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

[knock out johnny]

Where I get a bit lost with the ideology of Brexit (of which some, like Dan Hannan, do make convincing cases - even if I can't agree with them) is that this reads more like an argument against Globalisation/Capitalism rather than the EU.

My thinking would be that we have different sources of power that define the economic rules of our society - and Nation States, Companies/Capital and Extra-national Clubs such as the EU are three of the most predominant.

When we diminish the power of one, this creates a vacuum that will be filled by the others.

In Brexit's case, we will or may be ripping up the rules for the EU and therefore removing this very stable, very static (and some would argue, very overbearing) power over our economy - so creating instability which may benefit some and hinder some others.

We will then prop up our Nation State's ability to control itself (as you say, redefine how the social side of our country works) or instead create an environment where capital is more welcome and so give more power to big business and big capital.

In a way, do we make ourselves poorer but better socially and so infact richer as a society (i.e. HPC meaning many are poorer, but we are more equal and so maybe better off), or do we simply chase money and capital from somewhere else to keep the status quo in a different form.

The ultimate case in point probably being Apple and Ireland recently - do we give the EU power to enforce fairness and so give big business a bloody nose when they perceive them to be operating unfairly; do we as the UK give them a bloody nose ourselves and insist they pay tax to build our definition of a better society, or do we accept that the benefits of allowing Apple to ignore the rules is a price worth paying for their favor in terms of jobs and investment?

Or another case, Hammond has been saying that new Brexit immigration rules may be waved for Banks - so we swap our control over immigration for the economic benefit that those Banks bring us. Is this right, or another form of loss of sovereignty, just not an EU one.

Who gets the power? Many proponents of Brexit would say the UK, but some of the hard-right of Brexit would rather this be given over to big capital to replace our EU overlords with big business overlords rather than build our own 'big' government to do it.

The argument would be that capital holding sway is the ultimate freedom, as capital is just people in a way, but having seen how Facebook, Amazon, Apple et all have behaved over the last decade am not sure this is not swapping one overlord for another - as capital is not much interested in society unless it has to.

Taking the UK housing market, we can see how capital ruling the roost has meant some negative social consequences in its hunt for yield.

Well.. that's my Monday ramble anyways! Not sure if that helps the discussion, but hope it does in a way,

As described in Philip Bobbitt's Shield of Achilles, we are living through the death of the nation state as we transition to a market state - everywhere. Some will lead the way, some will lag but it's inevitable

http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-375-41292-9

"The world is at a pivotal point, argues Bobbitt, as the nation-state, developed over six centuries as the optimal institution for waging war and organizing peace, gives way to the market-state. Nation-states derive legitimacy from promising to improve the material welfare of their citizens, specifically by providing security and order. Market-states offer to maximize the opportunity of their people. Nation-states use force and law to bring about desired results. Market-states use various forms of market relationships. "

[ccc]

We are a country chasing numbers instead of chasing smiles.

We've got it wrong.

[Byron]

Is continual growth actually necessary?

Except for medical progress, I would willingly go back to the late 1940's.

We didn't know any better, the War was over, our grieving done and we enjoyed ourselves,

No TV, no fridges, no washing machines, no cars just simple things but satisfying.

I remember seeing Winston Churchill as he passed the end of our street in a car waving to everybody. He was campaigning for the next election (c.1950).

Huge crowds to see him.

They cheered,

but they didn't vote for him.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Byron

[ccc]

Yep not quite sure why 'growth' is seen as the holy grail. It suits the money men. Probably explains it.

[Riedquat]

Is continual growth actually necessary?

Except for medical progress, I would willingly go back to the late 1940's.

We didn't know any better, the War was over, our grieving done and we enjoyed ourselves,

No TV, no fridges, no washing machines, no cars just simple things but satisfying.

I remember seeing Winston Churchill as he passed the end of our street in a car waving to everybody. He was campaigning for the next election (c.1950).

Huge crowds to see him.

They cheered,

but they didn't vote for him.

Doesn't sound too bad in many ways (although some things then were unsustainable, with the country still rather heavily dependent on burning lots of coal). An easy accusation is of looking at the past through rose-tinted specs (usually from people who appear to look at the present) and there are certainly other issues that I'm glad to see the back of. My rough feeling is that the best balance was probably some time in the 60s (if you can overlook the rather real fear of imminent nuclear war). Not everything since then has been worse, but the improvements are pretty much all in the things that people don't bring up when they claim life's great now. On the other hand the stuff getting built then was even more depressing than what gets built now.

[Confusion of VIs]

That's a valid criticism of my position, largely driven by a preference for things to be smaller scale and more localised, which is where the EU comes in to it (although contradicted by them occasionally being one of the few organisations willing to stand up to big business). My fallback is the same one as I use for immigration - the EU is (on average) part of the problem even if it isn't the whole problem.

My position on that is fairly clear. I firmly believe that we're losing out socially, badly, in the pursuit of wealth. This has been going on for a long, long time, but until relatively recently the gains outweighed the downsides. Now, for all the (supposed) wealth the future looks like an increasingly unappealing place to live in, at least for me. There are of course other things contributing towards that, and it's easy enough to direct a "Well you're all right jack if you're a bit poorer but plenty of other people will be screwed" accusation at me (a problem largely stemming from the organisation of society than actually having enough, and where any attempt to escape the downward spiral is likely to lead to you crashing to the bottom even faster).

Part of my objection to Brexit is that the likes of Fox see winning the race to the bottom as a key part of their strategy, for making an economic success of Brexit.

Unfortunately success will be defined as increased return on capital and a higher national GDP and the policies to achieve this will further fuel the asset price boom and increase inequality.

[Confusion of VIs]

Doesn't sound too bad in many ways (although some things then were unsustainable, with the country still rather heavily dependent on burning lots of coal). An easy accusation is of looking at the past through rose-tinted specs (usually from people who appear to look at the present) and there are certainly other issues that I'm glad to see the back of. My rough feeling is that the best balance was probably some time in the 60s (if you can overlook the rather real fear of imminent nuclear war). Not everything since then has been worse, but the improvements are pretty much all in the things that people don't bring up when they claim life's great now. On the other hand the stuff getting built then was even more depressing than what gets built now.

For my kids the 60s might as well be the stone age, imagine no Internet or smartphones.

[Riedquat]

For my kids the 60s might as well be the stone age, imagine no Internet or smartphones.

That's one of the reasons I worry badly about the future, the reliance on such things is frightening as is where it's likely to go.

[london_thirtythree]

For my kids the 60s might as well be the stone age, imagine no Internet or smartphones.

Everyone's different - I think having lived through the 90's and the 00's and seeing the amazing changes from technology has been pretty awesome.

Was pretty nice being single when Facebook launched.. :-)

(too old for Tinder so can't comment on that one..)

[Konig]

I am not as old as Byron, but I was born before 1969 when this was made, so I am about the same age as the kids filmed in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-cSNAas2k

The 'we were poorer but happier back then' is repeated generation after generation and is generally based on remembering our childhoods with rose tinted glasses, as virtually all of us (including me) are guilty of.

Bet the kids in the film actually have great memories of their childhoods. I also bet if you had kids now, as a parent, you would be horrified if you had to raise them in that kind of environment.

The reality is economic growth improves virtually all citizens lives. Collectively, it means we earn more. We work less hours. We eat better. We are better educated. We have time for leisure. Most of us go on holidays. We live longer.

The issue for most who say that economic growth is not important is that they do not feel they are getting a fair share of these improvements compared to others.

But generation to generation, there are extremely few who are not benefiting in most of those areas.

[knock out johnny]

I am not as old as Byron, but I was born before 1969 when this was made, so I am about the same age as the kids filmed in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-cSNAas2k

The 'we were poorer but happier back then' is repeated generation after generation and is generally based on remembering our childhoods with rose tinted glasses, as virtually all of us (including me) are guilty of.

Bet the kids in the film actually have great memories of their childhoods. I also bet if you had kids now, as a parent, you would be horrified if you had to raise them in that kind of environment.

The reality is economic growth improves virtually all citizens lives. Collectively, it means we earn more. We work less hours. We eat better. We are better educated. We have time for leisure. Most of us go on holidays. We live longer.

The issue for most who say that economic growth is not important is that they do not feel they are getting a fair share of these improvements compared to others.

But generation to generation, there are extremely few who are not benefiting in most of those areas.

+1

people on this thread are desperately trying to justify to themselves that the likely negative repercussions of brexit hard will in fact be a positive

cognitive dissonance and all that

[london_thirtythree]

+1

people on this thread are desperately trying to justify to themselves that the likely negative repercussions of brexit hard will in fact be a positive

cognitive dissonance and all that

Eh, come now, the glass is half full and all that..

*looks at the smashed glass all over the floor*

Errr.. am sure we can make a new glass.. somehow.. we've got 2 years..

But more seriously, I'm a Bremainer and pretty much Blairite Labour, so naive optimism is all I've got to hope for at the moment; otherwise is a slow slide into despair all round :-)

[crashmonitor]

+1

people on this thread are desperately trying to justify to themselves that the likely negative repercussions of brexit hard will in fact be a positive

cognitive dissonance and all that

Except every survey points to the fact we are getting less happy. I believe happiness peaked in the mid 70s.

May be it comes down to things like affordable housing.

[ccc]

I am not as old as Byron, but I was born before 1969 when this was made, so I am about the same age as the kids filmed in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-cSNAas2k

The 'we were poorer but happier back then' is repeated generation after generation and is generally based on remembering our childhoods with rose tinted glasses, as virtually all of us (including me) are guilty of.

Bet the kids in the film actually have great memories of their childhoods. I also bet if you had kids now, as a parent, you would be horrified if you had to raise them in that kind of environment.

The reality is economic growth improves virtually all citizens lives. Collectively, it means we earn more. We work less hours. We eat better. We are better educated. We have time for leisure. Most of us go on holidays. We live longer.

The issue for most who say that economic growth is not important is that they do not feel they are getting a fair share of these improvements compared to others.

But generation to generation, there are extremely few who are not benefiting in most of those areas.

Yep. Everything is great. Yet everyone is depressed.

Something doesn't add up there.

[long time lurking]

+1

people on this thread are desperately trying to justify to themselves that the likely negative repercussions of brexit hard will in fact be a positive

cognitive dissonance and all that

There will be negatives and positives ,but what there won`t be is the Uk suffering economic armageddon whilst being lost in the wilderness as the rest of the world strides on ,which seems to the belief of many of the remainers

When people have nothing to lose they will take a chance that things may get better after all what have they got to lose

Edited September 12, 2016 by long time lurking

[OnionTerror]

Well that`s my point just about everyone else trades with the EU successfully ,yet it would be a disaster for the UK to trade on the same terms

All i smell is fearmongering,third world countries can manage it yet the UK is fecked and incapable ..... glass half full

It`s widely excepted the EU is heavily influenced by the lobbyists which are not going to be happy if the EU cut`s their noses of to spite their face...French farmers immediately springs to mind with their own special lobbying

And to say the EU will have the right to sell goods to the UK tariff free and impose tariffs on UK exports to the EU is pure fantasy and that`s what Dr Mills is implying in the quotes you provided....it`s simple the country that`s ruining the deficit ultimately holds the cards..the lobbyists will be on our side

As for Blogs just read David Davies`s early articles regarding tariffs especially concerning the German/French farmers auto makers his views are the polar opposite to Mr Mills.

Take car imports from Japan to the EU. Japan pay a 10% tariff on imports into the EU...

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/26/business/negotiator-says-eu-would-remove-auto-tariffs-if-japan-opens-farm-market/

...so its no surprise that Japanese makers have factories in the EU. South Korea has an FTA with the EU, much to the knashing of teeth, especially by the Italians.

The common external tariff is built into the EU acquis, and that is the default position of the EU if we were to become a "third" country...so its not fantasy, as you put it.

As for David Davis, I can't take him seriously, as only a couple of months ago, he honestly believed that the UK can have an FTA with an individual EU country. We have to wade through the mis-information that the likes of Davis, the press et al produce.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Dave Beans

[knock out johnny]

There will be negatives and positives ,but what there won`t be is the Uk suffering economic armageddon whilst being lost in the wilderness as the rest of the world strides on ,which seems to the belief of many of the remainers

When people have nothing to lose they will take a chance that things may get better after all what have they got to lose

What a ludicrous view of life in 21st century britain - you really need to have a fortnight in zimbabwe to put things in perspective

[long time lurking]

What a ludicrous view of life in 21st century britain - you really need to have a fortnight in zimbabwe to put things in perspective

Ok they see no future other than things getting tougher just like they have been for the last decade ...yes they don`t aspire to living like a Zimbabwean and thats where they seen themselves heading ......it`s terrible to think people might take a chance on things getting better for them

[Royw6]

I am not as old as Byron, but I was born before 1969 when this was made, so I am about the same age as the kids filmed in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-cSNAas2k

The 'we were poorer but happier back then' is repeated generation after generation and is generally based on remembering our childhoods with rose tinted glasses, as virtually all of us (including me) are guilty of.

Bet the kids in the film actually have great memories of their childhood. I also bet if you had kids now, as a parent, you would be horrified if you had to raise them in that kind of environment.

The reality is economic growth improves virtually all citizens lives. Collectively, it means we earn more. We work less hours. We eat better. We are better educated. We have time for leisure. Most of us go on holidays. We live longer.

The issue for most who say that economic growth is not important is that they do not feel they are getting a fair share of these improvements compared to others.

But generation to generation, there are extremely few who are not benefiting in most of those areas.

Great post, interesting film. You make your case perfectly. I would also say that the video makes the case for in work benefits, so that it always pays to work rather than get caught in the poverty trap of getting less than you would not working - you need growth to redistribute wealth - without growth there is nothing to redistribute.

Great find.

[Will!]

I would also say that the video makes the case for in work benefits, so that it always pays to work rather than get caught in the poverty trap of getting less than you would not working

Benefits as negative taxation do that, not in work benefits.

[Royw6]

Benefits as negative taxation do that, not in work benefits.

Not sure what you mean are you suggestion the complete removal of state assistance.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Royw6

[Will!]

Not sure what you mean are you suggestion the complete removal of state assistance.

No. Benefits as negative taxation means benefits provided in the form of non-refundable tax relief.

[knock out johnny]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-cSNAas2k

just watched it - it's tragic

you're all a shower of fcking mugs

"the good old days"

today's worse coz we've got some poles in the mix

you're all fcking laughable

fck off! I'm laughing, as not to cry

my mother worked lace

Edited September 13, 2016 by knock out johnny

[MARTINX9]

Except every survey points to the fact we are getting less happy. I believe happiness peaked in the mid 70s.

May be it comes down to things like affordable housing.

British kids are reportedly the least happy in Europe.

The world was simpler in the past, society and communities were stronger, people knew their neighbours as they didn't move on every six months and an ordinary person doing an ordinary job could buy a house almost anywhere in the UK outside prime Central London.

We are superficially wealthier in monetary terms - but there is more to life than money.

[rollover]

Britain is completely lost after Brexit and will beg for a deal

Britain has become “completely lost” post Brexit and can eventually be expected to “plead” for a deal when it realises the weakness of its position at the negotiating table, senior European Commission officials now believe. While officially pressing for Britain to invoke Article 50 and begin divorce talks, officials in Brussels are taking growing satisfaction in what they believe is paralysis and disarray in Theresa May’s new government. UK officials concede privately that the Whitehall bureaucracy is still “miles and miles” from being ready to conduct detailed negotiations.