The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We shouldn't be expressing any opinion on the future membership of the EU. We're leaving, remember?

Unless they are reducing our membership subs (which are actually rising next year) we have every right to operate as full members. 

If we set a precedent saying a certain issue doesn't affect us long term then it logically applies to everything, including stuff we really want to prevent like the EU  army. 

 

[mjmooney]

12 hours ago, Awol said:

No sorry I'm not questioning you, I am stunned he was unaware. Perhaps he was thinking ahead to life post the eurozone...

.. and yes, several very different overlapping bubbles socially but I was surprised by it. The few Remainers were all London based graduates and some family in the south east. Everyone I know north of Watford was for leave - which correlated pretty well with the result in the end.

Echo chamber effect, I expect - we tend to associate with people of similar views. I live in Yorkshire, and the VAST majority of my friends and family were pro-Remain. 

[Rugeley Villa]

12 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Echo chamber effect, I expect - we tend to associate with people of similar views. I live in Yorkshire, and the VAST majority of my friends and family were pro-Remain. 

All my family, friends, work colleagues, and everyone I asked were leave apart from one person. I think my area was one of the biggest leave votes in the country.

[tonyh29]

My area voted remain ...52.2% voting for Remain and 47.8%

judging on the number of fast food restaurants around here I suspect it was fear of not being able to get a KFC at 1 am  that inspired this trend bucking

 

 

was probably around 50 /50 with my friends  ... glad to say we discussed it once after the election , called each other clearings in the woods for voting the way we did and then never mentioned it again ...

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by tonyh29

[brommy]

15 hours ago, snowychap said:

And yet tariffs or trade restrictions continue to be imposed.

 

 

15 hours ago, snowychap said:

Applying the EU's understanding of protectionism, the total number of trade restrictions adopted by G20 members since 2008 reached 704 measures at the end of June 2014.That number was by 23.4% higher than the total in June 2013

Three comments:

The quoted report lists numerous types 'trade restrictions' that don't equate to tariffs.

I don't know whether 704 is a high percentage of the total G20 trade deals. If it's 704 amongst tens of thousands then even a 23.4% increase to a very low proportion equates to not a lot.

Supposing the 'trade restrictions' did equate to tariffs in many cases and the '704 trade restrictions' already in place at June 2014 did represent a significant proportion of the total number of trade deals, it appears that tariffs are already something we have to live with, irrespective of leaving the EU.

 

[HanoiVillan]

39 minutes ago, Awol said:

Unless they are reducing our membership subs (which are actually rising next year) we have every right to operate as full members. 

If we set a precedent saying a certain issue doesn't affect us long term then it logically applies to everything, including stuff we really want to prevent like the EU  army. 

 

We still have all of the negotiating to do. Wilfully setting out to piss people off before it's begun seems a poor strategy to me. And we've already stopped attending lots of EU meetings, have resigned our commissioners etc. 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

Unless they are reducing our membership subs (which are actually rising next year) we have every right to operate as full members. 

If we set a precedent saying a certain issue doesn't affect us long term then it logically applies to everything, including stuff we really want to prevent like the EU  army. 

 

So pro-NATO and the British MIC and the political leverage they provide, but anti an EU army. Interesting... 

[Awol]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We still have all of the negotiating to do. Wilfully setting out to piss people off before it's begun seems a poor strategy to me. And we've already stopped attending lots of EU meetings, have resigned our commissioners etc. 

Frau Merkel made the visa free travel deal with Turks and agreed to accelerate their accession talks, not London.  As with pretty much every issue the EU doesn't  sing with one voice. 

However withdrawing our support for Turkish entry to the EU is something we can concede at the negotiating table while telling the Turks we very publicly tried - now Mr Erdogan, about that trade deal with the UK...

I'm not saying that's what it's about by any means, but absolutely everything we do now could be viewed in context of maximising our options for when we do sit down to negotiate.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, brommy said:

I don't know whether 704 is a high percentage of the total G20 trade deals. If it's 704 amongst tens of thousands then even a 23.4% increase to a very low proportion equates to not a lot.

It's 704 measures not 704 deals that are affected by protectionist measures.

You're right - the report is talking about protectionism in its widest form and thus it's non-tariff barriers as well as tariffs and it says towards the end that:

Quote

the report acknowledges that non-tariff barriers may have become more prominent in recent years, though lack of adequate information hampers proper monitoring

The report would still suggest that protectionism is an issue though it seems to have the EU down as one of the least bad offenders and seems to suggest that emerging markets are more of a problem (save for India).

Edited November 23, 2016 by snowychap

[Awol]

10 minutes ago, villakram said:

So pro-NATO and the British MIC and the political leverage they provide, but anti an EU army. Interesting... 

Not really interesting. NATO will always be guided by the US because it provides 75% of the capability - up from a 50/50 split with European members during the Cold War.

Keeping the US engaged at the heart of European defence is vital, not least because the Europeans have massively hollowed out the capability of our armed forces. So America delivers the capability while the EU delivers the rhetoric.

An EU army would be pure hubris at the moment, a pretension of the real thing but still diluting and sucking in existing European defence resources and eventually trying to become a regional alternative to NATO.

Finally an EU army creates the future potential for a large force within easy striking distance of the UK homeland. Of course we're all friends right now, but things can and do change very quickly - history overflows with such examples. 

You may think that sounds ludicrous but for 500 years UK policy was preventing the continent being unified as a single military power. Nothing's changed.

[brommy]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

It's 704 measures not 704 deals that are affected by protectionist measures.

You're right - the report is talking about protectionism in its widest form and thus it's non-tariff barriers as well as tariffs and it says towards the end that:

The report would still suggest that protectionism is an issue though it seems to have the EU down as one of the least bad offenders and seems to suggest that emerging markets are more of a problem (save for India).

What proportion of world trade is affected by the 704 protectionist measures? As I wrote, if it's a very low proportion then a quarter increase may still mean comparatively few protectionist measures affect world trade and if it's a large proportion we either accept it's increase is part of world trade or ensure new UK trade deals are different even outside the EU.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Not really interesting. NATO will always be guided by the US because it provides 75% of the capability - up from a 50/50 split with European members during the Cold War.

Keeping the US engaged at the heart of European defence is vital, not least because the Europeans have massively hollowed out the capability of our armed forces. So America delivers the capability while the EU delivers the rhetoric.

An EU army would be pure hubris at the moment, a pretension of the real thing but still diluting and sucking in existing European defence resources and eventually trying to become a regional alternative to NATO.

Finally an EU army creates the future potential for a large force within easy striking distance of the UK homeland. Of course we're all friends right now, but things can and do change very quickly - history overflows with such examples. 

You may think that sounds ludicrous but for 500 years UK policy was preventing the continent being unified as a single military power. Nothing's changed.

You kinda elucidated a part of my point, i.e., I read your analysis of Brexit as biased towards what is good for Britian first. That's a completely fair position to take. 

I do wonder why occupied (It can't be clearly characterized as so right now, but it can certainly be argued) Europe is not all at rage given that "history overflows with such examples though". Perhaps, there is some logic to their desire for a hammer after-all, given pernicious Britannia. You of course are free to talk about devious Germania etc.

 

[blandy]

16 hours ago, Awol said:

The mainstream media broadly hold the view that leaving is a disaster.

I'm not sure about that - most of the press, both in terms of numbers of different titles, and in terms of papers sold is "Leave". TV legally has to be balanced. 

10 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

they didn't do this they came up with a list of at times quite ludicrous claims about how it would affect people.

Both sides came up with ludicrous claims probably (IMO) more from Leave, but whatever, because

10 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

the reasons that the Remain campaign failed to gain enough support were many but a key one was they empty rhetoric and down right lies and scaremongering which I think blew up in their face.

I think the lies about scaremongering - mainly from that clown Osborne were just blatant. Ditto the NHS 350 million a week from the Leavers. The thing is though, if I say "don't do that, you'll hurt yourself" many people will go "no I'll be alright", because Human nature often wants to dismiss warnings, whereas if I say "do this and I'll make you rich" people will tend to go for it, even if they don't really believe it  - people are more minded to go for the positive thing than they are to be scared of warnings, particularly when the warnings by their nature are predictions - "ah well, it might not happen" vs "blimey if that happens it'll be great".

The more honest people on both sides correctly said "Brexit will hurt the UK (and the EU) in the short term and longer term (which no one can really predict accurately) there will be opportunities and how they pan out will be....

Personally I just think the whole thing was a shambles. Leaving's bad, staying would be bad.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

You kinda elucidated a part of my point, i.e., I read your analysis of Brexit as biased towards what is good for Britian first. That's a completely fair position to take. 

I do wonder why occupied (It can't be clearly characterized as so right now, but it can certainly be argued) Europe is not all at rage given that "history overflows with such examples though". Perhaps, there is some logic to their desire for a hammer after-all, given pernicious Britannia. You of course are free to talk about devious Germania etc.

 

There is a book doing the rounds that argues war in Europe was exactly what allowed Europe to rise and overtake China , Middle East etc who were way more advanced than Europeans back in the day .... the theory is that fear of your neighbour wading in and taking your country meant you had to strive to not only keep up but actually try and keep in front ...

its more scientific than that but it's an interesting theory non the less , if I can find the article I'll link it 

[villakram]

17 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

There is a book doing the rounds that argues war in Europe was exactly what allowed Europe to rise and overtake China , Middle East etc who were way more advanced than Europeans back in the day .... the theory is that fear of your neighbour wading in and taking your country meant you had to strive to not only keep up but actually try and keep in front ...

its more scientific than that but it's an interesting theory non the less , if I can find the article I'll link it 

The Europeans were fighting non-stop all through history and it didn't make them strong. Creating a moral framework that justified theft/rape/pillage is what made Europe strong. E.g., the wholesale conquest of the Americas. Oh... imagine that, we take all their silver and gold and now we are super rich. Aren't we great! 

If the Chinese hadn't decided to close up shop and look inward in the 1500s, they would have spanked every European who sneered at them sideways from their little sailboats, and sent them back to the atlantic quivering. Now, of course war eventually enabled europe to "overtake" China. That's what happens when you point a gun at someone and steal their stuff. There are many many reasons for this, e.g., look how weak England is now in comparison to 1816.

Europe was comparatively backwards for most of written history, e.g., the Mongols had all of Europe west of Poland quaking and ripe for the taking in the 1200s until they descended into civil war due to internal politics. Was it war that made them "strong" or were they just a bunch of bastards who decided to go a steal other people's stuff? And the islamic lads had a great crack at Europe the 1400/1500s too. 

There's simply far too many variables to claim that "war" was the key imho.

Would love to have a read if you can find the link though!

Edited November 23, 2016 by villakram

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, villakram said:

Would love to have a read if you can find the link though!

Found it .... article is here on Bloomberg

 

 

According to Joel Mokyr, Europe's magisterial rise from economic backwater to superpower between the 16th and 19th centuries had much to do not with integration but with its division into multiple competing states.

[peterms]

So the piece is saying

a) the fragmentation that followed the break-up of the Roman Empire led to a thousand years of blighted, impoverished backwardness

b ) where progress occurred, it was in large part due to the international mobility of intellectuals.

It has been well noted that Brexit will greatly limit the opportunities for UK and foreign students to intermingle.  In other words, the precise opposite of b ).

I think the message is the opposite to what you've taken from it...

[Awol]

12 hours ago, villakram said:

I do wonder why occupied (It can't be clearly characterized as so right now, but it can certainly be argued) Europe is not all at rage given that "history overflows with such examples though". Perhaps, there is some logic to their desire for a hammer after-all, given pernicious Britannia. You of course are free to talk about devious Germania etc.

 

I'd argue that political forces are rising across Europe right now that in large part are a reaction against the consolidation of power at the continental level.

For some reason mainland European power structures reflexively trend away from democracy and towards authoritarianism. It's is a cycle we've been in for over 2000 years & I don't see it ending anytime soon. 

If you know anything about IR theory Britain is historically the classic offshore balancer, forming alliances and coalitions among European states to prevent any one power dominating the geographical space.

Inevitably that's created a reputation for the UK as being a bit cynical in our choice of partners at any given time, but for the record it's 'perfidious Albion' not pernicious Britannia..

It's only when we've failed to successfully achieve that balancing function (which could also be read as saving Europeans from themselves) that the UK homeland has been seriously threatened - the Spanish Armada, the early Napoleonic period and 1939-40 during WW2. 

It's possible that Brexit may be the catalyst for the latest round of anti-authoritarianism on the continent, but balancing by default rather than by design. 

Im hopeful that in the future we can take a fundamentally good idea (European wide cooperation) and make it work in a democratically accountable way.

[tonyh29]

9 hours ago, peterms said:

So the piece is saying

a) the fragmentation that followed the break-up of the Roman Empire led to a thousand years of blighted, impoverished backwardness

b ) where progress occurred, it was in large part due to the international mobility of intellectuals.

It has been well noted that Brexit will greatly limit the opportunities for UK and foreign students to intermingle.  In other words, the precise opposite of b ).

I think the message is the opposite to what you've taken from it...

i thought it was an interesting theory hence decided to share it..... I'm not sure i posted any message from it other than saying what the article said I.e Europe's magisterial rise from economic backwater to superpower between the 16th and 19th centuries had much to do not with integration but with its division into multiple competing states

 

 

 

 

[TrentVilla]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Im hopeful that in the future we can take a fundamentally good idea (European wide cooperation) and make it work in a democratically accountable way.

Excellent post and the above part is where I am.

The EU in my view way over stepped its remit and lost its mandate and legitimacy. The backlash to that has only just started in my view, 2017 will see it gain pace.

Like you I think there is a place for EU cooperation and even a degree of solidarity. There are many good aspects to such a united Europe not least in the interests of peace and security.

But the path of the EU has for too long been one of amalgamation rather than solidarity in my view and as much as they try and enforce it it simply isn't what people want here or on the mainland seemingly.

It is sad that the entire project could end up failing because those inside it failed to listen to the people they are supposed to represent while they try to build their European federal state.

But we are where we are it's a little out of the hands of the EU now and very much in the hands of the electorates of a number of nations early in 2017.