Thread: UK out of EU

I get his cute little analogy even though it's way off road :<0) Sometimes we try different food but once in the mouth the taste is so bad we spit it out. I am not in any position to decide you should eat it anyway.

Our States were formed under the union. Sometimes backwards is just that. Backwards .

Originally Posted by 10Pups

I get his cute little analogy even though it's way off road :<0) I don't know what it has to do with the EU other than there maybe some restricted travel for certain people ?

Using mockery instead of logical arguments is most indicative of how much one gets about these things. Which is perfectly fine.

Originally Posted by gugi

It seems very analogous - the states in the federation of USA gave up their right to formulate their own border control when they decided to join together and have common market with free movement of goods, capital and people.

The culture of California and Disneyland in particular is very different from the culture of many other states, so I don't see a fundamental reason to not be able to spin that off as an independent sovereign country. Other than people having gotten used to the way things are now. But those things happen over time - in Canada the more time it passes the less realistic an independent Quebec becomes. Same thing in Europe - the more time passes, the more integrated it becomes and more artificial and painful any splits.

In the old days one of the ways to increase the likelihood of peace between countries was royal marriage. The current British dynasty is essentially Saxe-Coburg-Gotha i.e. they are naturalized Germans.

The EU is no more imposed to the 28 member countries than the federal government of USA is imposed on the individual states or the Canadian federal government is imposed on the provinces.
They chose to form the union on their own volition and any member can chose to leave it by invoking that article 50. It's a weaker union than Canada or USA which afaik do not have any provision for any province or state to leave (and the last time some states in US tried it it didn't end well).
That's the big difference - EU was formed in a far more civilized time than Canada and USA were, and problems can be resolved in a peaceful manner and they are. Brexit still comes with a cost, but that's nothing compared to the cost of splitting USA or Canada, which is also why the later is next to impossible.

Yes, how the US and Canada were created is similar to the EU. Both have been sovereign countries long enough now, regardless of how they came about, to be viewed as just that, sovereign countries. NAFTA has thrown 3 North American countries together in a trading zone but unlike the EU model there is no North American Parliament to help oversee it all. I do not believe at this time the idea of a North American Parliament would go over well with the current populations in those 3 countries. We at least still want to maintain the illusion of being independent countries merely cooperating on trade. Even that has lead to disputes with quite a few people viewing NAFTA in a negative light. The EU model might have been a step too far too soon for some populations within the some of 28 sovereign countries who voluntarily joined it.

Royalty is of not much consequence today as they do not directly dictate the course of action in countries that still have them. That is done by elected members of government today.

Regardless of the fact that joining the EU is done voluntarily if people feel it is an imposition then it is.

Bob

I brought up the British royalty just as an illustration that one of the biggest emblems of UK identity and independence is in it's essence not so British - ultimately identity can be a fairly fluid thing.

NAFTA is much weaker than the EU-zone. Just think how easy it is to move razors and razor related services between US, Canada, UK, and EU and compare that to moving them within US or within Canada. Within EU is in between, closer to within a country, but not quite.
Free trade brings a lot of opportunities, but not everybody is capable or in a position to take advantage of those and there are people who are left behind. Which makes it an easy target to put the blame for other things too that have nothing to do with it.

Right now the UK (razor) vendors are getting less money for their products services because of the devaluation of their currency. That may make them more competitive, i.e. some people could prioritize ordering custom razor from the UK instead of from US or from the EU, but they will have to pay more to get anything from the elsewhere in the world too.

More open trade and competition generally does require some people to work harder and/or get less, but also allows them to purchase things for less (e.g. Gold Dollar razors for a couple of dollars).
Walmart didn't become the largest retailer in US by accident - they got there because lots of people like the low prices made possible by workers in other countries willing to accept a standard of living far below the one of the corresponding US workers.
For example the highest quality cotton still comes from fields in US and you can buy jeans made from it and sewn by US workers if you are willing to pay significantly more than what you'd pay for a pair at walmart, but it's not that many people willing to do it.

Anyways you can't have each country protecting its own interest and a level playing field - for the later you ultimately need an overarching government. Before US became one country with a federal government trumping the states, the states tried to run a weakly bound entity where each of them was acting more or less like a sovereign country. There's a reason things changed.

Originally Posted by 10Pups

Our States were formed under the union. Sometimes backwards is just that. Backwards .

Check your history - the states existed way (I mean centuries) before the Union was formed. They started as essentially corporations and evolved into something like independent countries, proclaiming this in the Declaration of Independence. Then they had a weak union for a little over a decade and decided to give up their independence and form a strong union under federal government. That big entity is what made possible the expansion over the rest of the continent, taking over the lands of other people by the argument of force. It wasn't the armies of Virginia or Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, etc. or their state legislatures or governors, who made it happen, it was the US military, the US Congress and the US Presidency.

Without the big federal monster the history probably would be very different - Texas and California may still be part of Mexico, Louisiana part of France or Canada, and so forth. And the rest of the world will look very different too - who knows, Europe's unification may have happened under Hitler on his terms and splintered after him.

Sorry about the Mickey Mouse Mockery but I thought we were having fun with words.

I will bow out now. I can see there is no sense bringing up logical arguments as they will only be complicated into oblivion. I still believe the solutions are (or could be) simple. The problem is in not trying to understand each other. Instead we try to force our idea of what is right on everybody else. That is the basic problem between the EU and the UK. You can't give something to somebody without taking it from someone else. The someone else s are tired of it and would rather suffer their own fate.

Good Luck Uk and Good Luck EU. I am sure you will live through it.

Not everything is a zero sum game, even though some things are.

Here in US states get to make their own taxes. Works fine for a while, until along comes the internet. And since the states can't figure out how to enforce taxes on internet purchases they simply don't. Which leads to internet based businesses getting a significant advantage over brick&mortar ones.

The law in many states is that that people should pay their residence state taxes on their internet purchases even if the merchant didn't charge it and then submit that to the state come tax time. Virtually no person does.

Some big government states like NY and CA have forced the biggest online retailers like Amazon to collect taxes from their residents and submit them to the state. But that doesn't solve the problem - lots of the smaller businesses chose not to do that, don't and nobody is able to make them. Only the federal government can level the playing field if it choses to, which it hasn't.

So yeah, mom&pop shop can complain all day long about the unfairness until they go bankrupt, but unless the big nanny state throws in its weigh nothing will change. If people collectively aren't willing to pay more for the same thing just so that the downtown is walkable small towns will turn into suburbia.

It's no different with the UK and EU on a different scale - if UK wants to run its own business and be able to protect certain groups from more efficient competitors elsewhere they can certainly do that, but that has a bureaucratic cost as well. Other entities are not going to simply let them reap the benefits of the system for which they pay all of the costs.
Because the big EU market just like the big USA market has costs. UK is balking at the cost they have been paying, so they are pulling out and if they want special access again they'll have to negotiate the terms. For example, they may dislike the EU regulations on the amount of lead that can go into children's toys. After leaving they will be free of that burden and can produce toys with as much lead in them as they want, but they won't be able to sell them to EU unless they are able to negotiate it.

It's not complicated, but it's far from simplistic either.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Who decided that the USA would be a good thing?
As to your post: no. The weaker members are the ones desperately wanting to join because they want a level playing field and access to the single market. And funnily enough, the UK was one of the ones who pushed hardest to get Eastern European countries to join.

European history proves conclusively that a Europe consisting of independent sovereign nation states is doomed to be at war with itself. I am very much in favor of my country being part of the EU because being bound together like this has stopped us from warring among ourselves for an unprecedentedly long time. 70 years of peace on the continent is worth it, and the EU costs less than internal wars would have cost.

And that's all I have to say about that.

So Bruno, you don't consider that Serbia, Croatia and Boznia Herzogovina were engaged in a war? What good was the EU during that conflict? The fact that there has been nothing more serious since the end of the Second World War does not mean that it could not happen again. Look what happened when Germany broke it's agreement with Russia over Poland - and I'm not suggesting that Germany is a likely aggressor, it's just that NATO serves a far greater part than the EY does in terms of security.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, I have one more thing to say: has anybody here bothered to read article 50 yet?

Bascially, it forces the leaving country to negotiate terms in 2 years time. Not the terms for leaving, but the terms for dealing with the EU afterwards. The UK exports almost half of its stuff to the EU so they desperately need trade agreements. And they have precious little to bargain with. After 2 years, their membership can expire without deal, which would cripple the it. The UK does not get to be part of the EU concensus or decision making. In practical terms, it's a take it or leave it affair.

Now, they NEED the trade with the EU. But they cannot and will not get access to the single market without free movement. So at BEST they will get a Norway type deal, where they still need to comply with all EU regulations and allow freedom of movement, but they will no longer have a rebate, EU subsidizing, or a veto in the decision making process.

Meanwhile the brexit figure heads have all withdrawn or refused to take a leadership role. Because they never actually wanted to win. They wanted the leverage of the protest vote. The never accounted for the possibility of actually winning this vote. So now they are screwed. Bad. The gbp has dropped 22% and counting. And that is with people still hedging their bets on whether the brexit will be avoided or not. Economy is already slowing down, people are running for their money, heads of industry are calling their MEPs to tell them they need immigrants coming in.

The fact that even Nigel Farage suddenly quits as ukip party leader, just when his dream is about to come true, should tell you everything there is to know about the viability of an actual brexit. The fact that Boris Johnson looked like he was stabbed, on the day of his victory, and the fact that he now refuses to become PM, should tell you everything you need to know about how rosy the outlook is, should a brexit happen.

Oh and the EU, with almost unilateral power during the negotiations, is looked at with scrutiny as to how it will deal with this precedental case. Populists who want to organize their own referendum in their own country are looking at how the UK will fare. So don't be expecting a golden parachute being handed out the UK. If they go through with this, I suspect they will be made an example of. They will not be crushed economically, because that would be bad for everyone, but I bet anything that they will be off far worse than they were now.

I don't know much about how much of this is reported in the US, and in what manner. But I have a good number of friends in the UK, and I follow the news closely from different sources. Basically: the UK screwed itself so bad it will hurt for decades. I know it, they know it, Cameron knows it, and even Johnson and farage know it. All that remains to be seen now is whether the brexit will actually happen. That is still not a given. If it doesn't, then the UK has lost all moral authority and any basis for negotiating future deals. If it doesn, then the GBP will drop a lot further, and things will turn much worse for the UK.

And they'll still have to follow all the regulations if they want to export their 50% of their gdp to the EU, but will have none of the perks, none of the veto power, and be left with an economy that will be hurting for a long time.

You are pre-judging the outcome of negotiations - the EU sells far more to the UK than the UK sells to the EU - both parties will want a negotiated trade agreement - but don't assume that the UK will a Norway type agreement - we have a far stronger hand to play than Norwad had.

As for your assertion that people are now running away - the leading campaigner Johnson decided not to nominate himself as a candidate to lead the Tory Party - that's politics for you - he probably realised there was not enough support for him. Farrage has done his job and has now retired from UKIP having achieved what he wanted - there was zero chance of him taking any part in running the country. Michael Gove is the other main Leave campaigner and he is standing as a Tory leader candidate - so who's running away?

As for not activating the leave clause - it's quite understandable that Cameron decided that was something for his successor. Just about the one correct remark in your post concerns the two year negotiating period - that starts from the time that notice is served and regardless of what Junker says - it's down to the UK to decide when that will be.

BBC news this morning a very interesting story by one of the UK leading financial City expert warned of a massive looming disaster for the Euro in the next 12 months with the likes of Greece Spain Italy in a complete finacial mess, he said it's coming and the Euro is going down big time watch this space.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...Euro-BACKFIRES

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I see what you're saying. I agree with you that there are no easy yes or no answers with this. Many variables at play. I don't know enough about GB's ability to produce and trade on its own. It seems through time that there's been a significant number of Texans that feel Texas could secede and thrive? Whether it would benefit the U.S. Who knows. The only reason I posed my question is that Bruno was saying that based on Article 50, GB may possibly suffer very negative impacts and the EU would be in a position of power (ie in relation to having the upper hand in trade agreements, etc). If the EU has the upper hand in trade agreements with a potentially disadvantaged GB, then therein lies the basis for my rhetorical question. Perhaps the EU may benefit in that regard.

ChrisL

The EU 'can' benefit from this, in 2 major ways.

Firstly, the UK was always a member with half a foot out the door, wanting the perks but not the commitment. With the UK gone, there is a higher chance of concensus and the EU has a number of issues that need to be fixed. Maybe now is a good time to do so. And secondly, this case is precendental. what happens now will either encourage populist politicians who want to devolve back into sovereign nation states, or shut them up. The EU has a very strong incentive in wanting to avoid other countries starting to think than an exit is a wonderful idea.

Using the power to wrangle advantages from the UK is not something I think will happen, despite the fact that is entirely within out power to do so. My hunch is that the EU wants to avoid being seen as vindictive and take the moral high ground. And it can easily do so because as every economic expert has been saying to no effect: even a Norway type deal will be extremely disadvantageous to the UK compared to the deal they have now. just being 'fair' will be hurtful enough to the UK that the message will come across.