EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

And the Mail has published photos of vice chancellors and professors who oppose Brexit. What do Brexiters think of this? Are university staff public figures?

[Furunculus]

About the growth rate of 1.6%: were there any measures by the BofE over the last year to try and keep growth up, that won't be repeated? Also, what is the current inflation rate?

And the Mail has published photos of vice chancellors and professors who oppose Brexit. What do Brexiters think of this? Are university staff public figures?

I wouldn't go too deep into the figures, i banged out some approximates moments before i bundled the monster into the car on my way to work. The 1% difference is vis-a-vis the continental norm given the potential difference in spend between a UK on 35% of GDP and the Eurozone on 45%. The putative bump in UK growth from dropping down from 40% of GDP would be plus 0.5% in growth. UK trend growth in the last fifty years has dropped from roughly 3.5% to roughly 2.5%, with brexit putting a further immediate dent in confidence (and thus growth). The response in tax and regulatory terms would bump that back up. There is always a response, it's just a case of whether people like that response. As to inflation, i'm not sure what you're leading at?

Re: Chris Heaton-Harris, or whatever his name is: It was a stupid question for a brexit politican to ask, and I don't read the Mail. Not too fussed what University's have to say. If they feel they aren't bound in this instance by the the FOI then fine.

[Pannonian]

I wouldn't go too deep into the figures, i banged out some approximates moments before i bundled the monster into the car on my way to work. The 1% difference is vis-a-vis the continental norm given the potential difference in spend between a UK on 35% of GDP and the Eurozone on 45%. The putative bump in UK growth from dropping down from 40% of GDP would be plus 0.5% in growth. UK trend growth in the last fifty years has dropped from roughly 3.5% to roughly 2.5%, with brexit putting a further immediate dent in confidence (and thus growth). The response in tax and regulatory terms would bump that back up. There is always a response, it's just a case of whether people like that response. As to inflation, i'm not sure what you're leading at?

Re: Chris Heaton-Harris, or whatever his name is: It was a stupid question for a brexit politican to ask, and I don't read the Mail. Not too fussed what University's have to say. If they feel they aren't bound in this instance by the the FOI then fine.

I'm not sure how deregulation would bump growth back up, given that it was lack of regulation in the financial services in the US that brought about the crash in the first place.

On Heaton-Harris: he wrote to the universities in his capacity as an MP, not in a private capacity, and his extra-constituency job is Tory whip. Not one of the ministerial departments that may have an interest in information, but a bully boy. And in case you want to argue that a letter has no meaning, I refer you to Comedy Connections: Yes, Minister, where Anthony Jay recounts an incident where the collected members of IR wined and dined him, followed by his source, the former cabinet secretary, explaining that this meant they were keeping an eye on him and by extension his sources. As the Mail demonstrated, the Brexit politicians and the media are coordinating their efforts to intimidate opponents of Brexit, currently through naming, and probably followed by withdrawal of funding. UKIP have already pointed to an imbalance of opinions on the subject among academics, and requesting that it should be corrected. And no, UKIP do not count as fringe, considering we're heading for the most extreme position on their principal topic, a position that not even Farage was arguing for in the referendum campaign.

[Furunculus]

I'm not sure how deregulation would bump growth back up, given that it was lack of regulation in the financial services in the US that brought about the crash in the first place.

On Heaton-Harris: he wrote to the universities in his capacity as an MP, not in a private capacity, and his extra-constituency job is Tory whip. Not one of the ministerial departments that may have an interest in information, but a bully boy. And in case you want to argue that a letter has no meaning, I refer you to Comedy Connections: Yes, Minister, where Anthony Jay recounts an incident where the collected members of IR wined and dined him, followed by his source, the former cabinet secretary, explaining that this meant they were keeping an eye on him and by extension his sources. As the Mail demonstrated, the Brexit politicians and the media are coordinating their efforts to intimidate opponents of Brexit, currently through naming, and probably followed by withdrawal of funding. UKIP have already pointed to an imbalance of opinions on the subject among academics, and requesting that it should be corrected. And no, UKIP do not count as fringe, considering we're heading for the most extreme position on their principal topic, a position that not even Farage was arguing for in the referendum campaign.

Depends on the regulation. I have an adam smithian fond regard for good regulation to properly manage free markets, but costly social and employment regulation is guff. Cutting guff is valuable for exactly the reason the iea paper says it is.

Was the request itself outside the scope of what the foi act permits?
Was the request in an of itself an abuse of power in some legally sanctioned format?
Any thing else is guff, other than to note it was a foolish move politically, and any political price he pays for such foolishness is his own fault.

[John Smith]

UKIP have already pointed to an imbalance of opinions on the subject among academics, and requesting that it should be corrected. And no, UKIP do not count as fringe, considering we're heading for the most extreme position on their principal topic, a position that not even Farage was arguing for in the referendum campaign.

They don't exist. They rejoined the Tories last election.

[Pannonian]

And the government is arguing that Parliament should not have access to studies that were commissioned to examine the likely effects of Brexit. Didn't Brexiters argue that Brexit was all about returning sovereignty to Parliament? And this follows on from the Minister stating that Parliament will not get to vote on the deal until after Britain have left.

Oh, and there's an investigation over the funding of the Brexit campaign. With Farage chums with Assange, and (Aaron) Banks having access to funds considerably greater than he should have given the failures of his businesses, let's see where the money trail leads.

[Beskar]

"Britain would be booming if it wasn't for Brexit"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...k-carney-says/

[Pannonian]

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said it was vital that a Brexit deal between Britain and the European Union would be in the commercial interests of the United States and London should not to give in to the EU’s “highly protectionist” trade stance.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...KBN1D61WF?il=0

Thus says someone whose government recently imposed 300% tariffs on certain British made products. It's pretty clear that any agreement between the UK and US will be exceedingly lopsided without the EU to back the UK. Exactly as I and other Remainers said would be the case, with us bending over for every economic giant as we're cut adrift from the EU.

[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.

[Beskar]

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.

With all the false promises and Russian propaganda, people simply drank the cool-aid.

I mean, have you seen how trustworthy these two characters look?

[Pannonian]

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?

[Furunculus]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Husar]

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.

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

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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...

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?

[Pannonian]

The Leave campaign lied - wow breaking story...

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?

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?

[Furunculus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[Montmorency]

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"?

[Furunculus]

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

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’.

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.

[Furunculus]

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

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. ;)

[Husar]

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?

[Pannonian]

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.

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

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?