6 ms·

I started out wanting the best deal for the UK but now I hope the EU cut the ties. It's Trump level insanity!

by Daho0n 6y ago

Bostonian 6y ago
Why should not the UK and EU trade freely, given that free trade benefits both parties, even after the UK has left the EU? It's my impression that the EU want to punish the UK for leaving to deter others from leaving.
- ris 6y ago
  There's not really any such thing as "free trade". All purported "free trade" has conditions attached, whether you see them or not. A government's ability to enforce regulations on its companies (be it over consumer protection, safety, workers rights, standards compliance...) is undermined if companies from another country can "free trade" across the border while not themselves being beholden to any of those restrictions. Therefore any such "free trade" agreement has limits and usually involves some sort of harmonization of standards.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  Free movement of goods and persons is part of the EU's mission. However, if the British democratically decide they no longer want to participate, then the EU has no option but to respect their wishes.
- atoav 6y ago
  What is the purpose of having a club if you give non-members the same treatment? In addition to that as soons as the UK diverges in law or regulations enough, free trade will not be possible at all until these differences are handled from both sides in trade deals. This is why unilateral changes are self destructive.
- simonboulton 6y ago
  The UK was in a single market and a customs union which it decided to leave. For those international readers not familiar with what's gone on, here's an analogy. You're in a gym club. You pay a fee. And there are membership rules. You get to use the machines and pool for free. You meet other members and have watercooler chats. There's a doorman who stops undesirable visitors. You get a vote to decide on the way in which the club runs. Then you decide that being in the club isn't for you any more. So you leave. And you don't have to pay the membership fee. But you can't use the machines or pool any more. or have any other benefits that you had as a member. Most people would agree that is reasonable. The UK left the biggest free market and customs union group in the world and asked to be treated like any other country not in the EU. The EU has done nothing more than accede to the UK's wishes to leave the EU. It seems that some people who voted the UK's departure from the UK actually had little idea what that meant in practical terms and are now complaining about the loss of their membership benefits.
  - Bostonian 6y ago
    I think that's a bad analogy, because the gym club does not benefit from your using the gym, only your paying dues. The ideal gym member pays dues but never comes. By contrast, the EU benefits from buying things from and selling things to the UK. Products made in the UK did not suddenly become less safe because of Brexit.
    - raattgift 6y ago
      I think you could have exercised your thinking in another direction by improving the analogy by e.g. considering a cooperative gym where in addition to fees, the members are required to take an active part in maintenance of the facilities and equipment, enforcement of the rules, hiring and supervising the day-to-day staff (including top paid management), and so forth, and in exchange are not merely allowed access to and use of the facilities, but a share of any surpluses returned from its activities (applied as discounts, or returned outright as a rebate). Sometimes upon finding a flaw in an analogy it is at least self-instructive to consider whether the flaw can be repaired rather than abandoned :: sometimes upon finding a flaw in a cooperative venture it is at least worth considering how the flaw can be repaired rather than withdrawing from the cooperative venture.
      - yawboakye 6y ago
        Analogies are not tools for arguments. They change the environment of the situation, tweak severity, and cut corners and successively (and in fact criminally) gloss over important details in the real scenario.
        raattgift 6y ago
        Is hyperbole? "Criminally", really? Analogies are perfectly fine ways to throw away superfluous detail to focus on salient matters. Of course there are bad analogies, including, as you imply, those deliberately chosen so as to throw away relevant detail, however one can still improve such analogies rather than reject them -- let alone all analogies -- out of hand. Not only are they tools for arguments -- proof by existence -- but they are frequently useful tools for resolving arguments, precisely because they can help choose which are the important details in the real scenario. "Your analogy can be improved by <insert idea>" is also simply more friendly than "all analogies are terrible" or even "your analogy is terrible", which is something to bear in mind if you enjoy friendly debates.
- Arnt 6y ago
  The difference you don't get is about law. The EU might be regarded as a free trade area with a bunch of extra features related to common rules, laws and courts. Everyone is subject to the same law and same courts, and that enables a lot of optimisations, some big, some small. You can see this for the current bivalve affair. The EU rules basically say that since everyone from the grower to the final consumer answer to the same court and obey the same law, various processing can happen anywhere along the chain and the same liability/hygiene/safety rules apply everywhere. However, if the grower is in one legal domain and the consumer in another, then some processing has to happen within the grower's legal domain, before it crosses the border. The UK would like to have the benefits of the optimisations, but decide on their own laws and not answer to the same court as the others. That won't work, because the benefits derive from being within the same legal domain. No amount of good or ill will will change that.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  That is irrelevant. A deal was made, it was broken. A new deal was made, it too was broken. The UK is untrustworthy and should not be included in deals until it proves it can live up to the older deals. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I started out wanting the best deal for the UK but now I hope the EU cut the ties. It's Trump level insanity!

by Daho0n 6y ago

I started out wanting the best deal for the UK but now I hope the EU cut the ties. It's Trump level insanity!

Why should not the UK and EU trade freely, given that free trade benefits both parties, even after the UK has left the EU? It's my impression that the EU want to punish the UK for leaving to deter others from leaving.

ris 6y ago
There's not really any such thing as "free trade". All purported "free trade" has conditions attached, whether you see them or not. A government's ability to enforce regulations on its companies (be it over consumer protection, safety, workers rights, standards compliance...) is undermined if companies from another country can "free trade" across the border while not themselves being beholden to any of those restrictions. Therefore any such "free trade" agreement has limits and usually involves some sort of harmonization of standards.
Kim_Bruning 6y ago
Free movement of goods and persons is part of the EU's mission. However, if the British democratically decide they no longer want to participate, then the EU has no option but to respect their wishes.
atoav 6y ago
What is the purpose of having a club if you give non-members the same treatment? In addition to that as soons as the UK diverges in law or regulations enough, free trade will not be possible at all until these differences are handled from both sides in trade deals. This is why unilateral changes are self destructive.
simonboulton 6y ago
The UK was in a single market and a customs union which it decided to leave. For those international readers not familiar with what's gone on, here's an analogy. You're in a gym club. You pay a fee. And there are membership rules. You get to use the machines and pool for free. You meet other members and have watercooler chats. There's a doorman who stops undesirable visitors. You get a vote to decide on the way in which the club runs. Then you decide that being in the club isn't for you any more. So you leave. And you don't have to pay the membership fee. But you can't use the machines or pool any more. or have any other benefits that you had as a member. Most people would agree that is reasonable. The UK left the biggest free market and customs union group in the world and asked to be treated like any other country not in the EU. The EU has done nothing more than accede to the UK's wishes to leave the EU. It seems that some people who voted the UK's departure from the UK actually had little idea what that meant in practical terms and are now complaining about the loss of their membership benefits.
- Bostonian 6y ago
  I think that's a bad analogy, because the gym club does not benefit from your using the gym, only your paying dues. The ideal gym member pays dues but never comes. By contrast, the EU benefits from buying things from and selling things to the UK. Products made in the UK did not suddenly become less safe because of Brexit.
  - raattgift 6y ago
    I think you could have exercised your thinking in another direction by improving the analogy by e.g. considering a cooperative gym where in addition to fees, the members are required to take an active part in maintenance of the facilities and equipment, enforcement of the rules, hiring and supervising the day-to-day staff (including top paid management), and so forth, and in exchange are not merely allowed access to and use of the facilities, but a share of any surpluses returned from its activities (applied as discounts, or returned outright as a rebate). Sometimes upon finding a flaw in an analogy it is at least self-instructive to consider whether the flaw can be repaired rather than abandoned :: sometimes upon finding a flaw in a cooperative venture it is at least worth considering how the flaw can be repaired rather than withdrawing from the cooperative venture.
    - yawboakye 6y ago
      Analogies are not tools for arguments. They change the environment of the situation, tweak severity, and cut corners and successively (and in fact criminally) gloss over important details in the real scenario.
      - raattgift 6y ago
        Is hyperbole? "Criminally", really? Analogies are perfectly fine ways to throw away superfluous detail to focus on salient matters. Of course there are bad analogies, including, as you imply, those deliberately chosen so as to throw away relevant detail, however one can still improve such analogies rather than reject them -- let alone all analogies -- out of hand. Not only are they tools for arguments -- proof by existence -- but they are frequently useful tools for resolving arguments, precisely because they can help choose which are the important details in the real scenario. "Your analogy can be improved by <insert idea>" is also simply more friendly than "all analogies are terrible" or even "your analogy is terrible", which is something to bear in mind if you enjoy friendly debates.
Arnt 6y ago
The difference you don't get is about law. The EU might be regarded as a free trade area with a bunch of extra features related to common rules, laws and courts. Everyone is subject to the same law and same courts, and that enables a lot of optimisations, some big, some small. You can see this for the current bivalve affair. The EU rules basically say that since everyone from the grower to the final consumer answer to the same court and obey the same law, various processing can happen anywhere along the chain and the same liability/hygiene/safety rules apply everywhere. However, if the grower is in one legal domain and the consumer in another, then some processing has to happen within the grower's legal domain, before it crosses the border. The UK would like to have the benefits of the optimisations, but decide on their own laws and not answer to the same court as the others. That won't work, because the benefits derive from being within the same legal domain. No amount of good or ill will will change that.
Daho0n 6y ago
That is irrelevant. A deal was made, it was broken. A new deal was made, it too was broken. The UK is untrustworthy and should not be included in deals until it proves it can live up to the older deals. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.