Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[A.steve]

On 6/1/2017 at 11:51 PM, dugsbody said:

I'm too lazy to dig anything formal out at the moment, but using some common sense and observation you'll note that all prosperous nations are those with some form of socialisation where regions which do not generate as much revenue are subsidised by central tax revenue and citizens are able to move around freely.

My challenge, to you, was to provide evidence that "we're all better off" as a result of sharing costs between regions.  My objection was two-fold:

• It seems extremely unlikely that, when comparing any two plausible alternative regimes, that every individual would benefit from adopting one over the other.
• I am doubtful that the economic/financial status-quo has been beneficial to the majority.  I am not pushing the agenda of a particular alternative...  I reject blind assertions that one regime is 'obviously' superior to another.

[rollover]

8 hours ago, A.steve said:

My challenge, to you, was to provide evidence that "we're all better off" as a result of sharing costs between regions.  My objection was two-fold:

• It seems extremely unlikely that, when comparing any two plausible alternative regimes, that every individual would benefit from adopting one over the other.
• I am doubtful that the economic/financial status-quo has been beneficial to the majority.  I am not pushing the agenda of a particular alternative...  I reject blind assertions that one regime is 'obviously' superior to another.

And why not to challenge you now?  Provide evidence that "we'll all be better off" as a result of exit EU. My objection is two-fold: your points are hypothetical and assumptions only.

[A.steve]

4 hours ago, rollover said:

And why not to challenge you now?  Provide evidence that "we'll all be better off" as a result of exit EU. My objection is two-fold: your points are hypothetical and assumptions only.

I can't complain about a reciprocal challenge - but, first, I need to point out that I've never claimed that Brexit will result in anyone being "better off".  All debate in politics is hypothetical - but my arguments were not founded on assumption so much as on rhetorical principle.

Despite 'better off' being subjective and nigh-impossible to measure/test, I believe that one critical concern is how various demographics (and individuals) are affected relative to each other.  Most political change shifts the balance of control - and often, in my opinion, this is what is most practically relevant.  Of course, while this perspective (asking who gets what share of control over their future) makes sense for individuals, it is obviously nonsense in a broader context as divvying control is a zero-sum-game.

My bias is to think Brexit was desirable are an ideological objection to the stated ideologies of the EU.  The EU claims four 'non-negotiable pillars':

1. Free trade of goods across borders.

It was for this ideology that I believe we joined the EC in 1975.  While I consider international trade to be beneficial to quality of life, I am unconvinced by arguments that this trade should be free from tariff. Why should all tariffs be applied at local level (by individual states)?  Why should import duty be abolished - shifting the burden of taxation to other government revenue streams?

2. Free movement of labour.

The pro-EU lobby refer to this as 'freedom of movement of people'.  I note that the pillar is less concerned by individual liberties than by the right of corporate to 'shop' between nation states for maximum advantage relative to their labour force, and to avoid taxes relating to employment.  I am in favour of freedom of movement of people, but am opposed to absolute freedom of movement of labour - as a principle.

3. Free trade in services

Why should it be OK for services provided locally be subject to taxation - but services provided remotely, across borders, to be exempt?

4. Free movement of capital.

It makes sense that the wealthiest will want free international movement of capital... it does not make sense, to me, that the right to shift capital (free from any cost) to avoid taxation is something that is always beneficial to a wider public.

 

If I were to sum-up these four pillars, I'd say that they are designed to undermine sovereignty by hobbling the ability of governments to service their (considerable) sovereign debts.  At the absolute least, I think these political questions demand public debate. I accept that some doubt that sovereign states are the most beneficial structure for secular life... and, I readily admit, nationalism does not have an optimum track record.  That said, I note that sovereign debt underpins our monetary system; that (what passes for) democracy is arranged to national boundaries; that secular law follows the same national boundaries and that nation states define the (perhaps arbitrary) current foundation for civil society.  I think that undermining the imperfect system of governance we have, without first having public acceptance for the regime that will replace it, courted the worst kind of disaster - not just for Britain, but for all of Europe and the wider world.

 

 

 

[thecrashingisles]

2 hours ago, A.steve said:

That said, I note that sovereign debt underpins our monetary system; that (what passes for) democracy is arranged to national boundaries; that secular law follows the same national boundaries and that nation states define the (perhaps arbitrary) current foundation for civil society.  I think that undermining the imperfect system of governance we have, without first having public acceptance for the regime that will replace it, courted the worst kind of disaster - not just for Britain, but for all of Europe and the wider world.

How old are you Steve?  Europe and European law and institutions have been part of our system of governance since 1973.  It is Brexit that undermines the long-standing status quo, not vice versa.

[Errol]

Yes, and nobody who voted to join in the first referendum was voting for anything even close to what we have now.

Loads of the people who voted to join originally, voted to leave this time - correctly recognising the catastrophic mistake they made previously.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Errol

[A.steve]

45 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

How old are you Steve?  Europe and European law and institutions have been part of our system of governance since 1973.  It is Brexit that undermines the long-standing status quo, not vice versa.

Perhaps ironically, I was born at around the time the UK joined the EU.   You are right that Brexit represents a significant change to the political status-quo... however, I contend, remaining in the EU would (slowly) imply a much larger change to the status-quo of sovereign government.

[thecrashingisles]

10 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Perhaps ironically, I was born at around the time the UK joined the EU.   You are right that Brexit represents a significant change to the political status-quo... however, I contend, remaining in the EU would (slowly) imply a much larger change to the status-quo of sovereign government.

There has never been such a status quo. You are harking back to an idealised vision that never really existed.

[ccc]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

There has never been such a status quo. You are harking back to an idealised vision that never really existed.

What ?

The UK never being in the EU ?

[A.steve]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

There has never been such a status quo. You are harking back to an idealised vision that never really existed.

I disagree.  I do not look at history through rose-tinted spectacles... but I do recognise centuries as a sovereign nation versus decades engaging with the EU.

[pig]

13 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I disagree.  I do not look at history through rose-tinted spectacles... but I do recognise centuries as a sovereign nation versus decades engaging with the EU.

What sort of glasses are they then ? We are a sovereign nation.

[Riedquat]

16 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I disagree.  I do not look at history through rose-tinted spectacles... but I do recognise centuries as a sovereign nation versus decades engaging with the EU.

There's a certain mentality that refuses to acknowledge that any aspect of anything in the past can possibly be better than now or learned from, now is the best in every possible way, and you're looking through rose-tinted spectacles if you think otherwise. They must be struggling a bit since "now" is "after we voted for Brexit."

Edited June 4, 2017 by Riedquat

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

There has never been such a status quo. You are harking back to an idealised vision that never really existed.

There have been things more like it. Don't mistake a lack of perfection and perhaps different problems for not being better than the current situation, even if not ideal.

[pig]

13 minutes ago, A.steve said:

I disagree.  I do not look at history through rose-tinted spectacles... but I do recognise centuries as a sovereign nation versus decades engaging with the EU.

What sort of glasses are they then ? We are a sovereign nation.

[pig]

7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

There's a certain mentality that refuses to acknowledge that any aspect of anything in the past can possibly be better than now or learned from, now is the best in every possible way, and you're looking through rose-tinted spectacles if you think otherwise. They must be struggling a bit since "now" is "after we voted for Brexit."

Yes of course. And the biggest problem with politics at the moment is how progressive it is ?

[Peter Hun]

 

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

There has never been such a status quo. You are harking back to an idealised vision that never really existed.

 

Of course, when we weren't a member of the EU we held the proud title of 'the Sick Man of Europe'.

[A.steve]

10 minutes ago, pig said:

What sort of glasses are they then ? We are a sovereign nation.

My spectacles seem to be best at distinguishing between black/white and grey.

Some might argue, for example, that Britain (England) has not had absolute sovereignty since 1692.

[Riedquat]

2 minutes ago, A.steve said:

Some might argue, for example, that Britain (England) has not had absolute sovereignty since 1692.

Some do, and laughably they use that as defence of the EU because same fing innit?

[thecrashingisles]

37 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

There have been things more like it. Don't mistake a lack of perfection and perhaps different problems for not being better than the current situation, even if not ideal.

The current situation is better than we had before.  To paraphrase Churchill, the EU is the worst version of Europe apart from all the other Europes that have been tried.

[pig]

28 minutes ago, A.steve said:

My spectacles seem to be best at distinguishing between black/white and grey.

Some might argue, for example, that Britain (England) has not had absolute sovereignty since 1692.

Best just take them off and try to work out what sovereignty actually is.

People have come up with any old crap to try and screw up our relationship with those 27 countries - it's been more a question of 'whatever it takes' rather than 'wtf am I talking about' - I guess 1692 is part of the fun !

[A.steve]

6 minutes ago, pig said:

Best just take them off and try to work out what sovereignty actually is.

[kzb]

On ‎02‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 5:09 PM, maverick73 said:

I'll presume these industries will feel some pain.....

6. Aerospace

British Jobs: 110,000

Share of exports to the EU: 47%

Britain has one of the biggest Aerospace sectors in the world, many of whom work for plane manufacturer Airbus, a joint venture between France, Germany, Spain and the UK. 

<EDIT>

 

The parliamentary  Brexit committee interviewed high level Aerospace executives a few months back.  It was on the BBC parliament channel.

Apparently there is already free trade in aircraft parts, virtually world-wide, via another treaty.  Because of this, they didn't seem concerned that Brexit would impact this area of their business.  Make of that what you will.

[Funn3r]

19 hours ago, pig said:

What sort of glasses are they then ? We are a sovereign nation.

No we are not and I am bored with being told that it's more or less my duty to help regain "our sovereignity" by Brexiting from the EU Union. We would still be in the UK Union and people from other countries can still come to England as they please. My non-support for Brexit is easy to explain - there are losses in it for me personally and no gains. 

[Confusion of VIs]

38 minutes ago, kzb said:

The parliamentary  Brexit committee interviewed high level Aerospace executives a few months back.  It was on the BBC parliament channel.

Apparently there is already free trade in aircraft parts, virtually world-wide, via another treaty.  Because of this, they didn't seem concerned that Brexit would impact this area of their business.  Make of that what you will.

I recall an article shortly after the vote where the Chief Executive of airbus said that his biggest concern was not tariffs it was the additional costs and inflexibility that would be incurred if we left the single market (arising from non tariff barriers and loss of FoM for his staff).

 

[Riedquat]

4 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

No we are not and I am bored with being told that it's more or less my duty to help regain "our sovereignity" by Brexiting from the EU Union. We would still be in the UK Union and people from other countries can still come to England as they please. My non-support for Brexit is easy to explain - there are losses in it for me personally and no gains. 

And because the UK remains a union you think "there's one with a small area that's got a pretty close history, so any old union is OK?" Right... And what do you lose that's really worth having, that really makes life better for you - or are you just one of those who over-simplifies to "someone said there's more wealth and that's the only thing that matters to me?" (which completely overlooks that being irrelevent unless you also consider how it's used)

[Funn3r]

8 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And because the UK remains a union you think "there's one with a small area that's got a pretty close history, so any old union is OK?" Right... And what do you lose that's really worth having, that really makes life better for you - or are you just one of those who over-simplifies to "someone said there's more wealth and that's the only thing that matters to me?" (which completely overlooks that being irrelevent unless you also consider how it's used)

You are either for sovereignity or you're not, and if you are for it you should be against being in the UK.