The Political Thread

[JayzusB.Christ]

I wonder as well if it is also because no one really knows what is coming?  Granted Brexit is now so much more likely to be on the cards but the shape of it is still unclear.  How is it going to affect Ireland?  What sort of trade deals are we going to end up with?  How many of Johnson's ambiguous promises are going to actually come to pass?  Who is going to be holding him to account and how? If the tin-foil hat are to be believed and Brexit is all part of some grand plan to break up the EU then those behind that plan are, I would have though, most likely to make every effort possible to ensure Brexit is a resounding success.  Those wonderful trade deals that Johnson et al have been harping on about will materialise and expose the folly of Britain's membership over the last couple of decades. Whether that is insane optimism, delusional thinking or just plain wrong .... Who knows?

I'm more worried about the opposite; that the remaining EU members and supporters will go out of their way to trash the UK so they can say, "You see? You see what happens when you leave!?"

It's not in our interest to trash a trading partner.  Brexit is on UK leave voters, not us.  But I am expecting a whole lot more opinions like this one being bandied about if things go wrong.

I hardly need go into the old golf club membership analogy, do i?

[IndigoPrime]

The harsh lesson the UK will learn is what happens when you remove yourself from seamless economic integration with the world's largest market, and become an outlier in a world of massive trading blocs. This will be blamed on the EU, and it will be framed as the EU 'bullying' the UK. The reality is it will be protecting its own market, to which the UK no longer belongs. As others have noted, the UK will also be negotiating the first trading deal in history that is about throwing up barriers rather than removing them. The entire thing is insane.

And, yeah, there will be a bit of "this is what happens when you leave", because that's just reality. You don't get to keep seamless trade. You lose free movement rights. Tariffs happen. You don't get default access to Euratom and other EU-wide programmes. And, in the UK's case, we obliterate London as a financial centre, destroy a ton of industry (some of which will never return), and cause untold damage to the 80% of our economy that is services and that is basically never covered by trade deals.

Well done, everyone.

[JayzusB.Christ]

The harsh lesson the UK will learn is what happens when you remove yourself from seamless economic integration with the world's largest market, and become an outlier in a world of massive trading blocs. This will be blamed on the EU, and it will be framed as the EU 'bullying' the UK.

Oh, we've been bullying you since the referendum.  By not changing the terms of leaving that voters had already been told about before the vote, apparently, accepting a deal and then watching MPs squabble about it ad nauseum.

[The Legendary Shark]

The reality is it will be protecting its own market, to which the UK no longer belongs.

Exactly. The EU is not a free market, it's a protectionist racket.

[IndigoPrime]

No market exists that doesn't protect itself from, for example, goods that are considered substandard within that market. No market exists that doesn't ensure its own people benefit first and foremost over competition from other markets. That is not a "protectionist racket" by any stretch. In fact, the EU bent over backwards to deal with the UK's rotting corpse of empire, and has been great regarding tariffs for nations that need help. But we don't hear about that because, say, people are yelling falsehoods about the realities of trade.

[Tjm86]

I'm more worried about the opposite; that the remaining EU members and supporters will go out of their way to trash the UK so they can say, "You see? You see what happens when you leave!?"
[/quote]

I know.  That is the other extreme.  Like I said, I'm working off the tin-foil-hat theory of Brexit, that it is all part of some master plan to damage the EU and break it up.  The idea that the EU is not likely to want to see the UK succeed post Brexit to protect itself is just as likely, if not more so.

We also have to take into account the competence levels of the present incumbents.  Johnson's track record is not great but then again neither is that of the majority of the cabinet.  Grayling's main mistake was to be a tad too overt in his incompetence.  This is likely to have some bearing on the direction of travel (mainly Westwards if indicators are to be believed).

[IndigoPrime]

People like Farage have been open that they want to end the EU, although precisely why is always the question. Partly, this hinges on the UK not wanting to be part of something rather than leading it, but this whiffs of having paymasters in the USA and Russia. But Brexit won't end the EU. It will weaken it in key areas, but the EU will survive and probably unify more than it otherwise would have had the UK remained a member. If the UK (or England) subsequently tries to rejoin, I suspect it'll be told to get stuffed as well, unless public opinion is very much in the pro camp.

As for the EU not wanting the UK to succeed, that's just not the case. The problem for the UK is it cannot succeed in any meaningful sense economically nor socially outside of the UK. We are a medium-sized country that punched above our weight due to empire and then due to EU membership through being a 'bridge' to Europe for the US and Japanese. Without being that, the UK is nothing special and has nothing special. The EU won't have to do anything for us to fail. It doesn't have to.

The problem is the UK wants friends with benefits. It wants to be treated differently from any other third country, while also not paying anything, because apparently car manufacturers in Germany will demand this. (Clue: no they won't.) This is a project of delusion and hubris, and by the time the UK's final position becomes clear, it will be years too late.

[The Legendary Shark]

No market exists that doesn't protect itself from, for example, goods that are considered substandard within that market. No market exists that doesn't ensure its own people benefit first and foremost over competition from other markets. That is not a "protectionist racket" by any stretch. In fact, the EU bent over backwards to deal with the UK's rotting corpse of empire, and has been great regarding tariffs for nations that need help. But we don't hear about that because, say, people are yelling falsehoods about the realities of trade.

I'm not talking about protecting consumers from unsafe or sub-standard goods; that's what the law and free trade are for. I'm talking about this:

Protectionism is a politically motivated defensive measure. In the short run, it works. But it is very destructive in the long term. It makes the country and its industries less competitive in international trade.

[IndigoPrime]

LSE: "The EU isn't protectionist – it's one of the most open economies in the world"
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/08/14/the-eu-isnt-protectionist-its-one-of-the-most-open-economies-in-the-world/

FT: "The EU is no protectionist racket"
https://www.ft.com/content/e761a1ca-47af-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb

BBC: "Is the European Union a 'protectionist racket'?"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44291103

By any modern definition, the EU trade bloc is pretty liberal. I'm sure anarchists hate it. The thing is, most Brits aren't anarchists. We as a country have relied on our links with other European countries for decades now. We're about to get the shit kicked out of us.

[The Legendary Shark]

I couldn't read the FT link because I keep running into a paywall, but the other two links reinforce that the EU is protectionist - but only a little bit. I guess that's like being a little bit pregnant.

But let's assume that the EU's protectionism is very low, even though it isn't. If the UK leaves the EU, then what would be the problem? Their protectionism is low and therefore fairly cheap, so the only way we're going to "get the shit kicked out of us" is if the EU raises its protectionism against UK trade as a political lever. Which it won't, because it's a fair and advanced organisation...

You are quite correct that the UK has been trading with other European countries for centuries, mostly without the "help" of the EU. It's not as if trade between European countries and the UK will evaporate without the EU - unless the EU actively causes it. Which it won't, because it's a fair and enlightened superstate...

I understand that you, and most people in this and many other countries, are statists and support the role and powers of the state, which is why you argue so vehemently in its favour. Calling you a statist is not an insult, nor does it define you - it's just one of the myriad facets that make you you. To be fair, if the state protected, supported, and respected all of its people lawfully and without bias then I would be a statist too. But it doesn't, so I'm not.

Statists concentrate on the benefits of the state, of which there are admittedly some, but as an anarchist I'm just as guilty, in this instance of concentrating on the disadvantages, of which there are also some. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages which, to my mind, they do not.

Finally, the Earth does not have a single government or ruler and is, therefore, an anarchist planet. So far, anyway...

[IndigoPrime]

If the UK leaves the EU, then what would be the problem?

Increased costs. A basic lack of customs infrastructure and training. Obliteration of supply chains. (JIT is destroyed by ANY friction.) You know, the things people have been banging on about since 2016.

You are quite correct that the UK has been trading with other European countries for centuries, mostly without the "help" of the EU. It's not as if trade between European countries and the UK will evaporate without the EU - unless the EU actively causes it.

Seriously? This? Again? This is almost as good as "well, people worked in Europe before the EEC, and so I don't see why losing free movement makes any difference". Again: friction. Trade will continue. It's just it won't be frictionless. Ergo, we won't benefit.

The question is whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages which, to my mind, they do not.

What are the benefits for you in leaving the EU? What are the disadvantages?

[Jim_Campbell]

At what point does "just asking questions", getting detailed, well-informed answers, waiting a couple of months and asking the same questions again become trolling?

Just asking the question...

[The Legendary Shark]

And where will the increased costs and friction come from? What will prevent free movement? Governments, by any chance?

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was talking about the benefits and disadvantages of the state in general. The major benefit I see is in organisation of national infrastructure, the disadvantages I have proposed many times before - so I won't repeat them again in case Jim's head explodes. Just assume that what I see as the disadvantages of the state become the superdisadvantages of the superstate, which outweigh (in my view) the superbenefits of the superstate.

[Funt Solo]

For correct navigation of this thread, follow this handy-dandy guide:

A. Someone says something about politics.
B. Someone (with a prominent fin) will say the problem is statism.
C. If you want to have a circular argument conversation about statism, respond to B. Otherwise, respond to A.

[Tjm86]

For correct navigation of this thread, follow this handy-dandy guide:

A. Someone says something about politics.
B. Someone (with a prominent fin) will say the problem is statism.
C. If you want to have a circular argument conversation about statism, respond to B. Otherwise, respond to A.

D.  Someone will post a semi-serious / sarcastic / irrelevant comment.  Respond to D, A, G or Y as required ...