4 ms·

Having lived in the UK for 18 years and recently left because of Brexit I seriously hope that crazy government pulls it together and negotiates a deal with the

Having lived in the UK for 18 years and recently left because of Brexit I seriously hope that crazy government pulls it together and negotiates a deal with the EU. A hard Brexit will help no one. Not the UK, not the EU, not international trade partners of the UK, and not any of the tourists from anywhere. And of all of these the UK will for obvious reasons be hardest hit. They have an opportunity to retain relevance (a deal, or pull out of Brexit all together), but they're teetering on the brink of total irellevance (nuclear abilitiy notwithstanding).

antpls 8y ago
I hope people will eventually figure out that a Brexit (deal or no deal) will help no one.
- hardlianotion 8y ago
  there are two schools of though on how and whether it will help, and I am not in your school.
  - richmarr 8y ago
    "Schools of thought" seems generous. Most of the opinion on the subject (aside from reasonable criticism of cack-handed implementation) is shallow and visceral. That said, most of the evidence that at least has the dressing of empiricism favours Remain. There are two things that reliably help an economy, immigration and lower barriers to trade; Brexit damages them both, in favour of up-sides based largely on ideas relating to jam, so economists have fairly uniformly come down against it.
    - hardlianotion 8y ago
      Again, there are shades of opinion on this. There are many leavers who are all for lowered barriers to trade and recognise the stranglehold the European Economic Area has on standards. I'd be quite happy in the EEA, for instance. Your argument is a little reductive and black/white.
      - barrkel 8y ago
        Standards are required for lowered barriers to trade - lack of standards are what cause people to raise barriers in the first place. For example, take labour standards. Without common agreement on labour standards, it's relatively easy for one country to undercut another by permitting mistreatment of their labour force. The response will either be to lower labour standards as well (meaning the result is no net gain in terms of market share, but a whole lot of labour in a worse position), or put in place tariffs or other trading restrictions to protect the local labour force. Thus common agreement on some level of labour standards is what permits lowered barriers to trade. It prevents beggar-thy-neighbour situations that make the majority of people worse off. It's similar for environmental standards, food standards, product quality, intellectual property including trademarks and PDOs and PGIs that simulate them for traditional producers. The EU single market wouldn't be possible without lots of consensus on standards. Remove the enforced harmonization of standards, and the market doesn't work. (The EU's growth in centralized power via the single market resembles in many ways the growth in US federal power due to the Commerce Clause. It definitely has dangers when market regulation runs ahead of democratic consent. I personally think there is a European polis which understands our position in the world, but I also don't think that polis is a majority. Issues that drive a wedge between the polis and the rest - most especially antipathy towards immigration - is the biggest strategic weakness the EU has, geopolitically.)
        hardlianotion 8y ago
        I agree with all of that.
      - jjgreen 8y ago
        Barriers to trade like "no chlorine-washed chicken", mmmm
        hardlianotion 8y ago
        I actually meant barriers with our European neighbours. Being a member of EEA would bar that eventuality, I think.
        8y ago
    - tomatocracy 8y ago
      Many on the leave side would (and did) say that while the EU/EEA has succeeded in lowering some barriers to trade between EEA states, it has at the same time (1) raised new barriers to internal trade within some EEA states and (2) maintained or raised new barriers to trade between EEA states and states outside the EEA. This is particularly stark when new member states have acceded and as a result new tariff barriers put in place, as was the case when the UK joined the then EEC (this caused significant damage to the UK's relationship with New Zealand, for example). But it's also true in the way that the EU/EEA views product regulations and standards, which (many would contend) have a protectionist effect. One example commonly cited in this regard is REACH. Many leave campaigners expressed a desire to deregulate in these areas in order to lower barriers to trade in ways that were not possible within the EU/EEA, as well as to lower tariffs unilaterally post-Brexit. I don't think it's fair therefore to say that Brexit damages "lower barriers to trade" - it really depends on what kind of Brexit there is whether that's true or not.
- ozim 8y ago
  I have different take on brexit. It is more on being against fat guys getting fatter in EU and bureaucracy. Where people from national governments are bought by EU guys with high paid jobs in EU parlament. It is not going to be good for a lot of people but it is about principles and those guys in EU parlament doing stupid things that go against local interests. There should be some balance, I take with my hands as much as I can from unified market because I live ad work in different country than I was born. But I am totally against corrupt politicians doing weird deals. If it will cost me job and life in country I am in so be it, I will go back to my country. But arrangement I have now does not need EU, it could be just countries getting together without additional layer of management without astronomic money going to some politicians.
  - antpls 8y ago
    The principle of the European Union is based on democracy, and you can vote for an European party that would better defend your view at the European level. In my opinion, a country leaving the EU is equivalent of saying that democracy doesn't work and this message is dangerous. For information, less than 50% of Europeans voted at the last European elections in 2014 [1], it only depends on people to build a democratic Europe. If you disagree with your own country's laws or current government, you are not allowed to say "alright, my house is not from this country anymore, and I wont pay any taxes". In practice, you will still use all the infrastructure everybody else contributed with their taxes, plus the healthcare, and you will still want to trade with other people. Country's problems won't magically disappear after leaving the European community, the European Union is made to find collaborative solutions between countries, taking into account each countries' interests and capacities. Now, you can legitimately disagree with recent EU laws about online ads for example, but as another European myself, I welcome this regulation. So we are 2 Europeans with different opinions, and the best way to solve this is democracy, if we still want to trade together in 25ish different countries. I agree with you about politician salaries and bureaucracy, but I only see it improving in the future, when information will be better communicated and people more interested in Europeans scale issues. Anyway, we achieve balance by participating and talking, not by closing the doors in front of difficulties. [1] turnouts for EU 2014 election, by countries : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turnout.html http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turno... Edit : If you disagree with your current country government, maybe you will have more success at the European level, which in turn will balance your country government. Also, European politician salaries are transparent and follow a strict procedure : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/13/salaries-and-pensions http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/13/salaries-and-pe... so maybe still expensive, but it could be possibly less corrupt than some of the individual countries themselves.

antpls 8y ago

I hope people will eventually figure out that a Brexit (deal or no deal) will help no one.

hardlianotion 8y ago
there are two schools of though on how and whether it will help, and I am not in your school.
- richmarr 8y ago
  "Schools of thought" seems generous. Most of the opinion on the subject (aside from reasonable criticism of cack-handed implementation) is shallow and visceral. That said, most of the evidence that at least has the dressing of empiricism favours Remain. There are two things that reliably help an economy, immigration and lower barriers to trade; Brexit damages them both, in favour of up-sides based largely on ideas relating to jam, so economists have fairly uniformly come down against it.
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    Again, there are shades of opinion on this. There are many leavers who are all for lowered barriers to trade and recognise the stranglehold the European Economic Area has on standards. I'd be quite happy in the EEA, for instance. Your argument is a little reductive and black/white.
    - barrkel 8y ago
      Standards are required for lowered barriers to trade - lack of standards are what cause people to raise barriers in the first place. For example, take labour standards. Without common agreement on labour standards, it's relatively easy for one country to undercut another by permitting mistreatment of their labour force. The response will either be to lower labour standards as well (meaning the result is no net gain in terms of market share, but a whole lot of labour in a worse position), or put in place tariffs or other trading restrictions to protect the local labour force. Thus common agreement on some level of labour standards is what permits lowered barriers to trade. It prevents beggar-thy-neighbour situations that make the majority of people worse off. It's similar for environmental standards, food standards, product quality, intellectual property including trademarks and PDOs and PGIs that simulate them for traditional producers. The EU single market wouldn't be possible without lots of consensus on standards. Remove the enforced harmonization of standards, and the market doesn't work. (The EU's growth in centralized power via the single market resembles in many ways the growth in US federal power due to the Commerce Clause. It definitely has dangers when market regulation runs ahead of democratic consent. I personally think there is a European polis which understands our position in the world, but I also don't think that polis is a majority. Issues that drive a wedge between the polis and the rest - most especially antipathy towards immigration - is the biggest strategic weakness the EU has, geopolitically.)
      - hardlianotion 8y ago
        I agree with all of that.
    - jjgreen 8y ago
      Barriers to trade like "no chlorine-washed chicken", mmmm
      - hardlianotion 8y ago
        I actually meant barriers with our European neighbours. Being a member of EEA would bar that eventuality, I think.
      - 8y ago
  - tomatocracy 8y ago
    Many on the leave side would (and did) say that while the EU/EEA has succeeded in lowering some barriers to trade between EEA states, it has at the same time (1) raised new barriers to internal trade within some EEA states and (2) maintained or raised new barriers to trade between EEA states and states outside the EEA. This is particularly stark when new member states have acceded and as a result new tariff barriers put in place, as was the case when the UK joined the then EEC (this caused significant damage to the UK's relationship with New Zealand, for example). But it's also true in the way that the EU/EEA views product regulations and standards, which (many would contend) have a protectionist effect. One example commonly cited in this regard is REACH. Many leave campaigners expressed a desire to deregulate in these areas in order to lower barriers to trade in ways that were not possible within the EU/EEA, as well as to lower tariffs unilaterally post-Brexit. I don't think it's fair therefore to say that Brexit damages "lower barriers to trade" - it really depends on what kind of Brexit there is whether that's true or not.
ozim 8y ago
I have different take on brexit. It is more on being against fat guys getting fatter in EU and bureaucracy. Where people from national governments are bought by EU guys with high paid jobs in EU parlament. It is not going to be good for a lot of people but it is about principles and those guys in EU parlament doing stupid things that go against local interests. There should be some balance, I take with my hands as much as I can from unified market because I live ad work in different country than I was born. But I am totally against corrupt politicians doing weird deals. If it will cost me job and life in country I am in so be it, I will go back to my country. But arrangement I have now does not need EU, it could be just countries getting together without additional layer of management without astronomic money going to some politicians.
- antpls 8y ago
  The principle of the European Union is based on democracy, and you can vote for an European party that would better defend your view at the European level. In my opinion, a country leaving the EU is equivalent of saying that democracy doesn't work and this message is dangerous. For information, less than 50% of Europeans voted at the last European elections in 2014 [1], it only depends on people to build a democratic Europe. If you disagree with your own country's laws or current government, you are not allowed to say "alright, my house is not from this country anymore, and I wont pay any taxes". In practice, you will still use all the infrastructure everybody else contributed with their taxes, plus the healthcare, and you will still want to trade with other people. Country's problems won't magically disappear after leaving the European community, the European Union is made to find collaborative solutions between countries, taking into account each countries' interests and capacities. Now, you can legitimately disagree with recent EU laws about online ads for example, but as another European myself, I welcome this regulation. So we are 2 Europeans with different opinions, and the best way to solve this is democracy, if we still want to trade together in 25ish different countries. I agree with you about politician salaries and bureaucracy, but I only see it improving in the future, when information will be better communicated and people more interested in Europeans scale issues. Anyway, we achieve balance by participating and talking, not by closing the doors in front of difficulties. [1] turnouts for EU 2014 election, by countries : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turnout.html http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014-results/en/turno... Edit : If you disagree with your current country government, maybe you will have more success at the European level, which in turn will balance your country government. Also, European politician salaries are transparent and follow a strict procedure : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/13/salaries-and-pensions http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/faq/13/salaries-and-pe... so maybe still expensive, but it could be possibly less corrupt than some of the individual countries themselves.