Is Britain about to leave the EU?
- Thread starter Mega Tsunami
- Start date
- Status
HAND
Armchair Philosopher
Well, the pound has slumped for a couple months over Brexit already, hence the term further.
EnglishEdward
Deity
It is possible that foreign money will feel that things are uncertain
and rebalance their liquid portfolios. I.e. the Russian oligarchs and
similar may move their money elsewhere.
The Remain campaign argue that this would be a disaster. I believe that
such money only corrupts and creates inflation, and is of no real benefit to us.
A devaluation would also be beneficial to inward tourism and to UK
manufacturers supplying the UK market, and increase the cost of offshoring.
I dont think Westminster could get away with completely ignoring the will of the people.
But there are plenty of backrooms where horse trading like this could take place:
UK: We pay £12bn pa net at the moment. How about, with us out of the EU, we have free movement of goods (the same as now) and pay £4bn pa instead.
Germies: What! We have millions of immigrants to house and feed! How about £8bn pa?
UK: What! We have enough immigrants of our own to house and feed! How about £6bn pa.
Germies: What! We have millions of immigrants to get rid of! How about £6bn pa and free movement of people as well as goods.
UK: Deal!
There will be a lot of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth both sides of the English Channel initially but I suspect that in the end we will all be much happier. We will be out of the EU having regained our (relative) Sovereignty and the Eurozone can continue unhampered in their quest for ever closer union.
We will continue to not notice the join between I & NI and will continue to be a member of Europe, if not the EU.
Sorted!
If you believe that, you are naive. The EU cannot and will not give the UK a favorable deal. If it would allow ex-members to retain the benefits of the EU, but not the obligations, other countries with a highly EU-skeptic population might want a similar deal and that will break the EU apart. To ensure its own survival, the EU must do everything in its power to make sure that the UK (that is, if the UK does not break apart over this) takes an economic hit from their decision. You might get some sovereignty back, but it will come at a price.
Additionally, free market access and sovereignty are mutually exclusive. To maintain access to the EU markets, the UK would have to follow the rules of these markets. So the bureaucrats in Brussels would still make the rules and the UK still would have to follow it, but now without having any influence on the rules at all. The UK would now be free to not implement the new rules, but that would result in a loss of free market access (cf. the Swiss, their referendum on restricting free movement and their immediate eviction from European programs).
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,418
The EU is a zombie as it is now. Try to "punish" the UK and it'll spawn a rebellion from below, from the actual people of watch EU country who can still vote. How more obvious do you want to make it that the EU is the 21st century "prison of the peoples", enduring only through threats? All the polities that became known for that went down...
There is no such thing as a "free market", every market has rules, must have rules. And every rule favors some player against others (even unintentionally).
You have a view of the EU as an entity able to dictate rules to anyone outside it. And unmovable to meet the demands of anyone outside. Negotiation, in the picture you present, is impossible.
That is rather interesting view, because the EU is not self-sufficient. So it must trade outside. What makes you believe that it can set the rules, alone, for the terms of that trade? Should we expect the EU to build an army in order to enforce that world view as a world hegemon or what?
Ir the real world, if the EU wants to trade with others, it must meet them halfway in order to achieve trade deals. Economically the EU is doing pathetically already (many "growth pacts", but no "growth"), so don't expect players in the rest of the world to bend over just so they can strike a trade deal with the EU. Hell, even Russia, which was supposed to be targeted with "sanctions", has told the EU to piss off and managed to hurt EU countries economically more than it got hurt in the process.
But you know what? There are people sufficiently crazy in Berlin, Paris, and Brussels to open another front, against Britain. I mean, they lighted North Africa on fire to the south, got a war going in eastern europe by supporting a coup in Ukraine (so much for "the EU brings peace"...), turned big eastern neighbor (Russia) hostile, poured fuel into the Middle East fires, and now woke up to the fact that Turkey in the southeast will be an enemy also.
The one thing the EU lacks to be completely surrounded by enemies is to start a trade war against the UK. Yes, I'm sure that the insane people directing the asylum can do that. I mean, they didn't even forget the internal front, creating a dysfunctional currency that dooms the EU to an interminable economic crisis and increasing political unrest. I will tell you, the people setting policy within the EU must truly, truly hate Europe to be doing all this. That or they are batshit crazy. Smart people will leave the asylum before the edifice comes crashing down to a pile of rubble.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
If we were in the Euro I would probably agree we just could not leave the EU then.
As it is, I believe they can and will make an exception with the UK. We are the EUs biggest single market at 16% of their exports we are 1% ahead of the US and double that of China.
That is one hell of a lot to cut your nose off to spite your face.
And we create many, many jobs for Europeans. I came across a stat that astonished even me in the last 5 years the UK has created more jobs than the rest of the EU put together.
And many of them are EUians.
Of course the EU will spout how much they are punishing us, we continue to pay with no say in stuff blah blah blah. But this, as I said, would be good for both sides.
We would need to follow the rules for stuff we sell to the EU fair enough. But not (as we do at the moment) for stuff we make for ourselves. And the widgets we make for China would be according to our agreement with them, not the EUs.
Mega Tsunami
Emperor
Actually, the pound is at about the same rate against the US$ as it was in January.
But it lost a cent and a half last night because of this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ependent-poll-vote-leave-remain-a7075361.htmlThe Independent said:
Akka
Moody old mage.
Because you think we don't agree with the idea that if you leave the club you should still be able to enjoy the benefit ?
That's so exactly the caricature of the UK diva queen...
A bigger problem is that you don't enjoy a benefit even if you stay in the club. It has become a fear-based union of "if you leave you die, so stay no matter what". It is also part of the reason why the UK likely will leave, cause if things were normal the Remain side would not have to comically feature clowns like Cameron in the first place
Akka
Moody old mage.
If anything, this thread should be a sterling example that if most of the rabid anti-EU posters here have one thing they don't fear and are able to embrace with gusto, it's ridicule.
Afaik it is also found regularly on morning tv shows. Hardly a distinction, no?
And again, m8, synecdoche
It is not about spiting the face, it is about survival of the EU. It is better to cut of your nose than to die.
Here you are mistaken. Free market access has to be mutual. That means that the UK markets have to follow the same rules as the EU market. Otherwise the UK markets would be protected against EU companies. And that would a deal the EU would be stupid to take, even if it would somehow be inclined to make a favorable deal.
16% of the EU trade goes to the UK, but almost half of the UK trade is with the EU. Somehow you sound like after a Brexit, the EU will come crawling to the UK to cut a deal. But if it does not, are you willing to cut your trade by almost half?
EnglishEdward
Deity
These particular proportions merely reflect the fact that the EU is larger than the UK.
Similar examples could be made with the UK and other larger economies China and USA.
The UK imports more from other EU states than it exports to them.
Many of the exports (UK oil) would sell on the world market or we would consume
more of that ourselves and import less from outside Europe.
So a complete cessation of trade (the worst case scenario) would improve the UK trade balance.
I do not expect this.
There may well be a period when for example a customs levy of perhaps 10% applies.
As the UK is a net importer, the UK government would gain more than the EU.
In the last resort, Yes.
The UK managed very well when Napoleon introduced his continental blockade.
There is also that thing called smuggling which tends to undermine embargos.
The southern Irish have their own views about England and the border and
may be reluctant to build a Donald Trump style wall in that emerald island.
EnglishEdward
Deity
It seems my previous posting failed.
Thank you for expressing an interest. I will try to give you Edward's potted summary.
The post Magna Carta position in the UK was that there used to be
five sources of authority in the UK:
(a) the monarch
(b) the aristocratic landlord class who made up the House of Lords
(c) the church
(d) juries drawn from the more settled population
(e) the common electorate who appointed the House of Commons
From these resulted:
(1) Privy Council (typically Lords but with a few bright commoners appointed)
(2) various Officials appointed by the monarch
(3) Judges appointed by the monarch
(4) House of Lords
(5) House of Commons
The House of Commons appointed a Speaker; and the Monarch
appointed the Lord Chancellor (Law), Chancellor of the Exchequer
(money) and other key Ministers acceptable to the Houses.
There were no formal political parties.
The idea is that these groupings would represent the interests of the people and
function of the state and provide balance. In practice the overwhelming power
of the monarchy meant that it was often unstable until Charles II was restored
in 1660; on agreeing that the power of the monarchy was to be limited.
Thereafter things worked quite well for about 350 years.
A number of things have, IMO, gone wrong more recently.
(A) Hugh Walpole became a powerful minister, the first Prime Minister
He was competent and sensible, but this set a dubious precedent.
(B) Judges have become overtly legalistic and less concerned about justice.
(C) the power of the House of Lords was reduced
This started in 1909 on the grounds that they were not elected by the people, and
obstructing the House of Commons. More recent reductions in their authority
were made on a class based basis and the grounds that with the UK a member
of the EU, and the ECHR; a powerful second chamber was simply not needed.
(A better solution might have been to have a smaller House of Lords appointed
either by proportional representation or by the counties. cf original US Senate)
(D) National parties nationalised their previously independent local parties
This Stalinisation was undertaken by John Major (Conservatives) and Tony Blair
(Labour). The local parties selected candidates for elections (UK equivalent
of US primaries). This meant that the national party leadership chose pliable
candidates who were less likely to be of independent means and/or act in the
interests of their constituents. This resulted in a drop in membership of local
parties which further detached elected representatives from their electorate.
(E) The House of Commons was infiltrated by Landlords
Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of all MPs are landlords; who therefore no longer represent
their electorate. Home ownership has dropped while private renting has gone up.
(F) The Prime Minister took over the role of appointing, formerly collegiate,
but now subordinate Cabinet Ministers (formerly the Monarch's role)
(G) Influence of church declined.
(H) As compensation for surrendering power to the EU, UK parliaments
are increasingly meddling with local activity e.g. trying to nationalising
all local council schools (so that they can later privatise them for a backhander).
We are therefore in the position that the party leader:
(a) controls the process for appointing candidates for election; and
(b) if securing a majority of MPS, becomes Prime Minister
(i) appoints the Ministers
(ii) instructs the drafting of laws,
(iii) appoints the senior civil servants; and
(iv) ultimately the judges.
We have therefore (subject to constraints by EU and Human Rights Treaties) replaced
the medieval appointment of a permanent monarchy (whether by heredity, right of
arms or general acclamation) with a temporary monarch now called the Prime Minister.
The decision (2010) to move to fixed term Parliaments now means he is there
for five years unless he resigns in a tiff or walks under a London bus etc.
The real danger is that the UK Prime Minister is overloaded and too powerful.
This was amply demonstrated by Tony Blair and the Iraq war.
There are a number of potential remedies that the UK people may select from, if
we Leave the EU. But if we Remain in, there is really not much point bothering.
Thank you for expressing an interest. I will try to give you Edward's potted summary.
The post Magna Carta position in the UK was that there used to be
five sources of authority in the UK:
(a) the monarch
(b) the aristocratic landlord class who made up the House of Lords
(c) the church
(d) juries drawn from the more settled population
(e) the common electorate who appointed the House of Commons
From these resulted:
(1) Privy Council (typically Lords but with a few bright commoners appointed)
(2) various Officials appointed by the monarch
(3) Judges appointed by the monarch
(4) House of Lords
(5) House of Commons
The House of Commons appointed a Speaker; and the Monarch
appointed the Lord Chancellor (Law), Chancellor of the Exchequer
(money) and other key Ministers acceptable to the Houses.
There were no formal political parties.
The idea is that these groupings would represent the interests of the people and
function of the state and provide balance. In practice the overwhelming power
of the monarchy meant that it was often unstable until Charles II was restored
in 1660; on agreeing that the power of the monarchy was to be limited.
Thereafter things worked quite well for about 350 years.
A number of things have, IMO, gone wrong more recently.
(A) Hugh Walpole became a powerful minister, the first Prime Minister
He was competent and sensible, but this set a dubious precedent.
(B) Judges have become overtly legalistic and less concerned about justice.
(C) the power of the House of Lords was reduced
This started in 1909 on the grounds that they were not elected by the people, and
obstructing the House of Commons. More recent reductions in their authority
were made on a class based basis and the grounds that with the UK a member
of the EU, and the ECHR; a powerful second chamber was simply not needed.
(A better solution might have been to have a smaller House of Lords appointed
either by proportional representation or by the counties. cf original US Senate)
(D) National parties nationalised their previously independent local parties
This Stalinisation was undertaken by John Major (Conservatives) and Tony Blair
(Labour). The local parties selected candidates for elections (UK equivalent
of US primaries). This meant that the national party leadership chose pliable
candidates who were less likely to be of independent means and/or act in the
interests of their constituents. This resulted in a drop in membership of local
parties which further detached elected representatives from their electorate.
(E) The House of Commons was infiltrated by Landlords
Approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of all MPs are landlords; who therefore no longer represent
their electorate. Home ownership has dropped while private renting has gone up.
(F) The Prime Minister took over the role of appointing, formerly collegiate,
but now subordinate Cabinet Ministers (formerly the Monarch's role)
(G) Influence of church declined.
(H) As compensation for surrendering power to the EU, UK parliaments
are increasingly meddling with local activity e.g. trying to nationalising
all local council schools (so that they can later privatise them for a backhander).
We are therefore in the position that the party leader:
(a) controls the process for appointing candidates for election; and
(b) if securing a majority of MPS, becomes Prime Minister
(i) appoints the Ministers
(ii) instructs the drafting of laws,
(iii) appoints the senior civil servants; and
(iv) ultimately the judges.
We have therefore (subject to constraints by EU and Human Rights Treaties) replaced
the medieval appointment of a permanent monarchy (whether by heredity, right of
arms or general acclamation) with a temporary monarch now called the Prime Minister.
The decision (2010) to move to fixed term Parliaments now means he is there
for five years unless he resigns in a tiff or walks under a London bus etc.
The real danger is that the UK Prime Minister is overloaded and too powerful.
This was amply demonstrated by Tony Blair and the Iraq war.
There are a number of potential remedies that the UK people may select from, if
we Leave the EU. But if we Remain in, there is really not much point bothering.
Really? What mysterious panacea can be applied to reduce the power of the Prime Minister, if only we leave the EU? If anything, being in the EU already applies checks to the power of the Prime Minister, as decisions made by his government should be in line with existing EU regulations and certain matters can be appealed to the ECJ and ECHR.
Yes, strangely enough, a lot of people believe that getting rid of the EU will get a lot of problems solved (or allow them to be solved) when most of them were already there (or the causes that would lead to them were) for decades before.
- Status
Similar threads
