Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

The EU is a tribe, just expanded to a larger size. Just look at the EC as the village elders and everything is fine.
And who says that this is the responsibility of a tribe?

...Human nature. Unless you are a psychopath you should have noticed at least somewhat by the age of twenty that you have greater empathy with those you identify as similar to yourself than those alien to you, it's why you keep trading forum thanks with people that agree with you.

And no, the EU is not a tribe it is an political and economic institution, "Europe" is a tribe, one whose shallow connections and abstract identifiers is making the attempts to override the deep rooted tribes of national identity fail impressively.

So you agree that Scotland should secede because it has a different culture?
Or are you saying that the people in Lemiers for example, should be separated by a border wall due to their completely different culture?

I agree that Scotland should have the option to secede because it has it's own distinct culture. And I think that if lemiers were to become culturally polarized it should have the option of whatever border controls the political entities it stradles allow it to have

So you're saying that people other than the British think just like the British right after you said that cultures are too different across borders?

I occasionally ask rhetorically if people dont read my posts but in this case I am legitimately baffled as to how this relates to what I said.

I'm saying that an economic union that wants to preserve itself should not keep enforcing what is fracturing it in the first place. It is unreasonable to be damaging that which you want to preserve.

That it actually hurts nations if they do take the deal is something you have to prove first. [...] The whole path of mutual damage is something you need to prove, too. How were the EU countries damaged since they made these deals?

Unemployment hurts nations.
Importing workers faster than you can create jobs makes more unemployment which hurts nations.
Agreements that require you to allow workers to be imported faster that you can create jobs makes more unemployment which hurts nations.
The EU is demanding an agreement that requires the swiss to allow workers to be imported faster that it can create jobs which makes more unemployment which hurts Switzerland.

I cant say it more simply. It hurts the nation and is doing the same thing to Britain caused it to leave the EU, which weakened the EU, (see value of the Euro and European markest before and after brexit), it stands to reason that continuing to enforce such deals on the nations in the EU will cause more to leave which will hurt the EU further

But noone forces the Swiss to take the deal, they can also have no deal. [...] And why should a trade partner not be allowed to add things for the sake of idealism? Is the only ideal worth having to earn more money?

Again I am not they can't do it I am saying they shouldn't do it.

As for "pushes" leading to a weakening of the EU, that's also not very concrete, the Brexit was one event, not several, so why plural?And how do you know that the Brexit weakens the EU? Maybe the EU will emerge stronger from it than it ever was, how can you know after two weeks and before anything actually happened?

What I see is a load of assumptions but no proof for anything. Everything you say is merely your opinion so far that you state as though it were a fact.

I think the real question is why not plural? There are independance movements all over europe, and with the success of the UK independance movment they will be enboldened and will try harder.

My opinion is based on trends in humanity that I was under the impression you were quite familiar with and considered fact. I did not feel I had to explain how humans have a tendency to be kept from actions by uncertainty but can become encouraged into action by seeing one man succeed. Nor did I feel I had to explain that restrictions, that would not be tolerated without the paralysis of uncertainty, are liable to be challenged once the uncertainty is removed.

I remember being shown a video a while back that exhibited this phenomenon, here:


Note that the crowd didnt form for a long time until a second person nutted up and joined the leader, then it formed very quickly. You are right to say that the UK leaving could be a one off event but that is itself an uncertainty, one that the EU will have to rely on to maintain what cohesion it still has and one that is not likely to remain uncertain when they do stuff like what they are doing with Swizerland.

Switzerland is in prime position to be the second person. If it does not back down and instead chooses to forcibly shed itself of the EU, even with it's special status, you can basically say goodbye to the rest of the unhappy EU members.

Now what I have just said is based on reasoning, my opinion comes in here: I think the EU can afford to accomodate Switzerland without encouraging the others to leave, it already has special status so I think that it will hurt less if the EU extends that status to include an exception to free movment. The swiss being given and exception here will be less likely to cause that watershed than if you gave the exception to, say, Italy, as it can be brushed off as just another in a long line of priveledges Switzerland has.

That makes me think that what they are doing now, basically a game of chicken, is utterly unreasonable. The EU is potentially risking everything over intimidating an entire country back into line. An attempt I cant see succeeding considering the Swiss take foreign bullying about as gladly as we British do.

Presumably you're not a fan of the proposed points system then. Since it allows skilled labour to enter this country, even after exiting the EU. It sounds like you're a hardliner, even by the Tory party's standards. No immigration at all, even if they're skilled and highly qualified workers that this country lacks.

I like the points system, because it spreads the pain among the self-styled middle class who prop up the thatcherism of both sides and encourages them to support immigration limits.

My ideal immigration system would be a points system with a limit, and any immigration over that limit has to be a temporary sponsership: the skilled worker is paired with a local trainee and works in the period of time it takes to train a local to do the job then gets sent home again with the British standard of wage he earned and and unfixed property he accumilates while here.

We get the skilled labour in the immediate, while retaining the job for a local and also having the benefit of having developing nations become infused with a new middle class who have tasted the benefits of British system and have earned a sizeable amount of money. Hopefully at least some of them will use that money to help to develope thier own nation to our own standards. An indirect and less costly method of nation building.