4 ms·

The voters of Britain made their choice and now they must deal with the consequences as best they can. Leaving the EU customs union was an own-goal when the EU

The voters of Britain made their choice and now they must deal with the consequences as best they can. Leaving the EU customs union was an own-goal when the EU is Britain's largest trading partner. There's too much money to be made in simplifying the customs rules, so that rollback is perhaps inevitable. The viability of the EU as a political union, though, remains to be seen. It is not clear that European politics will ever transcend nationalism. The last two world wars started in Europe for nationalist reasons. The third one probably will too. The challenges that face all of us cannot be solved by nation-states. We are already seeing EU nations grumble about supplying weapons to Ukraine to counter Russian aggression. The Ukrainians have shown themselves to be capable warfighters. The Russians have shown themselves to be consummate bullies. European politicians remain focused on narrow national interests in the face of Putin's imperialist plans. "It is not in our national interest to support Ukraine," says Orban. He will say that until Russian tanks are again on the streets of Budapest. Perhaps even after. The only time Europe was politically a unit was during the Roman empire, and that included large parts of North Africa. I don't see the EU expanding that far. Heck I don't see them admitting Turkey. All because European politics is still based on nationalist interests. It is here that Britain was perhaps wise to leave the EU. The EU is an insular club of developed nations that are socially liberal but ultimately inward-looking conservatives seeking to preserve a privileged status-quo. If the EU cannot innovate, it seeks to regulate - e.g. GDPR, and AI. Such a project fails to engage with the dynamic world and is doomed to failure.

weatherlite 3y ago
> Heck I don't see them admitting Turkey Should they? Why? Should the U.S create a union with Mexico?
- thriftwy 3y ago
  They (EU countries) allowed Turkey to court them for a long time and get expensive treats then bailed out of it by ghosting Turkey. Do they have to admit Turkey? Hell no. Is it a sign of a good personality? Also no.
  - weatherlite 3y ago
    There's zero political will to admit Turkey, that's the reality. The biggest hurdle is values, culture and democratic rule. Turkey's democracy is retreating and instead you get something like a dictatorship with a bit of Islamic chauvinism thrown in. If there were ever serious considerations about Turkey (I kinda doubt it) I'm positive it was before Erdogan's current rule. And yeah, let's not pretend that the religion issue doesn't play any part - of course it does. The EU wants to remain secular Christian. Ghosting, good personality, nobody cares. The EU isn't going to commit political suicide because of optics.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  It’s not the same, but we have had EU like agreements such as NAFTA.
  - Whoppertime 3y ago
    NAFTA is designed to remove barriers to trade EU is designed to create common rules or quality standards which if you fail to pass you cannot trade. AKA Trade barriers!
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      I wouldn’t call common rules or quality “trade barriers”. That’s just regulation which you could have even within a country.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  > Should the U.S create a union with Mexico? Yes and they sort of already have.
  - weatherlite 3y ago
    What do you mean "sort of" have ? They don't. There's no currency union and no free movement union like the EU, it's not the same thing at all. Mexicans who want to go to the U.S basically trespass illegally and try to stay in all kinds of ways (an issue that is becoming yet again an election topic). Germans who want to move to France simply move to France.
- MrMan 3y ago
  [dead]
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  Yes. We should do all we can to make sure goods and labor can flow. National boundaries make it easier to export your capital than to export your skill set.
tim333 3y ago
Well some of the voters. 17 million people voted leave out of the UKs 67 million population. I went on a couple of marches to ask for a second vote where it was clearer what the deal is but apparently it's only real democracy if you don't know which option you are voting for. I rather doubt that if people had had the choice between how things were and the current hard brexit with lorry queues for extensive paperwork to export anything to Europe that leave would have won.
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  David Cameron owns this mess on the referendum. Joining the EEC was a supermajority vote in the 1970s. Leaving it should have been similar.
- rstuart4133 3y ago
  > 17 million people voted leave out of the UKs 67 million population. As an Australian looking on at UK and USA politics, a month doesn't go by where I don't think "there, but for compulsory voting, go us". We have in our parliaments the some of same "sell my grandmother for a vote" politicians as everywhere else. But once their true colours become apparent the system corrects immediately. As in, in my local state there was a change in government after a decade, who by rights should have had their 10 years in office. But among many stellar decisions like "lets make bikies in jails wear pink - that'll show them", got thrown out after one term. It's ironic how it plays out. Most Australian's don't believe many of their fellow citizens are smart enough to vote, and many strenuously object to be forced to vote. And, when everyone votes, the result is very mediocre. Mediocre, as in unimaginative, unsurprising, toward the centre, we don't want no stinkin' idealists thank you very much. It seems the common man underestimates himself.
OliveMate 3y ago
>The voters of Britain made their choice and now they must deal with the consequences as best they can. I get why I've seen this sort of comment for the last 7 years but I dislike the idea that Brexit was a unaminous decision when when Leave got ~52% of the vote share. --- I don't know what else I can really say. I resent the political elite and news sector for turning what ought to have been a serious discussion into an energised hellscape that made us all belligerent arses. A ~4% vote margin felt rather middling for what was championed as a total victory and casus belli for immediately pulling us out of everything EU – and then everything after became omnishambles. And then despite all of this, no-one had any solid unified idea on what leaving actually meant. Some folks wanted to stay in the customs union, the common market, a good contingent wanted us to leave without any deal with the EU for... Reasons? No-one really sat down and seriously discussed it, which was why it was a surprise when the prospect of leaving Euratom and losing encryped access to the Galileo Satellite System[1] eventually came up. Now for the voters going for Boris Johnson's Conservatives in 2019? People were absolutely fed up of the years of political deadlock and dither, especially after the EU extended the Article 15 period which was promptly wasted. Johnson's pledge to get it over with was what vast swathes of the coutnry wanted to hear (alongside the opposition leader at the time being unpopular), and unfortunately that was tied to everything else his premiership brought. ... God, I haven't thought about Brexit in years. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44232269 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44232269
dfawcus 3y ago
Leaving the CU was inevitable in leaving the EU, since the core of the ToR is a CU. We could have left the EU and (in theory) re-joined EFTA, then kept the EEA agreement operational. That would have left us with SM membership, and aligning customs tariffs would have removed any point in agreeing to a new CU. It still would have left VAT deals, etc to be agreed. However that is all water under the bridge.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Leaving the CU was inevitable in leaving the EU You don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EU customs union. Monaco is not an EU member state, yet it is a member of the EU customs union. In fact, post-Brexit, the UK remains a member of the EU customs union, but only with respect to Akrotiri and Dhekelia (British exclaves in Cyprus). (Additionally, the UK is negotiating with the EU and Spain for Gibraltar to join the Schengen area, and it is possible Gibraltar may also join the EU customs union as part of that.) The EU also has (narrower) customs unions with Andorra, San Marino and Turkey. The UK could have remained in a customs union with the EU at Brexit, if that had been negotiated as part of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU might have been willing, but the UK made clear they weren't interested. The justification given by the UK, is that staying in (or rejoining) the EU customs union would reduce the UK's ability to make independent trade deals. However, the promised benefits of that ability have thus far failed to eventuate.
  - dfawcus 3y ago
    > You don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EU customs union. Yes you do. Read the ToR. > Monaco is not an EU member state, yet it is a member of the EU customs union. That is _a_ customs union with the EU, not _the_ EU customs union. c.f. that with Turkey. As to being in a customs union with the EU, it would have been pointless given the existence of the SM. Negotiating to be in the SM would have been much more useful. The SM was created because the CU had been stretched as much as it could, and could not really add any more value. The major changes, and improvements in movements of goods came post '94, once the SM was operational. Being in the SM, together with (unilateral) customs duties alignment would have been sufficient, and rendered moot any additional gain from being in a CU. Having an additional standalone VAT agreement would have removed any remaining barriers. However, that is all rather moot now.
foverzar 3y ago
> until Russian tanks are again on the streets of Budapest Maybe instead of consuming propaganda about "evil Russia", you should figure out the real reasons behind its actions. These narratives are so detached from reality and cause-effect that I actually expect that propaganda will unironically declare a win for Ukraine once Russia achieves its goals there.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Maybe instead of merely dropping criticism, you should drop some knowledge. What, in your view, are the real reasons behind Russia's actions, and what is your evidence that those are the real reasons?
  - foverzar 3y ago
    > Instead of What would be the fun of that? Anyway, it's not like people would even care unless you poke holes in their ideas first. > What, in your view, are the real reasons behind Russia's actions Fulfilling its role in Minsk agreements that it is legally bound to, duh. Spiced by assuming no good faith or credibility from its former western partners, who at this point even publicly confessed that they were lying about these agreements in the first place. > and what is your evidence that those are the real reasons These kind of questions kind of stagger me, because they are like "what's your evidence that the sky is blue and Earth is round". I guess largely because it is a simple, yet very concrete and grounded cause-effect that doesn't require inventing an alternate reality or a new prognosis each time a new datapoint presents itself. It is definitely more realistic than fantasizing about "Russian tanks in Budapest" or explaining every specific bit of reality with vaguest, maximalist and most intangible crap.
- tycho-newman 3y ago
  Russia is paranoid about NATO expansion in the belief it faces an existential threat. The reality is that Russia is a has-been power, riven with oligarch corruption and a GDP the size of Italy. Russia’s biggest threat is itself and always has been. The clearest manifestation of Russia being its own worst enemy was Prigozhin’s march on Moscow. But in a fit of projection, Putin blames anyone except himself and his cronies for the state of Russia today. I’m not a Jungian, but this is classic scapegoating. Which is why supporting the Ukrainians is essential.

weatherlite 3y ago

> Heck I don't see them admitting Turkey Should they? Why? Should the U.S create a union with Mexico?

thriftwy 3y ago
They (EU countries) allowed Turkey to court them for a long time and get expensive treats then bailed out of it by ghosting Turkey. Do they have to admit Turkey? Hell no. Is it a sign of a good personality? Also no.
- weatherlite 3y ago
  There's zero political will to admit Turkey, that's the reality. The biggest hurdle is values, culture and democratic rule. Turkey's democracy is retreating and instead you get something like a dictatorship with a bit of Islamic chauvinism thrown in. If there were ever serious considerations about Turkey (I kinda doubt it) I'm positive it was before Erdogan's current rule. And yeah, let's not pretend that the religion issue doesn't play any part - of course it does. The EU wants to remain secular Christian. Ghosting, good personality, nobody cares. The EU isn't going to commit political suicide because of optics.
TheCleric 3y ago
It’s not the same, but we have had EU like agreements such as NAFTA.
- Whoppertime 3y ago
  NAFTA is designed to remove barriers to trade EU is designed to create common rules or quality standards which if you fail to pass you cannot trade. AKA Trade barriers!
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    I wouldn’t call common rules or quality “trade barriers”. That’s just regulation which you could have even within a country.
faeriechangling 3y ago
> Should the U.S create a union with Mexico? Yes and they sort of already have.
- weatherlite 3y ago
  What do you mean "sort of" have ? They don't. There's no currency union and no free movement union like the EU, it's not the same thing at all. Mexicans who want to go to the U.S basically trespass illegally and try to stay in all kinds of ways (an issue that is becoming yet again an election topic). Germans who want to move to France simply move to France.
MrMan 3y ago
[dead]
tycho-newman 3y ago
Yes. We should do all we can to make sure goods and labor can flow. National boundaries make it easier to export your capital than to export your skill set.

tim333 3y ago

Well some of the voters. 17 million people voted leave out of the UKs 67 million population. I went on a couple of marches to ask for a second vote where it was clearer what the deal is but apparently it's only real democracy if you don't know which option you are voting for. I rather doubt that if people had had the choice between how things were and the current hard brexit with lorry queues for extensive paperwork to export anything to Europe that leave would have won.

tycho-newman 3y ago
David Cameron owns this mess on the referendum. Joining the EEC was a supermajority vote in the 1970s. Leaving it should have been similar.
rstuart4133 3y ago
> 17 million people voted leave out of the UKs 67 million population. As an Australian looking on at UK and USA politics, a month doesn't go by where I don't think "there, but for compulsory voting, go us". We have in our parliaments the some of same "sell my grandmother for a vote" politicians as everywhere else. But once their true colours become apparent the system corrects immediately. As in, in my local state there was a change in government after a decade, who by rights should have had their 10 years in office. But among many stellar decisions like "lets make bikies in jails wear pink - that'll show them", got thrown out after one term. It's ironic how it plays out. Most Australian's don't believe many of their fellow citizens are smart enough to vote, and many strenuously object to be forced to vote. And, when everyone votes, the result is very mediocre. Mediocre, as in unimaginative, unsurprising, toward the centre, we don't want no stinkin' idealists thank you very much. It seems the common man underestimates himself.

OliveMate 3y ago

>The voters of Britain made their choice and now they must deal with the consequences as best they can. I get why I've seen this sort of comment for the last 7 years but I dislike the idea that Brexit was a unaminous decision when when Leave got ~52% of the vote share. --- I don't know what else I can really say. I resent the political elite and news sector for turning what ought to have been a serious discussion into an energised hellscape that made us all belligerent arses. A ~4% vote margin felt rather middling for what was championed as a total victory and casus belli for immediately pulling us out of everything EU – and then everything after became omnishambles. And then despite all of this, no-one had any solid unified idea on what leaving actually meant. Some folks wanted to stay in the customs union, the common market, a good contingent wanted us to leave without any deal with the EU for... Reasons? No-one really sat down and seriously discussed it, which was why it was a surprise when the prospect of leaving Euratom and losing encryped access to the Galileo Satellite System[1] eventually came up. Now for the voters going for Boris Johnson's Conservatives in 2019? People were absolutely fed up of the years of political deadlock and dither, especially after the EU extended the Article 15 period which was promptly wasted. Johnson's pledge to get it over with was what vast swathes of the coutnry wanted to hear (alongside the opposition leader at the time being unpopular), and unfortunately that was tied to everything else his premiership brought. ... God, I haven't thought about Brexit in years. [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44232269 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44232269

dfawcus 3y ago

Leaving the CU was inevitable in leaving the EU, since the core of the ToR is a CU. We could have left the EU and (in theory) re-joined EFTA, then kept the EEA agreement operational. That would have left us with SM membership, and aligning customs tariffs would have removed any point in agreeing to a new CU. It still would have left VAT deals, etc to be agreed. However that is all water under the bridge.

skissane 3y ago
> Leaving the CU was inevitable in leaving the EU You don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EU customs union. Monaco is not an EU member state, yet it is a member of the EU customs union. In fact, post-Brexit, the UK remains a member of the EU customs union, but only with respect to Akrotiri and Dhekelia (British exclaves in Cyprus). (Additionally, the UK is negotiating with the EU and Spain for Gibraltar to join the Schengen area, and it is possible Gibraltar may also join the EU customs union as part of that.) The EU also has (narrower) customs unions with Andorra, San Marino and Turkey. The UK could have remained in a customs union with the EU at Brexit, if that had been negotiated as part of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU might have been willing, but the UK made clear they weren't interested. The justification given by the UK, is that staying in (or rejoining) the EU customs union would reduce the UK's ability to make independent trade deals. However, the promised benefits of that ability have thus far failed to eventuate.
- dfawcus 3y ago
  > You don't need to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EU customs union. Yes you do. Read the ToR. > Monaco is not an EU member state, yet it is a member of the EU customs union. That is _a_ customs union with the EU, not _the_ EU customs union. c.f. that with Turkey. As to being in a customs union with the EU, it would have been pointless given the existence of the SM. Negotiating to be in the SM would have been much more useful. The SM was created because the CU had been stretched as much as it could, and could not really add any more value. The major changes, and improvements in movements of goods came post '94, once the SM was operational. Being in the SM, together with (unilateral) customs duties alignment would have been sufficient, and rendered moot any additional gain from being in a CU. Having an additional standalone VAT agreement would have removed any remaining barriers. However, that is all rather moot now.

foverzar 3y ago

> until Russian tanks are again on the streets of Budapest Maybe instead of consuming propaganda about "evil Russia", you should figure out the real reasons behind its actions. These narratives are so detached from reality and cause-effect that I actually expect that propaganda will unironically declare a win for Ukraine once Russia achieves its goals there.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Maybe instead of merely dropping criticism, you should drop some knowledge. What, in your view, are the real reasons behind Russia's actions, and what is your evidence that those are the real reasons?
- foverzar 3y ago
  > Instead of What would be the fun of that? Anyway, it's not like people would even care unless you poke holes in their ideas first. > What, in your view, are the real reasons behind Russia's actions Fulfilling its role in Minsk agreements that it is legally bound to, duh. Spiced by assuming no good faith or credibility from its former western partners, who at this point even publicly confessed that they were lying about these agreements in the first place. > and what is your evidence that those are the real reasons These kind of questions kind of stagger me, because they are like "what's your evidence that the sky is blue and Earth is round". I guess largely because it is a simple, yet very concrete and grounded cause-effect that doesn't require inventing an alternate reality or a new prognosis each time a new datapoint presents itself. It is definitely more realistic than fantasizing about "Russian tanks in Budapest" or explaining every specific bit of reality with vaguest, maximalist and most intangible crap.
tycho-newman 3y ago
Russia is paranoid about NATO expansion in the belief it faces an existential threat. The reality is that Russia is a has-been power, riven with oligarch corruption and a GDP the size of Italy. Russia’s biggest threat is itself and always has been. The clearest manifestation of Russia being its own worst enemy was Prigozhin’s march on Moscow. But in a fit of projection, Putin blames anyone except himself and his cronies for the state of Russia today. I’m not a Jungian, but this is classic scapegoating. Which is why supporting the Ukrainians is essential.