Brexit Thread IV - They're laughing with us, not at us

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not about the wool trade, it's about geography and the difficulty of suddenly cutting long-lasting relations. Social (and economic) inertia. History just supplies examples of how trade continues even during or past major wars. Brexit is nothing compared to such wars. Assuming catastrophe for trade due to brexit is excessively alarmist. Drama sells, thus the media and the opinion makers will talk about it. I don't thing that it will go nicely in the first few days, but things will be sorted out quickly. One way or the other, though not to the benefit of those who were most unprepared.

It wont be a catastrophe, we will just pay more for are imports and get less for are exports.

So Britain is screwed, then.

No we will just be poorer.
 
It's not about the wool trade, it's about geography and the difficulty of suddenly cutting long-lasting relations. Social (and economic) inertia. History just supplies examples of how trade continues even during or past major wars. Brexit is nothing compared to such wars. Assuming catastrophe for trade due to brexit is excessively alarmist. Drama sells, thus the media and the opinion makers will talk about it. I don't thing that it will go nicely in the first few days, but things will be sorted out quickly. One way or the other, though not to the benefit of those who were most unprepared.

Ok, but then I would counter that continent-wide trade relations are since 1945 bouncing back from 150 years of nationalism (tolls/regulations/currencies), so I could argue with the same argument that Brexit will not disturb that growing unification and is just a bump in the road?

But yes, I agree, life will go on and they will find a way, my money for now is however more on them getting some more years of 'transition time' or any such nonsense.

(we btw. In Switzerland just had that in our government finding a very creative way to implement the will of the people to "end mass migration" and at the same time keep the treaties of free movement for people with the European Union. Never underestimate the creativity of politicians.)
 
Indeed, it was conveniently forgotten. I was referring to some heated arguments we had at the time of the attack on that country. Time does tell.

Regarding brexit, there's a rather interesting speech from the former UK ambassador with his current take on the issues around it. I found it worth reading, even if I disagree in some points. Not many, actually.

One I particularly agree with is this:

Nice to read that speech of Ivan Rogers :)

As an observation:
In all his eloquent words, he nowhere mentions the increasing need of protection against powerplay by Big Corporate and Big Investors.
Considering 21 pages going from jabs at the unicorns to describing the fundamental UK position since decades, that protection of our democratic self-determination, is no part of the UK's "driving the Single Market project forward"
 
As an observation:
In all his eloquent words, he nowhere mentions the increasing need of protection against powerplay by Big Corporate and Big Investors.

My objection to the idea that size is necessary to deal with the big transnational corporations, or with powerful individuals acting across borders, is very simple.

All the power these corporations and individuals have depends of liberalized trade. In the former regulatory frameworks abandoned at the beginning of the 1990s, these corporations would have been forced to expand through subsidiaries, to pay taxes and obey local regulations, They would never have grown as big and influential as they are now.

The EU is presented as an allegedly necessary solution to a problem that the EU itself created! Worse, the problem exists now. The alleged solutions is always around the corned, depends on deeper union or whatever. No, that is only making things worse. Concentrating power, creating and expanding the environment necessary for those Big Corporate and Big Investors playes to grow even more powerful.

Case in point: the EU has been forcing concentration of banks. It is overt policy of the EU to extend support only to big banks and promote the "absorption" of the smaller ones. And this on a trans-national level. They were "too big to fail"? Let's make them even bigger!
Those withing the EU who say that the EU is trying to solve the problems of regulation and power are liars. Those who claim they want to lower debt are lying, they just don't want it to be defaulted on. And so on... I'm sick of the hypocrisy of it.
 
My objection to the idea that size is necessary to deal with the big transnational corporations, or with powerful individuals acting across borders, is very simple.

All the power these corporations and individuals have depends of liberalized trade. In the former regulatory frameworks abandoned at the beginning of the 1990s, these corporations would have been forced to expand through subsidiaries, to pay taxes and obey local regulations, They would never have grown as big and influential as they are now.

The EU is presented as an allegedly necessary solution to a problem that the EU itself created! Worse, the problem exists now. The alleged solutions is always around the corned, depends on deeper union or whatever. No, that is only making things worse. Concentrating power, creating and expanding the environment necessary for those Big Corporate and Big Investors playes to grow even more powerful.

Case in point: the EU has been forcing concentration of banks. It is overt policy of the EU to extend support only to big banks and promote the "absorption" of the smaller ones. And this on a trans-national level. They were "too big to fail"? Let's make them even bigger!
Those withing the EU who say that the EU is trying to solve the problems of regulation and power are liars. Those who claim they want to lower debt are lying, they just don't want it to be defaulted on. And so on... I'm sick of the hypocrisy of it.

Within the US, there is between the states also a single market with lots of interstate trade.
So why would that EU single market, that liberalized trade between countries, be more bad than in the US ?
 
Well, I'd rather have an indefinite "customs arrangement" than WTO terms.
 
Well, yes, obviously, but the Govt would rather turn in its grave than do that and it's absolutely unclear whether or not opposing an eventual Brexit deal would allow that.
 
I think any vote for any sort of Brexit will be misrepresented as actual support for Brexit and work against the chances of a repeal of article 50.
 
This all supposes that Theresa May and the EU commission
can even agree something to be put to the various Parliaments.

I think thats the relatively easy bit. Getting something through Parliament, that'll be hard.
An uncertain number of Brexiteers won't back May.
An uncertain number of Opposition MPs might back her.
The DUP aren't happy but will probably back her so long as the UK is either completely in or out of whatever is proposed, no seperate arrangement for NI.

If she can't get her plan through Parliament the Brexiteers are threatening a leadership election, May is threatening a general election, and Corbyn is probably dreading the thought that he might be PM with a minority government and the whole mess still not sorted out.
 
I think thats the relatively easy bit. Getting something through Parliament, that'll be hard.
With all due respect, from here it feels as a very self-centered point of view.

The deal will need to be agreed precisely by 30 chambers :
  • The European Council of the 27 heads of government, at unanimity
  • The European Parliament
  • It should then be ratified by all of the 27 national parliaments of remaining EU members
  • And then indeed, by Westminster as well
If only a single of those 30 chambers blocks the deal (for instance Salvini's Italy, Orban's Hungary, Morawiecki's Poland, Babiš' Czech Republic, Tsipras' Greece...), then the deal is gone.

What I mean here is the EU will only propose a take it or leave it deal to Britain. It cannot afford better considering the EU represents, I recall, 27 national sovereign states which aren't any less proud than the one leaving.

So if Westminster don't vote for what the EU will painfully agree to concede to a leaving Britain, then there will be no deal and good luck in the wild and mercyless international world order.
 
Last edited:
Here some more good lectures at an earlier stage of the Brexit negotiations in end 2017, on the past decades EU-UK relations, loaded with high-level inside anectdotes and PM thoughts on the differences between the UK and continental European countries on the European project.
Or the continuous struggle inside the UK about (mis)understanding the EU and what the British place in the EU should be.

A coherent set of good lectures on the periods of Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Cameron at Hertford College, Oxford at the end of 2017.
All done by high ranking people closely involved with the PM's.
Thatcher, Oct 31, 2017, by Charles Powell. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...ope-but-she-was-right-to-stand-up-for-britain
John Major, Nov 17, 2017, by Chris Patten. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...-secure-a-succeessful-partnership-with-europe
Tony Blair, Nov 10, 2017, by Andrew Adonis. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/tony-blair-and-europe-shattering-the-ming-vase
Gordon Brown, Nov 3, 2017, by Stewart Wood. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...n-brown-got-right-on-europe-and-what-he-didnt
David Cameron, Nov 24, 2017, by Ivan Rogers. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...-of-how-david-cameron-drove-britain-to-brexit

To many take aways to mention even one.
 
With all due respect, from here it feels as a very self-centered point of view.

The deal will need to be agreed precisely by 30 chambers :
  • The European Council of the 27 heads of government, at unanimity
  • The European Parliament
  • It should then be ratified by all of the 27 national parliaments of remaining EU members
  • And then indeed, by Westminster as well
If only a single of those 30 chambers blocks the deal (for instance Salvini's Italy, Orban's Hungary, Morawiecki's Poland, Babiš' Czech Republic, Tsipras' Greece...), then the deal is gone.

What I mean here is the EU will only propose a take it or leave it deal to Britain. It cannot afford better considering the EU represents, I recall, 27 national sovereign states which aren't any less proud than the one leaving.

So if Westminster don't vote for what the EU will painfully agree to concede to a leaving Britain, then there will be no deal and good luck in the wild and mercyless international world order.

I agree it will be a take it or leave it deal, and not much (if at all) different to what we could've got at the beginning of the process. I think May has got to the point of accepting that but I'm not sure there is a majority in Westminster for that or any other deal. I fear we may end up leaving on a no deal basis even though very few in Parliament actually want that.
 
Within the US, there is between the states also a single market with lots of interstate trade.
So why would that EU single market, that liberalized trade between countries, be more bad than in the US ?
The same goes for China fx.
 
The same goes for China fx.

And India.

But the people in China, India, and the United States of America don't pretend that the
Xinjiang region, Uttar Pradesh, California are really sovereign states whose sovereignty is
merely limited by the treaties they signed, in the way that Prussian and EU advocates did.
 
All the power these corporations and individuals have depends of liberalized trade.
... which has rather significant benefits to everyone, m'kay?
In the former regulatory frameworks abandoned at the beginning of the 1990s, these corporations would have been forced to expand through subsidiaries, to pay taxes and obey local regulations, They would never have grown as big and influential as they are now.
Beginning of the 1990s marked the rise of the Internet. Jurisdictional rules are kind of difficult to establish (never mind enforce) there. Unless you create your own national version of it like I hear NK has done.
The EU is presented as an allegedly necessary solution to a problem that the EU itself created!
You're giving EU far too much credit here. There is a world outside EU, which represents just about 1/6th of the world's GDP and 1/14th of population. Crucially, of very large MNE groups (turnover > €750 million) about 1,900 are headquartered in EU, about 1,500 in US, about 700 in Japan and another 700 in China. Idk how many in other parts of the world, but I doubt 12 G20 members not included before are quite drawings blanks here.
Do you think you have solved your problem by breaking up (or forcing out) those 1900 EU ones?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom