EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

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

Given that IEA have been known to produce "research" on order in exchange for money, such as I've cited earlier, I'm extremely dubious about anything coming from them.

BTW, do you think there should be a second referendum?

[Furunculus]

As I've mentioned before, I don't live in fear of the neoliberal boogieman.
Are they wrong?

[Furunculus]

Given that IEA have been known to produce "research" on order in exchange for money, such as I've cited earlier, I'm extremely dubious about anything coming from them.

BTW, do you think there should be a second referendum?

As Rory pointed out, you pretty much described all of the think tank sector.

As to a second referendum: Not really fussed. If the political situation demands it, so be it.

[Pannonian]

As Rory pointed out, you pretty much described all of the think tank sector.

As to a second referendum: Not really fussed. If the political situation demands it, so be it.

Before the 2016 referendum result, all the leading Brexiteers wanted a second referendum in expectation of a Remain win. After Leave won, they no longer want a second referendum, and Leave-supporting media (social and otherwise) dismiss them as neverendums. Which is right?

[Husar]

As I've mentioned before, I don't live in fear of the neoliberal boogieman.
Are they wrong?

All evidence points towards a yes. Chile's economic policy was modelled entirely after neoliberal ideas:

https://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/chil...icle33413.html

Neoliberalism is an economy theory that works extremely well, if you are already rich; however, for the rest of society, the jury is still out. But, if Chile is the prime example of how neoliberalism works at its best, they should not hold their breath.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Global...hile_VFTS.html

Over time, Chile did indeed become the "Latin American tiger," with economic growth of 6 to 7 percent annually during the last 13 years. However, the competitiveness of the Chilean economy was based on natural resource exports, low wages, and unequal wealth distribution...
The military government changed both the mining code and the water code to attract foreign investment. One of these changes, Decree 600, stimulated large investments at the expense of the local communities and allowed companies to obtain water rights. These have led to a reduction in agricultural activities in some communities; many small farmers have been forced to abandon their lands.
To promote exports in the forest sector, the government introduced legislation like Decree 701, which subsidized between 75 to 90 percent of forest company costs, and freed the companies from taxes. This mechanism encouraged the big companies to substitute native forest with pine and eucalyptus and channeled 96 percent of the subsidies to the big farmers; only 4 percent has gone to small farmers.
[...]
This high growth rate has also had tremendous social costs. Our poverty rate grew from 20 percent of the population in 1970 to 40 percent in 1985. Today, after 13 years of 6 to 7 percent annual growth, almost 30 percent of the Chilean population (about 4 million people) still struggles at the poverty level. And poverty today is not because of the lack of jobs, since the unemployment rate is only 5 to 6 percent. The poor have jobs, but they have very low-paying jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...sm-human-right

A recent protest saw at least 2,000 people take to the capital’s streets to demand the repeal of laws that privatised Chile’s water supply. At the heart of the protest and others like it in recent years lies frustration that the privatisation of water has kept prices unnecessarily high, delivered poor service and done little to address concerns over insufficient supply in the future

.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/w...s/15chile.html

Private ownership is so concentrated in some areas that a single electricity company from Spain, Endesa, has bought up 80 percent of the water rights in a huge region in the south, causing an uproar. In the north, agricultural producers are competing with mining companies to siphon off rivers and tap scarce water supplies, leaving towns like this one bone dry and withering.

So basically you may indeed get economic growth by shrinking government, but it doesn't mean your country will actually profit from it as a whole. Much like snake oil, it does something, but probably not what most people want it to do.

Of course neoliberal shilltanks are selling it as a success: https://www.heritage.org/internation...ed-its-economy

Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain or Ronald Reagan was elected Presi­dent of the United States, Chile implemented unprec­edented privatization and other reforms. From the mid-1980s to the Asian crisis in 1997, the Chilean economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.2 per­cent, followed by an average annual rate of 3.5 per­cent between 1998 and 2005. Such growth is very good compared to other countries. Chile's exceptional economic performance and the resulting welfare improvement have been recognized internationally and are the result of systematic application of sound economic policies.

I happen to know a few Chileans and not one of them seems to be happy about the "welfare improvements". There's also a German documentary that is more exhaustive than what I posted here, but I guess it won't help you much and you technically didn't pay to see it (and we wouldn't want to hurt the "market", would we?).

[Furunculus]

Who cares about Chile, what about Canada, Australia, nz, or even America?

I'd add; who cares about neoliberals, but its obviously fetish du jour hereabouts.

[Pannonian]

Who cares about Chile, what about Canada, Australia, nz, or even America?

I'd add; who cares about neoliberals, but its obviously fetish du jour hereabouts.

How about Britain, and the British people? You've talked about how it'll all be worth employing extra customs officers and warehousing to be out of the EU. That takes time, and the June 2018 Parliamentary report states that we're short some 4000 or so, with no way of making up those extra numbers in time. The Brexit supporting politicians have also said that no deal is the most likely scenario. So would you say that the interim, with a massive shortfall in necessary resources known to exist, will be worth it? Would you accept that as the consequence of your decision?

BTW, the lorry driver quoted in said Parliamentary report isn't some think tank producing "research" in return for money. He's describing his work experience, as someone who works in the field. Have you listened to him yet, or read the transcript? He can concretely point to where Brexit politicians are wrong or lying. Does his testimony as someone who works in logistics matter?

[Furunculus]

You keep on repeating this, with the implicit suggestion that the catalogue of difficulties means we should.... what? Cancel brexit?

[Husar]

Who cares about Chile, what about Canada, Australia, nz, or even America?

Don't make me laugh, Chile is in America...

Anyway, Australia is not doing well:
http://tai.org.au/system/files_force...lity+FINAL.pdf

The paper also shows how, over time, the generosity of the welfare system and the
progressive nature of the tax system has been unwound. For example, Figure 11 shows how
welfare payments that were once sufficient to maintain recipients above the poverty line have
been eroded. Similarly, Table 3 shows that, in the last eight years, the cost of tax cuts
introduced by successive governments has amounted to around $170 billion and that the top
ten per cent of income earners received more benefit from those tax cuts than the bottom 80
per cent of taxpayers combined.
The nature and extent of inequality is the choice of policy makers. We know how to reduce it
and we know how to exacerbate it. Despite the fact that the Australian public expresses a
strong desire to reduce inequality, successive governments have done little in recent years to
reduce it and much to increase it. To conclude, tackling poverty is primarily a political
problem, not an economic problem.

Their governments are good neoliberals who ignore democracy and impose oligarchic demands on the people, just like the USA.

https://theconversation.com/three-ch...alth-gap-84515

Australia is becoming wealthier, but much of the increase is concentrated in the hands of older generations. The trend is unmistakable: unless something changes, the young will fall further behind and inequality will get worse.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...14286744001737

For about 30 years after World War II, inequality declined across the developed world. Economic growth rates were generally high, unemployment generally low and wages increased pretty much in parallel with productivity.

“Then,” says Peter Whiteford, professor in the Crawford school of public policy at the Australian National University, “there here was a turning point. Something happened in the late 1970s and inequality started going back up again, particularly in the English-speaking countries. The United States is the most extreme [example].”

In the US, wages for most people are lower now, in inflation-adjusted terms, than they were 40 years ago. For those at the bottom of the income distribution scale, they have fallen. For those at the top they have risen dramatically. And wealth has risen even more.
[...]
Between 1975 and 2014, Leigh says, the income share of the top 1 per cent of Australians has doubled, and that of the top 0.1 per cent has tripled.

“And the top 10 per cent have seen three times the wage growth of the bottom 10. We’re in the top third of the most unequal countries in the OECD [the 34 wealthy countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development].

“We’re more egalitarian than the Americans and Canadians but not as egalitarian as the Europeans and particularly the northern Europeans,” Leigh says.

Makes you wonder what mystical thing noone dare speak about happened in the 70s...
Your GDP growth will do nothing but create a new classes of noblemen and wage slaves with a very small middle class in between.
It's basically neoliberal class warfare. I wonder how that works together with your natural laws where all men are created equal and stuff.

[Pannonian]

You keep on repeating this, with the implicit suggestion that the catalogue of difficulties means we should.... what? Cancel brexit?

That Leavers should own responsibility for what comes next would be a start. I've not seen it yet, neither from politicians nor voters. Just about everyone recognises that there will be drastic logistics difficulties from day 1 in the event of no-deal, but Leavers have progressed from rubbishing the possibility of no-deal to magicking away the effects of no-deal until we reach some post-Brexit utopia in the indefinite future. None of them own up to the difficulties that will happen in the meantime.

The government have admitted that no-deal is the most likely scenario come March 30th next year, and there are a host of difficulties in such a scenario, the most immediate being logistics and its knock on effects. Do you accept responsibility for this as the outcome of your decision? Have you listened to that lorry driver or read the transcript?

[a completely inoffensive name]

That Leavers should own responsibility for what comes next would be a start. I've not seen it yet, neither from politicians nor voters. Just about everyone recognises that there will be drastic logistics difficulties from day 1 in the event of no-deal, but Leavers have progressed from rubbishing the possibility of no-deal to magicking away the effects of no-deal until we reach some post-Brexit utopia in the indefinite future. None of them own up to the difficulties that will happen in the meantime.

The government have admitted that no-deal is the most likely scenario come March 30th next year, and there are a host of difficulties in such a scenario, the most immediate being logistics and its knock on effects. Do you accept responsibility for this as the outcome of your decision? Have you listened to that lorry driver or read the transcript?

Pan,

I think it is clear at this point he neither thinks the logistical nightmare you describe will
A. Happen
B. Take priority over having a sovereign government.

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

[Pannonian]

Pan,

I think it is clear at this point he neither thinks the logistical nightmare you describe will
A. Happen
B. Take priority over having a sovereign government.

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

The Parliamentary report states that this is the unavoidable consequence of no-deal, due to resources on the ground. The report I cite deals with the human resources. The local authority dealing with this states that the infrastructure won't be ready to deal with no-deal until 2023 at the earliest. The government minister dealing with trade has just stated that no-deal is the most likely outcome of Brexit. Everyone in the food chain, whose logistics is based on JIT, has said that the solution that Furunculus has suggested is impossible in the timeframe we're talking about. Even Brexit-supporting newspapers are now recognising that the food supply will dry up post-no-deal, although they and their readership are more concerned with blaming the EU than accepting responsibility for their own decision (hence my question to Furunculus about the same). Note that Furunculus skips over the immediate problems to talk about some utopian future.

All that from a 52-48 vote with Leave violating just about every principle of established liberal democracy, with plenty of hypocrisy to boot; you can find quotes from the leading Brexiteers demanding a second referendum (having expected Remain to have won) and stating that they'll never lie down after a narrow 52-48 result (having expected Remain to have won) and that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind (having expected Remain to have won).

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Parliamentary report states that this is the unavoidable consequence of no-deal, due to resources on the ground. The report I cite deals with the human resources. The local authority dealing with this states that the infrastructure won't be ready to deal with no-deal until 2023 at the earliest. The government minister dealing with trade has just stated that no-deal is the most likely outcome of Brexit. Everyone in the food chain, whose logistics is based on JIT, has said that the solution that Furunculus has suggested is impossible in the timeframe we're talking about. Even Brexit-supporting newspapers are now recognising that the food supply will dry up post-no-deal, although they and their readership are more concerned with blaming the EU than accepting responsibility for their own decision (hence my question to Furunculus about the same). Note that Furunculus skips over the immediate problems to talk about some utopian future.

All that from a 52-48 vote with Leave violating just about every principle of established liberal democracy, with plenty of hypocrisy to boot; you can find quotes from the leading Brexiteers demanding a second referendum (having expected Remain to have won) and stating that they'll never lie down after a narrow 52-48 result (having expected Remain to have won) and that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind (having expected Remain to have won).

You could be 100% correct about all of that. The logistical breakdown post-Brexit, the hypocracy of the Brexiteers and the tainted nature of the referendum, however...

The decision has been cast, both parties are committed to Brexit. It was the decision made of a non-ideal question posed in a non-ideal world. The fallout will either prove you wrong and life goes on as normal, or prove the Brexiteers wrong and people will clamor to re-join before they starve to death.

Take it from an American who had to accept a President Donald Trump before people started to realize, oh hey maybe the Republican Party really is batshit crazy.

[Furunculus]

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

That is a false dichotomy.
I think what you meant to say "why democratic self governance should come before economic self interest", but what you said is quite different.
Had you asked the real question, we could get into interesting debate about the trade-offs that derive from multilateralism as a tool to reinforce a positive trend vs one that compounds lowest common denominator compromises. Alas...

I am fully cognizant of the power of compound growth, and the 'sovereign' power that derives from shear relative weight.
Brexit puts the trend growth at risk.
I am equally appreciative that this 'power' is only of value if it can be used to pursue the governance you desire, if in fact it leads you further away from the norms and expectations of what the socio-economic compact should be, then that must be recognised as a price.
Ever-closer-union meant staying in the EU had a steep price-tag.

I also realise this calculation is coloured by my own personal preferences; the EU might be seen to reinforce trends that you prefer, such as greater state intervention in achieving equality of outcome using the twin tools of tax and regulation.
If that is your jive, then I would ask for a little self awareness in appreciating that people on the other side of the table might view your enthusiasm for the EU as a lever to achieve that which could not be brought about at the ballot box.

[Pannonian]

You could be 100% correct about all of that. The logistical breakdown post-Brexit, the hypocracy of the Brexiteers and the tainted nature of the referendum, however...

The decision has been cast, both parties are committed to Brexit. It was the decision made of a non-ideal question posed in a non-ideal world. The fallout will either prove you wrong and life goes on as normal, or prove the Brexiteers wrong and people will clamor to re-join before they starve to death.

Take it from an American who had to accept a President Donald Trump before people started to realize, oh hey maybe the Republican Party really is batshit crazy.

You have the chance of voting out Trump at the end of his term, which is limited by law to 4 years. I don't expect UK membership of the EU within my lifetime. Rees Mogg has said that it may take up to 50 years for the benefits of Brexit to show themselves. That's the kind of timescale you're talking about with Brexit. And as you can see, Brexiteers still won't accept responsibility for the material effects of their decision.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You have the chance of voting out Trump at the end of his term, which is limited by law to 4 years. I don't expect UK membership of the EU within my lifetime. Rees Mogg has said that it may take up to 50 years for the benefits of Brexit to show themselves. That's the kind of timescale you're talking about with Brexit. And as you can see, Brexiteers still won't accept responsibility for the material effects of their decision.

Rees Mogg is full of shit. You don't trust anything the brexiteers says but you take it at face value when they say "no revisit for 50 years?"

[a completely inoffensive name]

That is a false dichotomy.
I think what you meant to say "why democratic self governance should come before economic self interest", but what you said is quite different.
Had you asked the real question, we could get into interesting debate about the trade-offs that derive from multilateralism as a tool to reinforce a positive trend vs one that compounds lowest common denominator compromises. Alas...

In my view, you have democratic self governance under the EU.
So I think we are already at the heart of the answer.

If that is your jive, then I would ask for a little self awareness in appreciating that people on the other side of the table might view your enthusiasm for the EU as a lever to achieve that which could not be brought about at the ballot box.

And the dismantling of institutions is in no way a means of affecting change outside of the ballot box?

[rory_20_uk]

Rees Mogg is full of shit. You don't trust anything the brexiteers says but you take it at face value when they say "no revisit for 50 years?"

Typical confirmation bias. Only those facts - however tenuous - that fit the narrative are good, balanced and true, even when said by the very people described as self serving liars.

You could be 100% correct about all of that. The logistical breakdown post-Brexit, the hypocracy of the Brexiteers and the tainted nature of the referendum, however...

The decision has been cast, both parties are committed to Brexit. It was the decision made of a non-ideal question posed in a non-ideal world. The fallout will either prove you wrong and life goes on as normal, or prove the Brexiteers wrong and people will clamor to re-join before they starve to death.

Take it from an American who had to accept a President Donald Trump before people started to realize, oh hey maybe the Republican Party really is batshit crazy.

The EU is not a strong institution. It is inherently weak. Countries can neither just leave without consequence nor just return when they feel like it - countries might decide they want to return to a system that is solely about trade and not with the massive bureaucratic overheads - and what then would happen to all the EU staff?

The EU is already shrilly saying the UK needs to pay all the pensions for the staff from the UK that work for the EU... as again, just imagine if countries one by one followed and each refused to pay for the overheads? All these politicians, ex-politicians and hangers on would have no one to pay them! And who would they complain to? It would be like any other company that collapsed except no country would have support in place for the failed pension. Every country that left would retain their independence and can't be forced to pay.

This is the true doomsday situation - an entity that requires very little supervision. The horrors of a NAFTA situation where barriers are low, and things just work. What then?

So at the very least, the UK would have to be ritually and publicly humiliated before a return - perhaps Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland join independently (or with powers).

[Husar]

The EU is not a strong institution. It is inherently weak. Countries can neither just leave without consequence nor just return when they feel like it - countries might decide they want to return to a system that is solely about trade and not with the massive bureaucratic overheads - and what then would happen to all the EU staff?

You also can't leave a gun club and stop paying the monthly fee without the consequence of not being allowed to shoot there anymore. Booo hooo, how unfair! Some members might even want to return to it bein an archery club, but they can't have it, it's truly terrifying how time moves on and you can't bring knives to a gun fight anymore.

[rory_20_uk]

You also can't leave a gun club and stop paying the monthly fee without the consequence of not being allowed to shoot there anymore. Booo hooo, how unfair! Some members might even want to return to it bein an archery club, but they can't have it, it's truly terrifying how time moves on and you can't bring knives to a gun fight anymore.

Good response there - both failing to address what I was saying, as well as repeating the falsehood that there are no existing examples of rules being bent.

To address the metaphor you've created, the gun club also requires both funding for the future since well, they want it and how will they pay for what they want without it?

Knives to a gun fight? There you've really lost me. I don't even see why this should be a "fight" at all. The UK is leaving, under the rules that the EU agreed beforehand. Germany has lost possessions before with more grace - they control the rest of Europe!

[Husar]

Good response there - both failing to address what I was saying, as well as repeating the falsehood that there are no existing examples of rules being bent.

To address the metaphor you've created, the gun club also requires both funding for the future since well, they want it and how will they pay for what they want without it?

Knives to a gun fight? There you've really lost me. I don't even see why this should be a "fight" at all. The UK is leaving, under the rules that the EU agreed beforehand. Germany has lost possessions before with more grace - they control the rest of Europe!

You weren't saying a lot, that members lose benefits upon leaving does in no way prove anything is weak.
Rules have indeed been bent, and you know what happens when a country that is already sitting on a bent rule bends it too far? Yes, the rule breaks and the country falls down.

The funding of a gun club doesn't entirely depend on the one and only member who keeps crying about wanting to return to bows and arrows.
The other members might just be aware that bows and arrows won't help a lot against future threats.

If you don't see why this would be a fight at all, maybe you missed Furunculus' posts about how Britain will outcompete every other country in a glorious more competitive future where the market rules all (*totally not neoliberal) and competition between countries is the holy grail of all growth.

See, you could compete by reducing regulation.

How about you introduce fracking for a glorious fossil future?

[Furunculus]

If you don't see why this would be a fight at all, maybe you missed Furunculus' posts about how Britain will outcompete every other country in a glorious more competitive future where the market rules all (*totally not neoliberal) and competition between countries is the holy grail of all growth.

See, you could compete by reducing regulation.

How about you introduce fracking for a glorious fossil future?

Still following the long and honourable tradition of selectively quoting me, eh?

What I have done is point out that our natural inclination is toward a lower tax/regulation policy regime than tends to be favoured on the continent.
That this is a cause for UK dissatisfaction in the first instance.
But, more importantly, that this inclination will of necessity be reinforced if the exit 'deal' looks to be unduly punitive. I. E. We would further reduce tax/regulation in an effort to maintain competiveness as a response to market barriers.
That this is the choice we're offering; close economic ties in return for maintain a euro-style social democracy, or.... Without close economic ties have a CANZUK style market economy as a neighbour.
In tax/spending terms this would see the gdp value drop from 38% to circa 33%, as apposed to the euro norm or circa 43%.

And let's not forget, what I advocate is close economic ties with a euro style social democracy!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You also can't leave a gun club and stop paying the monthly fee without the consequence of not being allowed to shoot there anymore. Booo hooo, how unfair! Some members might even want to return to it bein an archery club, but they can't have it, it's truly terrifying how time moves on and you can't bring knives to a gun fight anymore.

According to all of my son's pals playing Call of Duty, your statement is completely wrong.

[Husar]

Still following the long and honourable tradition of selectively quoting me, eh?

What I have done is point out that our natural inclination is toward a lower tax/regulation policy regime than tends to be favoured on the continent.
That this is a cause for UK dissatisfaction in the first instance.

I remove parts of your posts that I'm not directly answering to to reduce bloat.
And where does that natural inclination come from?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40408576

48% say they want higher taxes to pay for more spending on health, education and social benefits; 44% say they want it to stay the same and 4% would like to see taxes cut

So 4% are dissatisfied without tax cuts and that makes it a natural inclination across the entire UK or did I miss something?

That this is the choice we're offering; close economic ties in return for maintain a euro-style social democracy, or.... Without close economic ties have a CANZUK style market economy as a neighbour.
In tax/spending terms this would see the gdp value drop from 38% to circa 33%, as apposed to the euro norm or circa 43%.

And let's not forget, what I advocate is close economic ties with a euro style social democracy!

You can have them, just like Norway does. You also sound like you're holding the well-being of your poor hostage over the EU bending to your will and giving you the access you want on the terms you want without requiring you to give anything in return.

[Furunculus]

I remove parts of your posts that I'm not directly answering to to reduce bloat.

Not editorialised at all? :D

And where does that natural inclination come from?

Page 292 - what people vote for:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documen...8b?version=1.0

So 4% are dissatisfied without tax cuts and that makes it a natural inclination across the entire UK or did I miss something?

But, do they vote for more tax? Do they take a more collective view of society that would legitimise more tax (and regulation)?
No.

You can have them, just like Norway does. You also sound like you're holding the well-being of your poor hostage over the EU bending to your will and giving you the access you want on the terms you want without requiring you to give anything in return.

Granted, but we have industries we want to protect. Industries that are disproportionately large in the UK vis a vis the continent, and to which the continent tends to take a more hostile view. Industries which aren't globally managed (and so safe) like goods. In short, services, and fincancial services.

[Husar]

But, do they vote for more tax? Do they take a more collective view of society that would legitimise more tax (and regulation)?
No.

People's vote is affected by far more than taxation promises, wouldn't you say?

[Furunculus]

People's vote is affected by far more than taxation promises, wouldn't you say?

absolutely, I would agree.
but long term trends don't lie.

[Montmorency]

Page 292 - what people vote for:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documen...8b?version=1.0


But, do they vote for more tax? Do they take a more collective view of society that would legitimise more tax (and regulation)?
No.

That's misleading. Tax revenue as % of GDP is neither an explicit function of voter choice nor of law/policy - which latter is itself is not an explicit function of voter choice.

I expect those complaining of the EU's democratic deficit are on the case at the home front.


I don't think your pat assertion holds up; if the formula 'more taxes for more services' has the plurality in the UK, we might expect it to be the majority stance across the EU-27.

If people's representatives (in the UK) legislated more in accord with fulfilling their constituents' wishes, you would probably be quite unhappy with that direction.

[Pannonian]

absolutely, I would agree.
but long term trends don't lie.

Shouldn't the UK be remaining in the EU then? After all, every previous government has been in favour of EU membership, and they all have democratic mandates more concrete than that of Leave, which didn't publish any manifestos.

[Fragony]

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

Iḿ no Brit, bur why settle for less automity if you don have to, eurocrats immediatly scream national pride and facism but screw that. As for economics for the Netherlands the EU is a hindrance in many ways as not all countries in the EU are as innovative as the Netherland, especially France is an asshole when it comes to that, same with NGOś whose lobbyś are every powerful in Brussels. The worst part is that we could easily leave the EU the financial consequences would be all on them if they start saddle-rattling with tarrifs but national are secondary for politicians as national politics is no more then a starting block.