too small to argue for their own liberty. Can you not see how this attitude is crashingly disappointing in someone who likes to brand themself as a 'progressive'?

---

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

---

Furunculus, yes. Others not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

---

I have changed my mind on all sorts of strongly held opinions. This would be no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I have changed my mind on all sorts of strongly held opinions. This would be no different.

---

If the UK is nobly standing against the oppression of smaller countries implicit in Belgium's statement, then surely there would be other countries who will be following us, or at least inclined to. Or at least who will sympathise with us. Are there any other EU members of that bent? Let me point you to Greece, surely the poster boy for a Eurozone member who had done badly from being in the Eurozone, and were treated shabbily by EU institutions. Are they currently pro or anti the EU over there? Let me point you to another EU member, Malta, as small as it gets, and with historical British links. What do they think of the EU and Brexit? Are there any other EU members that fit your hypothesis?

I make no claim that they want to leave, only that many of the nordic and accession periphery fight to preserve their independence from ever closer union, in foreign policy, in monetary and economic union, in justice and home affairs, and in border controls.

The major difference between them and ourselves being:
They are small nations used to being receivers of geopolitics, not makers.
more interested in their identity as Europeans.
more dependent on their European neighbours for trade (yes, even the mighty German export machine).
Often using a legal system more sympathetic to EU legal norms (napoleonic)
often using a political system more sympathetic to EU political norms (consensual)

Not just a noble ambition, also a simple matter of power and politics, using our common interest to shape geopolitics in favour of Britain s opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

I make no claim that they want to leave, only that many of the nordic and accession periphery fight to preserve their independence from ever closer union, in foreign policy, in monetary and economic union, in justice and home affairs, and in border controls.

The major difference between them and ourselves being:
They are small nations used to being receivers of geopolitics, not makers.
more interested in their identity as Europeans.
more dependent on their European neighbours for trade (yes, even the mighty German export machine).
Often using a legal system more sympathetic to EU legal norms (napoleonic)
often using a political system more sympathetic to EU political norms (consensual)

Not just a noble ambition, also a simple matter of power and politics, using our common interest to shape geopolitics in favour of Britain s opinion.

---

Britain hasn't looked to Scandinavia for geopolitics since the battle of Stamford Bridge. The last time Scandinavia shaped geopolitics was when Charles XII invaded Russia. How on earth is a closer relationship with Scandinavia going to replace the benefits we got from being in the EU? A large part of foreign interest is because we were an English speaking member of the EU. With that status gone, are they going to be interested because we're an English speaking member of a pan North Sea group? Hell, most of the Scandinavian countries already qualify, and they have existing infrastructure to deal with these international relationships, which we don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Britain hasn't looked to Scandinavia for geopolitics since the battle of Stamford Bridge. The last time Scandinavia shaped geopolitics was when Charles XII invaded Russia. How on earth is a closer relationship with Scandinavia going to replace the benefits we got from being in the EU? A large part of foreign interest is because we were an English speaking member of the EU. With that status gone, are they going to be interested because we're an English speaking member of a pan North Sea group? Hell, most of the Scandinavian countries already qualify, and they have existing infrastructure to deal with these international relationships, which we don't.

---

Possibly I was unclear, perils of tapping a quick message on a phone.

The Nordic countries are often a vehicle for [our] ambitions in european policy, due to shared interests. not that they are a significant geopolitical actor we wish to influence in their own right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Possibly I was unclear, perils of tapping a quick message on a phone.

The Nordic countries are often a vehicle for [our] ambitions in european policy, due to shared interests. not that they are a significant geopolitical actor we wish to influence in their own right.

---

And in case you've missed the history, we share far more common interests with mainland Europe over the last 1000 years, since Stamford Bridge put an end to Nordic interests in England.

And in other news, Grimsby wants to declare itself a free port, technically leaving the UK, so that barriers between the UK and EU post-Brexit will not apply to it. Any tariffs and such barriers will only come into effect once goods leave Grimsby and enter the rUK. Quoth one fish market worker, "We want things to stay as they are." Meanwhile, London and Scotland, 60% Remain in the referendum and contributing a far more than average share of the UK's tax money, won't get this privilege and will have to take whatever the Leavers give them.

We can have common interests without being in the same political bloc.

Grimsby want to be a Free Port? They don't mind the import fees they'll get on services from the rest of the UK such as water and electricity.

Or they would like to be a Tax Haven that gets the best of both? Can I declare my house a free Zone since that would suit me?

~:smoking:

A Tory MP speaking against Brexit has received death threats after a newspaper lists her and 14 other MPs as mutineers. NB. A Labour MP was killed over this issue last year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

And in case you've missed the history, we share far more common interests with mainland Europe over the last 1000 years, since Stamford Bridge put an end to Nordic interests in England.

And in other news, Grimsby wants to declare itself a free port, technically leaving the UK, so that barriers between the UK and EU post-Brexit will not apply to it. Any tariffs and such barriers will only come into effect once goods leave Grimsby and enter the rUK. Quoth one fish market worker, "We want things to stay as they are." Meanwhile, London and Scotland, 60% Remain in the referendum and contributing a far more than average share of the UK's tax money, won't get this privilege and will have to take whatever the Leavers give them.

---

that is a non sequitur.

good for grimsby. are they a labour seat?

The US imposes prohibitive tariffs on goods from the UK. The EU supports the UK in the trade dispute, with the backing of an even larger market than the US. I can't wait for March 2019 when Brussels stops interfering in British affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The US imposes prohibitive tariffs on goods from the UK. The EU supports the UK in the trade dispute, with the backing of an even larger market than the US. I can't wait for March 2019 when Brussels stops interfering in British affairs.

---

The USA declares war on the EU. The UK remains out of it. Too far fetched? The UK is dragged into a tariff dispute between the EU and the USA.

Why is the USA breaking WTO rules?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The USA declares war on the EU. The UK remains out of it. Too far fetched? The UK is dragged into a tariff dispute between the EU and the USA.

Why is the USA breaking WTO rules?

~:smoking:

---

Because they can, and the UK cannot retaliate as the UK is much, much weaker than the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Because they can, and the UK cannot retaliate as the UK is much, much weaker than the US.

---

When have they done this? To any country?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When have they done this? To any country?

~:smoking:

---

Bombardier? 300% tariffs to clear the market for Boeing and other US companies?

That wasn't breaking WTO rules since the issue is illegal government support. I hardly see the EU jumping in to help if a member illegally supports their company.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

That wasn't breaking WTO rules since the issue is illegal government support. I hardly see the EU jumping in to help if a member illegally supports their company.

~:smoking:

---

"Brussels sides with UK in Bombardier tariff row"

What illegal government support? If government subsidies were illegal, every country that gives any corporation an effective tax rate below 10% should be boycotted. We'd basically end international trade entirely I guess.

I can see how it's terrible when it does actually ruin the economy of other countries, such as subsidized cheap EU food ruining African economies. But in this case even Delta said that Boeing wasn't even competing with Bombardier since Boing has absolutely not competing airplane in that class. So the argument that Bombardier was hurting an American company makes no sense. It sounds more like the subsidies benefit Delta since they get the planes cheaper. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What illegal government support? If government subsidies were illegal, every country that gives any corporation an effective tax rate below 10% should be boycotted. We'd basically end international trade entirely I guess.

I can see how it's terrible when it does actually ruin the economy of other countries, such as subsidized cheap EU food ruining African economies. But in this case even Delta said that Boeing wasn't even competing with Bombardier since Boing has absolutely not competing airplane in that class. So the argument that Bombardier was hurting an American company makes no sense. It sounds more like the subsidies benefit Delta since they get the planes cheaper. :dizzy2:

---

More to the point, there is the mentality that the UK is the absolute polar opposite of the EU, and thus anything that hurts the EU must be good for the UK, and thus leading to the Brexiteers' strategy of aiming to hurt the EU as much as possible, even if hurts the UK much more. Corollary to this is the disbelief that anything good coming out of the EU can be good for the UK. And thus the EU backing the UK, who is after all still a full member at this point, is alien to Brexiteers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Selwyn Gummer

A continuing refrain of the Brexiteers is that Britain has always lost out to
the rest of Europe in negotiations. This derives partly from the way successive
governments have portrayed the EU as a battleground in which there is room only
for victory or defeat. It is also explained by the tendency of politicians to
blame “Europe” for everything – often to divert attention from their own
shortcomings.

In fact, the UK has led Europe in a remarkable way, and has rarely failed to
gain its major objectives. However the process is one of debate and argument,
proof and counter-argument, rather than demanding that the rest of EU should
immediately see the sense in our position and give way without question. It is
this assumption of always being right that has bedevilled our relationships with
our neighbours.

---

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece

---

Do you have a source? I can't seem to find one.