Brexit Thread

[Brenus]

"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"It could end up being a positive -- longer term -" Well, if someone could explain how and when, that would be nice.

New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...

Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.

[Pannonian]

New trade deals and markets; less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future; less strain from refugee problems...

Unfortunately, none of these are certainties (i said could not would) and the potential benefits would mostly take years to manifest.

One of the certainties is that, if we want to sell to EU countries, we have to abide by EU regulations. Same with any market, but the EU is 50% of our exports. As for refugee problems; none of them are EU-related.

[Brenus]

"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future" That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"less bureaucracy then the EU will have in future" That is if you buy brexiters propaganda. Until now, none of them was able to tell which "bureaucratic" law they want to get rid of.
As I said above, actual EU and UK were completely in agreement.
As EU "bureaucracy" is concerned, the exiters were more concerned in cancelling human rights, workers protection and welfare benefit than to tackle taxes frauds and low wages wars on workers.
For the rest see Pannonian posts.
And I am still waiting to see the benefit of the cuts imposed to us by this reactionary government (literal sense) whose ideal lays in the 18-19 centuries, sharing this with the actual EU Parliament.
And by the way, 2 local Parliaments in EU can block a International trade agreement with Canada, whereas in UK a country (Scotland) can't do this. So, question, where is the lack of democracy (and holy algorithm knows I am against the actual EU!!!!).

Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].

I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.

There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

[Montmorency]

Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

I thought you lived in Florida?

Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I thought you lived in Florida?

Just kidding, it turns out municipal water has improved quite a bit over the past decade (at least in South Florida).

I do, but in central Florida (Oviedo).* My wife and daughter drink bottled or tap water that has been re-filtered. I myself just drink it and notice nothing untoward.


*Only an hour away from the WDW complex....hence the location in my forum identity blurb

[Husar]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I generally agree, Seamus, but why do you sound like bureaucracy is purely a government thing? I get the impression that corporations introduce quite a bit of bureaucracy of their own, perhaps as well because they become really hard to control beyond a certain size if things aren't kept track of and so on. Plus of course the idea that everything that can be measured can also be improved and more. Why wouldn't a country need a bureaucracy for similar reasons? Sure, I agree that it can go too far, but I still think that is partially due to the nature of many people that tries to exploit everything. And while a corporation can fire those types if needed (or hire them as lawyers or accountants ), a country cannot just throw them out and needs to counter with more laws and bureaucracy. Of course life would be easier if we all inherently stuck to the same rules and behaviors.

As for drinking water, several lab tests here in Germany have shown that our tap water contains fewer germs than many of the high-priced bottled waters, I would therefore apply the old principle of "never change a running system". I see no reason to privatise if the current system is so well-regulated that it works just fine and isn't overly expensive. The idea has come up here as well, but I'm very strongly against it.

In a regulated but mostly open market, an overly bureaucratized organization will be weeded out when it cannot respond quickly enough to change or crisis or cost overheads prevent profitability. Thus the private sector (which does indeed need bureaucracy just as much as the public sector) is more self correcting.

Example: Executives at my wife's company have to be a VP to get an admin person. Directors share admins at 1 admin per 4. Project managers and lower are expected to handle their own paperwork. Why? Because they will not be competitive in bidding for work if their overhead costs are too high.


NOT so, the pubic sector, hence my emphasis. The public sector has a "limitless" pool of funding for added bureaucracy [via taxation and or deficit spending] and thus has little competitive incentive to prune back. Moreover, organizational politics favors MORE positions, rules, and people to write them as individuals in the bureaucracy make logical [in their specific context] moves to enhance their power base and position by controlling more staff, funding, etc. Do not mistake me, the public sector is needed and must regulate the market to some extent....but it tends to overdo this task, not provide the minimum necessary.

Example: The US Dept. of Agriculture. 1900 8,000 employees regulating/serving 5.74 million farms with 843.75 million acres of farmland.
1955 85,500 employees regulating/serving 5.1 million farms with 1.052 billion acres of farmland.
NOW 105,778 employees regulating/serving 2.19 million farms with 952.65 million acres of farmland.
60% of their budget is the food stamps assistance program, which started after 1955.



As to the water, I tend to agree with you. Take note of this.

[Pannonian]

Valid points. I also freely admit that I am only moderately familiar with the particulars of European trade deals and the like -- a good portion of it picked up here and from sources included by almost everyone in the backroom [sorry Frags].

I am always a fan of pruning back the bureaucracy, which tends to choke activity by well-intentioned accretion that stifles innovation and organizational flexibility. On the other hand, there is a percentage to whom it means scrap the safety regulations in the interest of profit, which is obviously pretty scummy. It takes care to prune back regulation without removing truly valuable safety and record-keeping components.

There is a reason that Marx was able to critique the unrestrained capitalism of the early Victorian era and good reasons that Weber felt traditional management systems were ineffective. Some measure of bureaucratic regulation IS needful because of that 5% of exploitative types who would gleefully pimp their parents if it added shekels to the next quarter's statement. Silly me, I am rather a fan of drinkable tap water.

The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The thing is, most of the criticised regulations are UK-driven rather than EU-driven. Where the EU really does add regulation is in the protection of regional specialities, protecting them from unregulated commercialisation that would use their names to label unrelated products. This can hurt national and multinational companies whose scope goes beyond a single region, but it protects regional small holders by allowing them and only them to use these labels. Funnily enough, it was exactly these areas whose commercial and infrastructure interests were protected by the EU that voted to leave the EU. And upon the Leave result, they immediately asked the UK government to safeguard them as the EU had done (fat chance). Idiots.

Ah...the old "have my cake and eat it too" approach taken by electorates world wide. I can understand your frustration.