EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

Your looking at this with all of the soul and vitality of a bureaucrat:
"This change to the existing operating environment will not work within the current fiscal and regulatory regime!"
"No kidding, the current regime was tailored to the existing environment. What we must do is change the regime."

My question is simple and direct: how do you propose to get food to people? Your suggestion is to change the regime. What does that lead to? Follow your logic and explore the implications, and see if you have an answer for them. Once you change the regime, there will be a frictionful border where there was once a friction-free border. Have you listened to the truck driver I linked to, who explains what goes on at borders? He tells you what goes on at borders, which is what you propose us to change to. How do you propose to deal with the issues he raises?

[Furunculus]

My question is simple and direct: how do you propose to get food to people? Your suggestion is to change the regime. What does that lead to? Follow your logic and explore the implications, and see if you have an answer for them. Once you change the regime, there will be a frictionful border where there was once a friction-free border. Have you listened to the truck driver I linked to, who explains what goes on at borders? He tells you what goes on at borders, which is what you propose us to change to. How do you propose to deal with the issues he raises?

My reply is even shorter:
In all honesty I haven't watched the video, because while it would be interesting to see the ants-eye-view of global logistics I don't think it will inform brexit very much.
If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

The idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

[Husar]

My reply is even shorter:
In all honesty I haven't watched the video, because while it would be interesting to see the ants-eye-view of global logistics I don't think it will inform brexit very much.
If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

So why should anyone trust you or some think tank interns on how to model the UK tax system?

[Pannonian]

My reply is even shorter:
In all honesty I haven't watched the video, because while it would be interesting to see the ants-eye-view of global logistics I don't think it will inform brexit very much.
If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

The idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

If you've listened to him, then you'd know that any assertion of frictionless or near-frictionless logistics at the new border is a fantasy, such as being claimed by every Brexit advocate. He gives concrete details of just what kind of friction there is at present borders, and what frictionlessness is within the single market. That gives a marker of the difference between friction and frictionlessness. Now the job of government is to translate that into larger scales. You don't have to do that; the different levels of government have already done that. The national government expects food shortages, and have asked food retailers to stockpile; the foot retailers have told them this is not possible. The local government have looked at what a future border will mean in the event of no-deal, and have adapted current crisis plans; they predict there will be a queue from Dover to Maidstone and beyond every day until infrastructure is ready, which won't be before 2023 at the soonest. And the National Farmers' Union have said that, if we rely solely on food produced in the UK, we will run out of food by August next year.

What is your answer to these organisations? They're all based on the experience of that lorry driver, so maybe he isn't so irrelevant after all. After all, the Parliamentary report contains a direct transcript of his testimony, so they obviously think he's worth listening to.

[Furunculus]

So why should anyone trust you or some think tank interns on how to model the UK tax system?

Sorry, but I'll bet my level of knowledge/reading on the subject of brexit over at least 90% of my fellow citizens, and probably 95% of european citizens (given the reduced interest), so forgive me for not giving much of a damn about joe the trucker.

[Furunculus]

[lots of stuff.......]

What is your answer to these organisations? They're all based on the experience of that lorry driver, so maybe he isn't so irrelevant after all. After all, the Parliamentary report contains a direct transcript of his testimony, so they obviously think he's worth listening to.

My answer is that: the idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

[Husar]

Sorry, but I'll bet my level of knowledge/reading on the subject of brexit over at least 90% of my fellow citizens, and probably 95% of european citizens (given the reduced interest), so forgive me for not giving much of a damn about joe the trucker.

From the looks of it you read a lot of neoliberal sources about it.
If I told you that I were an expert on religion and cited only scientology sources, people would probably doubt my expertise as well.

If you think you know so much better than Joe the Trucker, why do you refuse to even talk about his arguments? Or as you said earlier, Joe the Trucker is right until you prove him wrong. You claim to know better than him and your answers never go to any practical levels, they mostly stay even above theory in the lofty realm of ideology.

It's like someone asks you how to change a tyre and you keep replying that privatizing roads would solve all road-related problems.

[Furunculus]

From the looks of it you read a lot of neoliberal sources about it.
If I told you that I were an expert on religion and cited only scientology sources, people would probably doubt my expertise as well.

If you think you know so much better than Joe the Trucker, why do you refuse to even talk about his arguments? Or as you said earlier, Joe the Trucker is right until you prove him wrong. You claim to know better than him and your answers never go to any practical levels, they mostly stay even above theory in the lofty realm of ideology.

It's like someone asks you how to change a tyre and you keep replying that privatizing roads would solve all road-related problems.

lol, look at you; the fount of disinterested objective analysis. still emotionally crippled by an idea. "neoliberalism". i'll let you in on a secret; it just another idea on how to run society that is just as daft and just as sensible as many others, depending on how religiously you practice it. the fact that you berate me on this matter whilst remaining blind to your own prejudice is nothing short of funny.

I don't refuse to debate the idea, because I have never refused to accept that trade would be frictionless. In good measure, becuase trade with the eu has friction, not least in compliance costs. It just happens that this friction is a known known (in rumsfeld speak), which makes people much less fearful than known unknowns. Yes there will be more friction, and the response will be to accommodate and mitigate it.

My earlier response remains germane to the topic: If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

[Pannonian]

My answer is that: the idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

But you haven't even looked at his experience, let alone the analysis done by government and other bodies based on the experience of people like him. You said that, out of the three options on offer, you would choose no-deal. But you refuse to look at the consequences of no-deal. When no-deal happens, are you going to own responsibility for the consequences of your choice? Or are you going to defer responsibility by passing it onto a government that, after all, is doing exactly what you want?

[Montmorency]

I am not obliged to accept the moral superiority of your values.



Answer to all three: because I referenced tax:gdp in terms of long-term trend.

I make no claim that 'right-wing' parties must be [both] socially conservative [and] economically liberal. It is a self-evident fact that polish politics (to give one example) cleaves in the opposite direction: with a 'right-wing' socially conservative [and] economically conservative party and a 'left-wing' socially liberal [and] economically liberal. That fascinating little aside dealt with, i'm not sure what relevance the nature of right wing populist parties on the continent have to the broad social compact in the UK which seems to restrict our appetite for tax and regulation at a level noticeably below the norm on the continent.

If the point is about what degree of collectivity the populace will demand, and counting levels of taxation - levels of taxation as such, not mediated through indirect measures - as one measure of collectivity among many, then the clear indication in Europe today, including the UK, is that people want more collectivity.

It could well be that the UK has an absolute lower baseline for taxation than the Continent, but this wouldn't impinge on a situation where both the UK and the Continent want to increase taxation and government intervention beyond current levels (recalling that even your sneering "neoliberalism" demands more government intervention, albeit restrictively in defense of market actors).

My answer is that: the idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

You keep saying that. How do we know you are right, putting assertion against evidence? Moreover, why should we accept the premise that the choice is between "democratic self-governance" on one hand and staying in the EU on the other? As I've belabored, perhaps there is no democratic dividend in leaving?

[Husar]

lol, look at you; the fount of disinterested objective analysis. still emotionally crippled by an idea. "neoliberalism". i'll let you in on a secret; it just another idea on how to run society that is just as daft and just as sensible as many others, depending on how religiously you practice it. the fact that you berate me on this matter whilst remaining blind to your own prejudice is nothing short of funny.

Says the guy who didn't even know what that is and then couldn't explain how his views are different from it after claiming they were...
And no, I don't think it's "just another idea" just like slavery isn't "just another idea on how to run society". Now you're just using some vague moral equivalence argument to justify ending democracy. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised considering your country's immature politics still see room for a queen and politicians incapable of negotiation...

I don't refuse to debate the idea, because I have never refused to accept that trade would be frictionless. In good measure, becuase trade with the eu has friction, not least in compliance costs. It just happens that this friction is a known known (in rumsfeld speak), which makes people much less fearful than known unknowns. Yes there will be more friction, and the response will be to accommodate and mitigate it.

If you don't refuse to accept that trade would be frictionless, why do you mention all the friction?
The problem here is that mitigating a problem does not entirely solve it, it only makes it less severe. You still have a problem in the end.

My earlier response remains germane to the topic: If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

There's a difference between listening to someone's input and making someone the senior project architect.

[Pannonian]

lol, look at you; the fount of disinterested objective analysis. still emotionally crippled by an idea. "neoliberalism". i'll let you in on a secret; it just another idea on how to run society that is just as daft and just as sensible as many others, depending on how religiously you practice it. the fact that you berate me on this matter whilst remaining blind to your own prejudice is nothing short of funny.

I don't refuse to debate the idea, because I have never refused to accept that trade would be frictionless. In good measure, becuase trade with the eu has friction, not least in compliance costs. It just happens that this friction is a known known (in rumsfeld speak), which makes people much less fearful than known unknowns. Yes there will be more friction, and the response will be to accommodate and mitigate it.

My earlier response remains germane to the topic: If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

Have you looked at the accommodations and mitigations, and related them to food? There are specific problems relating to friction in no-deal, which can be seen concretely in that lorry driver's testimony, and extrapolated to a larger scale in the government's planned response. Just about all the evidence you cite comes from IEA and other think tanks, which speak in terms of ivory tower theory (that's without taking into account whom they've been bought by). Have you tried looking at concrete evidence? Literally, in KCC's case, although personnel is a pretty big issue too, as seen in that parliamentary report.

[Furunculus]

But you haven't even looked at his experience, [b]let alone the analysis done by government and other bodies based on the experience of people like him. [/b[]

that is supposition on your part.
i've been reading brexit papers for years now.
have you read flexcit?

recalling that even your sneering "neoliberalism"

what is the purpose of this statement?

Now you're just using some vague moral equivalence argument to justify ending democracy. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised considering your country's immature politics still see room for a queen and politicians incapable of negotiation...

Just... lol. Nothing more. Nothing more is required.

[Husar]

Just... lol. Nothing more. Nothing more is required.

You still don't quite understand that one article I linked.
There's really nothing we can do though, on that I am starting to agree.

[Montmorency]

what is the purpose of this statement?

Because whenever you have referred to someone's use of the word "neoliberal(ism)", you sounded like you're sneering it.

i've been reading brexit papers for years now.
have you read flexcit?

No, but I just read this piece called "Flexcit is dead", and I figure that's just as good.

[Furunculus]

Because whenever you have referred to someone's use of the word "neoliberal(ism)", you sounded like you're sneering it.

No, but I just read this piece called "Flexcit is dead", and I figure that's just as good.

I do find the conspiracy of neoliberalism funny, but no more or less funny than the left wing equivalent I mentioned nearly a month ago; Common Purpose, which sunk without trace in these hallowed halls of disinterested objectivism. If anything I sneer at a blinkered fear.

If you had read it - four hundred odd pages on the detail and intricacy of the regulatory environment of the single market and customs union - you'd understand why I feel like i have nothing to learn from joe the trucker. Video is such a low bandwidth medium, the message needs to be pretty bloody compelling before I'll spend the time absorbing that over the written word. In a similar vein to how I regarded with amusement the apparent equivalence of a three minute youtube flash animation on the joys of high taxation as compared to 80 pages of dense text on the opposite theory.

[Pannonian]

that is supposition on your part.
i've been reading brexit papers for years now.
have you read flexcit?

I quoted one of the authors of Flexcit earlier in the thread, disowning Brexit as it is being implemented by the government. Ironically, for all that you're citing Flexcit as a practical implementation of Brexit, your preferred option of no-deal is even further from Flexcit as its authors envisaged it.

So, given a choice between Remain, SM/CU and no-deal, would you still choose no-deal as you'd previously said you would?

[Pannonian]

I do find the conspiracy of neoliberalism funny, but no more or less funny than the left wing equivalent I mentioned nearly a month ago; Common Purpose, which sunk without trace in these hallowed halls of disinterested objectivism. If anything I sneer at a blinkered fear.

If you had read it - four hundred odd pages on the detail and intricacy of the regulatory environment of the single market and customs union - you'd understand why I feel like i have nothing to learn from joe the trucker. Video is such a low bandwidth medium, the message needs to be pretty bloody compelling before I'll spend the time absorbing that over the written word. In a similar vein to how I regarded with amusement the apparent equivalence of a three minute youtube flash animation on the joys of high taxation as compared to 80 pages of dense text on the opposite theory.

Why don't you read that parliamentary report that contains a transcription of your despised Joe the trucker? The select committee evidently regard his testimony rather higher than you do.

[Montmorency]

I do find the conspiracy of neoliberalism funny, but no more or less funny than the left wing equivalent I mentioned nearly a month ago; Common Purpose, which sunk without trace in these hallowed halls of disinterested objectivism. If anything I sneer at a blinkered fear.

If you had read it - four hundred odd pages on the detail and intricacy of the regulatory environment of the single market and customs union - you'd understand why I feel like i have nothing to learn from joe the trucker. Video is such a low bandwidth medium, the message needs to be pretty bloody compelling before I'll spend the time absorbing that over the written word. In a similar vein to how I regarded with amusement the apparent equivalence of a three minute youtube flash animation on the joys of high taxation as compared to 80 pages of dense text on the opposite theory.

It's not a conspiracy, it's rotten ideology. You seem to sneer at anything that disrupts the comfort of pure ideology.

Again, if the length of the text is what confers virtue and credibility, then Das Kapital exists.

[Furunculus]

I quoted one of the authors of Flexcit earlier in the thread, disowning Brexit as it is being implemented by the government. Ironically, for all that you're citing Flexcit as a practical implementation of Brexit, your preferred option of no-deal is even further from Flexcit as its authors envisaged it.

So, given a choice between Remain, SM/CU and no-deal, would you still choose no-deal as you'd previously said you would?

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

[Pannonian]

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (No-deal Brexit), thanks."

SMCU is the minimum necessary for frictionless trading/import of food. As you've said that you won't accept that above, but you'll accept no-deal, please explain how you'll get around the problems raised by the people who've looked at the logistics. And if you don't want to lower yourself to listen to Joe the trucker, perhaps you could manage reading the parliamentary report which transcribes him.

[Furunculus]

And this because... Barnier said so?

[Pannonian]

And this because... Barnier said so?

The rules were there even before Barnier was appointed.

Have you listened to Joe the trucker, or read any of the experts on the logistics situation yet? With you and other followers of the ERG ruling out the minimum required for frictionless trade, how do you propose to resolve the logistics issue? Does IEA say anything on how the logistics issue may be solved? You know, apart from handwaving it away.

[Furunculus]

you're still living firmly in the realm of absurdist fantasy.

1. I am not 'with' the ERG, I am with chequers.
2. Why does trade have to be [absolutely] frictionless? You are more than willing to accept a great deal of friction with 55% of our trade, through the great EU (non-) tariff wall, are you not? Even accepting that EU trade is frictionless (which I don't - because oh boy, does it come a cost!), what is so terrible for all the extra-eu importers to the UK?

you're a full on outrage factory, and it's more than a trifle amusing.

[Montmorency]

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated.

What you say you prefer doesn't matter! If I say I prefer going on a date with this celebrity over that celebrity, well, I'm not going on any dates with celebrities, am I?

"Though the claith were bad, blythely may we niffer; gin we get a wab, it makes little differ" ends up a churlish philosophy.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

EU tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products (2016): 2%

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator....MRCH.WM.AR.ZS

Elsewhere, you don't seem to prize any non-tariff barriers or their benefits. The UK is not going to drop all technical barriers to trade outside the EU - in fact, it's not really possible for any WTO member to do so - so you must have some priorities. What EU barriers are especially onerous that you think the UK will slough off outside it? And as you touch on below any deal requires the UK to abide by those barriers anyway...

So if goods don't matter to you, why would barriers to goods that exist regardless of membership matter to you?

Is UK activist foreign policy more efficacious in or out of the EU really? This is of course a separate question than "Can the UK subsist outside the EU", which has always been almost-certainly yes.

As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above

Why is rule by oligarchs and plutocrats better and more democratic than (alleged, eventual) rule by "Eurocrats"? Over the years I judge this to be one of the least coherent positions you take.

[Pannonian]

you're still living firmly in the realm of absurdist fantasy.

1. I am not 'with' the ERG, I am with chequers.
2. Why does trade have to be [absolutely] frictionless? You are more than willing to accept a great deal of friction with 55% of our trade, through the great EU (non-) tariff wall, are you not? Even accepting that EU trade is frictionless (which I don't - because oh boy, does it come a cost!), what is so terrible for all the extra-eu importers to the UK?

you're a full on outrage factory, and it's more than a trifle amusing.

2. Have you listened to that truck driver? He describes, in concrete detail, the difference between frictioned border and frictionless border. You've only talked about theory so far, and refuse to look at concrete details. The parliamentary report I cite talks about concrete details, plans, and consequences of those plans. How is your theory more trustworthy than said parliamentary report?

[Pannonian]

See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated.

What you say you prefer doesn't matter! If I say I prefer going on a date with this celebrity over that celebrity, well, I'm not going on any dates with celebrities, am I?

Unfortunately, this isn't talking about dates with celebrities. If only it were that inconsequential. Furunculus is parroting the arguments of the ERG, who are the driving faction in government on this issue, having already forced the PM to change her supposedly final offer to the EU in order to ensure no-deal. See how Furunculus also sets up red lines in such a manner as to preclude any possible deal, couching them in terms of theory, and arguing that any deviation from this theory is the fault of the EU, thus pushing for no-deal whilst blaming the EU for eventual no-deal. See Jacob Rees Mogg for the archetype of this.

[Furunculus]

See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated.

What you say you prefer doesn't matter! If I say I prefer going on a date with this celebrity over that celebrity, well, I'm not going on any dates with celebrities, am I?

Says who? We have yet to find out what is achievable in this negotiation.
There are rumours that the EU is willing to separate Goods from Services, that is just the start.

Why is rule by oligarchs and plutocrats better and more democratic than (alleged, eventual) rule by "Eurocrats"? Over the years I judge this to be one of the least coherent positions you take.

Legitimacy derives from [both] representation [and] accountability.
Factors that will always be more achievable in smaller, closer, more coherent polities.

2. Have you listened to that truck driver? He describes, in concrete detail, the difference between frictioned border and frictionless border. You've only talked about theory so far, and refuse to look at concrete details. The parliamentary report I cite talks about concrete details, plans, and consequences of those plans. How is your theory more trustworthy than said parliamentary report?

I think I told you I have read Flexcit (to mention but one!), have you?

Unfortunately, this isn't talking about dates with celebrities. If only it were that inconsequential. Furunculus is parroting the arguments of the ERG, who are the driving faction in government on this issue, having already forced the PM to change her supposedly final offer to the EU in order to ensure no-deal. See how Furunculus also sets up red lines in such a manner as to preclude any possible deal, couching them in terms of theory, and arguing that any deviation from this theory is the fault of the EU, thus pushing for no-deal whilst blaming the EU for eventual no-deal. See Jacob Rees Mogg for the archetype of this.

I'm enjoying you trying to paint me as an extremist, but I believe my stated position to be the very soul of sweet reason.
It is you that is the extremist.

[Husar]

Legitimacy derives from [both] representation [and] accountability.
Factors that will always be more achievable in smaller, closer, more coherent polities.

Why should this be applied to governments but not corporations? Isn't a nation like the UK too big then anyway?
Humans are thought to be incapable of having more than around 200 acquaintances after all. Everything beyond that would not be a close community to me.

[Furunculus]

Why should this be applied to governments but not corporations? Isn't a nation like the UK too big then anyway?
Humans are thought to be incapable of having more than around 200 acquaintances after all. Everything beyond that would not be a close community to me.

That's someone else's argument for a quite different discussion.

More generally, on the increasing potential for corrupt disinterest of larger and more diverse political units; sure, this is why we tend to like devolution.