6 ms·

It talks about "connectedness" which means basically the same thing. Why should the UK be disconnected without the EU?

rini17 7y ago
Because UK (government) insists on disconnection from all agreements with EU without seriously trying to put new ones in place.
georgespencer 7y ago
> It talks about "connectedness" which means basically the same thing. I think you might be imbuing that word with meaning which isn't conveyed in the article. Or at least: nobody else has yet stated that they also read 'connectedness' to mean 'trade', and even re-reading the article with this calibration I do not see how it is an easily drawn conclusion. Let me know if you think any of the below is wrongheaded: Connectedness comes up three times in the article. Firstly as the CEO of Airbus talks about the possibility for needing to leave the UK due to the economic uncertainty created by Brexit. The author refers to the jobs "connected" to their supply chain: he is, I think, trying to create a sense of the ripple effect of Brexit through employment and trade. The second occurrence of 'connectedness' is much tighter: Friedman cites Hagel (he of Deloitte fame, not he of Dialectic fame!) in a thread about how connectedness to flows of knowledge and resource are more important than fixed stockpiles. The argument is that building moats and protecting IP, intelligence, systems, etc. from competitors is less important than continuous collaboration and innovation. I believe this approaches a central point of the entire Brexit debate. The debate is not so much regarding the possible outcomes of Brexit, but whether those outcomes are good or bad news in the final analysis. The argument the author makes here is that the 'leave' instinct is based on an outdated model for how things work in 2019. And perhaps it's wrong. But that's the argument. Not that we cannot trade, but that like the court of Hrothgar, seeking to build up figurative walls (and again: not saying "no trade") is a net negative. The final mention of 'connectedness' is in relation to trade! But it's a reiteration that our leadership seems to want to unplug us from a connected world (I don't think you would disagree that the European Union is connected, and Britain is trying to disconnect from it; and I also don't think you would disagree that this metaphor of connectedness is not anything to do with trade), and that Trump is pushing for that because he sees us as economically weaker without the European Union, and that the breakup of the EU would be advantageous for him. Again: nothing about trade here. > Why should the UK be disconnected without the EU? I'm afraid you're once again submitting a straw man. The article does not say that we are not connected without the EU. It says that we are disconnecting from the EU. The article specifically goes on to discuss ways in which forming connections with other nations are challenging.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  I must admit I had skimmed the article a bit, and on second reading it seems to talk more about some vague kind of information flow. I think that is just - vague. It's not even a concrete threat that can be discussed. What exactly is the point? There will be no information flow after the EU? Same argument as before applies: countries have exchanged information for Millenia before the EU. And if they mean "knowledge workers" - highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. These walls and moats have doors and bridges. Just like everybody's home. As a European, I don't feel particularly connected to other EU countries, by the way. I have no regular exchange with Greek or Italian people. The EU has made some web sites inaccessible to me, so at the moment it is rather the opposite of "connected". Usually, people communicate freely on the internet, independent of trade agreements. Unless they are stuck in socialist countries like China - and where would I go if Europe would turn into one? I prefer having some smaller countries to fall back on in case of emergency.
  - georgespencer 7y ago
    > What exactly is the point? Something like: "We are better with closer ties and connections to the European Union. Brexit furthers us from them." > countries have exchanged information [...] before the EU This is true but quite a simplification. I don't mean to be rude, but for the sake of a simple analogy, think of Donald Trump when he was questioned about the need for cyber security: he began talking about how good his ten year old son is with computers. For a slightly more nuanced perspective: only EU Member states can be members of Europol and benefit from full access to SIENA, which is one of the most sophisticated and well-developed cross-border intelligence networks in the world. When the UK leaves the European Union, our ability for full membership ceases and we must enter into a separate form of agreement for limited participation in information sharing and forgo any kind of strategic or governance over the initiative. So, yes, we can continue to exchange information. But the ways in which we do that change meaningfully, and to the extent that people I know who work in the security services are dismayed by the thoughtlessness of the discourse. > highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? Again, this strikes me as simplistic. There seems to be a belief amongst some (not necessarily you) that it's simply one type of form for an EU state importing to the UK, and a different type for a non-EU member. What we are seeing is the erosion of one of, if not the most open, comprehensive trading blocs ever devised. It is not being replaced by like-for-like systems and benefits for trade and immigration precisely because there is already a system for that: it's called membership of the EU. So take it as read that on a structural level trade and immigration cannot be as simple as they were on reciprocal EU terms. The EU will not allow it. So it's getting harder to trade with the UK or migrate here. The UK will likely see some short term wins -- small UK offices for organisations, commensurate with our market size -- but our strong position for the establishment of European HQs is significantly damaged. In a world where skilled migrants can work anywhere, why would they be going to the country which just opted to make it harder to do business? Which has seen its currency collapse since the minutes after the vote in 2016? There are no firm answers in either direction, but you have to do quite a lot of gymnastics to explain why making it harder to trade with us is better in any way. > As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. It's very simple. We are making it harder to trade with the European Union. We are making it harder to migrate to and from the European Union. These are not qualitative statements. It's up to you whether you see this as a necessary moat, or a wall of requirement; or a pointless wall. Same as with Trump and his southern border wall. Some people in the US feel it's urgently needed. Others think those who believe it will have benefits are fantasists. But either way the wall is real. > Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. Again, very simplistic. I'll refer you back to the Europol explanation to illustrate how just because something is technically possible, does not mean it is still as likely once it is made artificially difficult. The United Kingdom, many would argue, is not going to be in position to dictate who is allowed to come and go, in a business sense. We will lose the fight for major investment outside of the financial services sector to European nation states.

Because UK (government) insists on disconnection from all agreements with EU without seriously trying to put new ones in place.

georgespencer 7y ago

> It talks about "connectedness" which means basically the same thing. I think you might be imbuing that word with meaning which isn't conveyed in the article. Or at least: nobody else has yet stated that they also read 'connectedness' to mean 'trade', and even re-reading the article with this calibration I do not see how it is an easily drawn conclusion. Let me know if you think any of the below is wrongheaded: Connectedness comes up three times in the article. Firstly as the CEO of Airbus talks about the possibility for needing to leave the UK due to the economic uncertainty created by Brexit. The author refers to the jobs "connected" to their supply chain: he is, I think, trying to create a sense of the ripple effect of Brexit through employment and trade. The second occurrence of 'connectedness' is much tighter: Friedman cites Hagel (he of Deloitte fame, not he of Dialectic fame!) in a thread about how connectedness to flows of knowledge and resource are more important than fixed stockpiles. The argument is that building moats and protecting IP, intelligence, systems, etc. from competitors is less important than continuous collaboration and innovation. I believe this approaches a central point of the entire Brexit debate. The debate is not so much regarding the possible outcomes of Brexit, but whether those outcomes are good or bad news in the final analysis. The argument the author makes here is that the 'leave' instinct is based on an outdated model for how things work in 2019. And perhaps it's wrong. But that's the argument. Not that we cannot trade, but that like the court of Hrothgar, seeking to build up figurative walls (and again: not saying "no trade") is a net negative. The final mention of 'connectedness' is in relation to trade! But it's a reiteration that our leadership seems to want to unplug us from a connected world (I don't think you would disagree that the European Union is connected, and Britain is trying to disconnect from it; and I also don't think you would disagree that this metaphor of connectedness is not anything to do with trade), and that Trump is pushing for that because he sees us as economically weaker without the European Union, and that the breakup of the EU would be advantageous for him. Again: nothing about trade here. > Why should the UK be disconnected without the EU? I'm afraid you're once again submitting a straw man. The article does not say that we are not connected without the EU. It says that we are disconnecting from the EU. The article specifically goes on to discuss ways in which forming connections with other nations are challenging.

bubblewrap 7y ago
I must admit I had skimmed the article a bit, and on second reading it seems to talk more about some vague kind of information flow. I think that is just - vague. It's not even a concrete threat that can be discussed. What exactly is the point? There will be no information flow after the EU? Same argument as before applies: countries have exchanged information for Millenia before the EU. And if they mean "knowledge workers" - highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. These walls and moats have doors and bridges. Just like everybody's home. As a European, I don't feel particularly connected to other EU countries, by the way. I have no regular exchange with Greek or Italian people. The EU has made some web sites inaccessible to me, so at the moment it is rather the opposite of "connected". Usually, people communicate freely on the internet, independent of trade agreements. Unless they are stuck in socialist countries like China - and where would I go if Europe would turn into one? I prefer having some smaller countries to fall back on in case of emergency.
- georgespencer 7y ago
  > What exactly is the point? Something like: "We are better with closer ties and connections to the European Union. Brexit furthers us from them." > countries have exchanged information [...] before the EU This is true but quite a simplification. I don't mean to be rude, but for the sake of a simple analogy, think of Donald Trump when he was questioned about the need for cyber security: he began talking about how good his ten year old son is with computers. For a slightly more nuanced perspective: only EU Member states can be members of Europol and benefit from full access to SIENA, which is one of the most sophisticated and well-developed cross-border intelligence networks in the world. When the UK leaves the European Union, our ability for full membership ceases and we must enter into a separate form of agreement for limited participation in information sharing and forgo any kind of strategic or governance over the initiative. So, yes, we can continue to exchange information. But the ways in which we do that change meaningfully, and to the extent that people I know who work in the security services are dismayed by the thoughtlessness of the discourse. > highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? Again, this strikes me as simplistic. There seems to be a belief amongst some (not necessarily you) that it's simply one type of form for an EU state importing to the UK, and a different type for a non-EU member. What we are seeing is the erosion of one of, if not the most open, comprehensive trading blocs ever devised. It is not being replaced by like-for-like systems and benefits for trade and immigration precisely because there is already a system for that: it's called membership of the EU. So take it as read that on a structural level trade and immigration cannot be as simple as they were on reciprocal EU terms. The EU will not allow it. So it's getting harder to trade with the UK or migrate here. The UK will likely see some short term wins -- small UK offices for organisations, commensurate with our market size -- but our strong position for the establishment of European HQs is significantly damaged. In a world where skilled migrants can work anywhere, why would they be going to the country which just opted to make it harder to do business? Which has seen its currency collapse since the minutes after the vote in 2016? There are no firm answers in either direction, but you have to do quite a lot of gymnastics to explain why making it harder to trade with us is better in any way. > As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. It's very simple. We are making it harder to trade with the European Union. We are making it harder to migrate to and from the European Union. These are not qualitative statements. It's up to you whether you see this as a necessary moat, or a wall of requirement; or a pointless wall. Same as with Trump and his southern border wall. Some people in the US feel it's urgently needed. Others think those who believe it will have benefits are fantasists. But either way the wall is real. > Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. Again, very simplistic. I'll refer you back to the Europol explanation to illustrate how just because something is technically possible, does not mean it is still as likely once it is made artificially difficult. The United Kingdom, many would argue, is not going to be in position to dictate who is allowed to come and go, in a business sense. We will lose the fight for major investment outside of the financial services sector to European nation states.