EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Husar]

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

*looks around furtively*

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the article you linked:

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

[Furunculus]

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

i told you; lay off the emotive invective:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053778233

It adds heat, not light.

[Pannonian]

i told you; lay off the emotive invective:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053778233

It adds heat, not light.

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

Back to the mal-associations, then?

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

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

[Pannonian]

Back to the mal-associations, then?

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the article you linked:
1. Why is the UK economy so strongly services dominated and why does the article thake that as some kind of unchangeable truth? Perhaps having such a services-dominated economy wasn't the best idea in the first place?
2. Why is it bad that the EU is demanding environmental standards? Does the guy live in the Matrix?
3. "only 36% [of financial service exports] are to the EU": Why only? The sector makes up 12% of your economy and 36% is more than a third: https://www.thecityuk.com/research/k...services-2016/

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

[Furunculus]

[QUOTE=Husar;2053778511]
It must feel very liberating to reduce your obligations to the government as a representation of all society and instead become indebted to corporations as a representation of only the rich people who own them.
+
But what is the benefit of getting less for paying less? It's like saying if you want to save on fuel expenses then you need to drive to work less often. But do you really win then?
[quote]
It's a philosophical thing, putting a ceiling on the power of government, whose capacity for tyranny (and history of doing so) far exceeds any other societal actor.
For someone of the the negative liberty bent it is a fairly normal response.
Remember, I prioritise equality of opportunity, not of outcome. In principle I have no objection to an outcome that has achieved equality, in practice I believe the long march to reach this outcome would prove tyrannical in its imposition on individual liberty.

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

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

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

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

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

**Warning - neoliberalism**
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2...market-in.html
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/...-for-services/

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole tax cuts improve the economy thing is also demonstrably false by the way: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsand...5486495308585/
Can't find the video on youtube, so you'll have to watch it on Facebook I'm afraid, but basically it talks about studies showing that corporations that got tax cuts often reduced their workforce even when other corporations increased theirs. So the link between lower taxes and more growth is nowhere near proven, it's just ideological belief or even malicious claims.


**Warning - neoliberalism**
http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2...market-in.html
https://financialobserver.eu/poland/...-for-services/[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

no, you got it. :)

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

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

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

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

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