8 ms·

Maybe for now, but it's looking increasingly possible that the EU won't be around or will be significantly diminished in the relatively near future. Salvini bec

by jrs95 9y ago

Maybe for now, but it's looking increasingly possible that the EU won't be around or will be significantly diminished in the relatively near future. Salvini becoming PM in Italy would likely accelerate this a lot.

untog 9y ago
People have been saying that since the EU was created. Excuse my scepticism.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Yeah, that's a fair point. Perhaps I'm a little too caught up in recent events and not seeing the forest for the trees.
  - jopsen 9y ago
    From the big picture perspective brexit might just be a fluke... The Euro sort of makes EU a pretty permanent thing. Sure it could change (probably very slowly), but isn't that what democracy is about :)
- Silhouette 9y ago
  Scepticism is reasonable, but the future of the EU -- or the EU in its current form, if you prefer -- is also a reasonable thing to consider. Among the discussions I had before the referendum, perhaps the clearest pro-Leave voices were a couple of very highly qualified and experienced economists. Their basic position was simple enough: the EU has not fixed the fundamental vulnerabilities in its economic and political structure that caused the big problems a few years ago, and so they considered it more likely than not that the EU would run into serious problems again in the not-too-distant future. Between that risk and the general trends in global trade, they felt that on balance it would be healthier to shift our economy and foreign trade to be less dependent on the EU and build stronger trading relationships with the rest of the world. That in turn requires distancing ourselves from the "ever closer union" vision and being free of the constraints that come with belonging to the EU's customs union.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > were a couple of very highly qualified and experienced economists Name them.
    - Silhouette 9y ago
      Not playing that game, sorry. Suffice it to say that they were post-doctoral researchers and subsequently worked for several years in major City companies you've heard of, both reaching senior positions unusually quickly. [Edit: This was a private discussion at a mutual friend's house, on a controversial subject. I have no idea whether the people in question have expressed their views publicly, and no intention of outing them if they have not, particularly given that their personal views may be at odds with their employers'. In any case, they aren't public figures and it's unlikely anyone here would know them unless they happened to have worked with them. And even then, there is still no good reason anyone needs to know their names unless an ad hominem is about to follow. Downvote all you like, but downvoting isn't an argument.]
      - pasabagi 9y ago
        Can you outline the argument? I know there's a conventional (and strong) argument against the EU in that it combines the 'worst of both worlds' for many of its members, since they have a single currency but they don't have the kind of federal system that would balance that out. I don't see how that would effect the UK though - since it still has the pound. I also don't see how the UK could conceivably be said to be disadvantaged by the EU - given that financial services + co seem to depend upon EU membership.
        Silhouette 9y ago
        I know there's a conventional (and strong) argument against the EU in that it combines the 'worst of both worlds' for many of its members, since they have a single currency but they don't have the kind of federal system that would balance that out. Yes, that was essentially their position. The EU when it was smaller was mostly a group of member states in at least broadly equivalent economic situations. As it has grown, there are much wider disparities, and that undermines some of the original assumptions behind the Single Market. For example, if there is an incentive to have cheap labour move from a relatively poor economy to a relatively wealthy one, you have potential for abuse on the relatively wealthy side, and you also have a risk of a "brain drain" effect that holds back growth in the poorer economy. Likewise, trying to unify the markets across such widely different EU states is economically unsound. They aren't really one big market, because basic factors like cost of living and household income vary widely from one member state to another. Forcing businesses to treat all member states equally (which subsequent to that discussion the EU actually has been working to legislate) means you usually price the poorer member states out of the market, which is good for neither the potential customers in those states nor the businesses who would have been happy to supply them. I also don't see how the UK could conceivably be said to be disadvantaged by the EU - given that financial services + co seem to depend upon EU membership. The EU is mostly a good thing for trade with the EU. But by belonging to the EU, and in particular the Customs Union, the UK gives up the ability to negotiate its own trade agreements with non-EU trading partners. Instead, it is required to impose the EU's standard tariffs and other non-tariff barriers when trading outside the bloc, and the EU is rather protectionist in its stance there. Put another way, just as EU membership brings well-documented advantages in terms of tariff-free trade and ease of access to the EU market, it also imposes directly analogous disadvantages in terms of forcing tariffs and other barriers when trading with non-EU markets, and the UK has limited ability to change that situation while remaining in the Customs Union because any relevant trade agreements are negotiated via the EU and not the UK itself. The argument being made at the time was that since our foreign trade has been shifting steadily towards a greater proportion being with non-EU partners, the balance between the benefits on the EU side and the costs on the non-EU side was shifting in the wrong direction. (And if the EU did then suffer further economic troubles, that would reduce the benefits of continued membership significantly, pushing the balance further/faster in that other direction.)
esistgut 9y ago
Salvini will not become PM in Italy. His center-right coalition was held together by the requirements of our electoral law and is already starting to fall apart. Di Maio will most likely become the PM of a very weak coalition and while his party had strong anti-EU claims they pretty much retracted every single one of them as soon as the polls started to show a strong chance of winning the election.
riffraff 9y ago
Don't believe the hype. After campaigning for years on a NOEURO platform, one week in he's already said we won't leave the eurozone quickly, which is akin to say we never will.

by jrs95 9y ago

untog 9y ago

People have been saying that since the EU was created. Excuse my scepticism.

jrs95 9y ago
Yeah, that's a fair point. Perhaps I'm a little too caught up in recent events and not seeing the forest for the trees.
- jopsen 9y ago
  From the big picture perspective brexit might just be a fluke... The Euro sort of makes EU a pretty permanent thing. Sure it could change (probably very slowly), but isn't that what democracy is about :)
Silhouette 9y ago
Scepticism is reasonable, but the future of the EU -- or the EU in its current form, if you prefer -- is also a reasonable thing to consider. Among the discussions I had before the referendum, perhaps the clearest pro-Leave voices were a couple of very highly qualified and experienced economists. Their basic position was simple enough: the EU has not fixed the fundamental vulnerabilities in its economic and political structure that caused the big problems a few years ago, and so they considered it more likely than not that the EU would run into serious problems again in the not-too-distant future. Between that risk and the general trends in global trade, they felt that on balance it would be healthier to shift our economy and foreign trade to be less dependent on the EU and build stronger trading relationships with the rest of the world. That in turn requires distancing ourselves from the "ever closer union" vision and being free of the constraints that come with belonging to the EU's customs union.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > were a couple of very highly qualified and experienced economists Name them.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    Not playing that game, sorry. Suffice it to say that they were post-doctoral researchers and subsequently worked for several years in major City companies you've heard of, both reaching senior positions unusually quickly. [Edit: This was a private discussion at a mutual friend's house, on a controversial subject. I have no idea whether the people in question have expressed their views publicly, and no intention of outing them if they have not, particularly given that their personal views may be at odds with their employers'. In any case, they aren't public figures and it's unlikely anyone here would know them unless they happened to have worked with them. And even then, there is still no good reason anyone needs to know their names unless an ad hominem is about to follow. Downvote all you like, but downvoting isn't an argument.]
    - pasabagi 9y ago
      Can you outline the argument? I know there's a conventional (and strong) argument against the EU in that it combines the 'worst of both worlds' for many of its members, since they have a single currency but they don't have the kind of federal system that would balance that out. I don't see how that would effect the UK though - since it still has the pound. I also don't see how the UK could conceivably be said to be disadvantaged by the EU - given that financial services + co seem to depend upon EU membership.
      - Silhouette 9y ago
        I know there's a conventional (and strong) argument against the EU in that it combines the 'worst of both worlds' for many of its members, since they have a single currency but they don't have the kind of federal system that would balance that out. Yes, that was essentially their position. The EU when it was smaller was mostly a group of member states in at least broadly equivalent economic situations. As it has grown, there are much wider disparities, and that undermines some of the original assumptions behind the Single Market. For example, if there is an incentive to have cheap labour move from a relatively poor economy to a relatively wealthy one, you have potential for abuse on the relatively wealthy side, and you also have a risk of a "brain drain" effect that holds back growth in the poorer economy. Likewise, trying to unify the markets across such widely different EU states is economically unsound. They aren't really one big market, because basic factors like cost of living and household income vary widely from one member state to another. Forcing businesses to treat all member states equally (which subsequent to that discussion the EU actually has been working to legislate) means you usually price the poorer member states out of the market, which is good for neither the potential customers in those states nor the businesses who would have been happy to supply them. I also don't see how the UK could conceivably be said to be disadvantaged by the EU - given that financial services + co seem to depend upon EU membership. The EU is mostly a good thing for trade with the EU. But by belonging to the EU, and in particular the Customs Union, the UK gives up the ability to negotiate its own trade agreements with non-EU trading partners. Instead, it is required to impose the EU's standard tariffs and other non-tariff barriers when trading outside the bloc, and the EU is rather protectionist in its stance there. Put another way, just as EU membership brings well-documented advantages in terms of tariff-free trade and ease of access to the EU market, it also imposes directly analogous disadvantages in terms of forcing tariffs and other barriers when trading with non-EU markets, and the UK has limited ability to change that situation while remaining in the Customs Union because any relevant trade agreements are negotiated via the EU and not the UK itself. The argument being made at the time was that since our foreign trade has been shifting steadily towards a greater proportion being with non-EU partners, the balance between the benefits on the EU side and the costs on the non-EU side was shifting in the wrong direction. (And if the EU did then suffer further economic troubles, that would reduce the benefits of continued membership significantly, pushing the balance further/faster in that other direction.)

esistgut 9y ago

Salvini will not become PM in Italy. His center-right coalition was held together by the requirements of our electoral law and is already starting to fall apart. Di Maio will most likely become the PM of a very weak coalition and while his party had strong anti-EU claims they pretty much retracted every single one of them as soon as the polls started to show a strong chance of winning the election.

riffraff 9y ago

Don't believe the hype. After campaigning for years on a NOEURO platform, one week in he's already said we won't leave the eurozone quickly, which is akin to say we never will.