About this Brexit thing ...

The most important trade barrier often used in the free trade areas that are non **customs unions ** is the “non tariff barrier” which is using the national level inspection rules, regulations and laws in a way discriminatory against

It turns out in the real non theory world this is very common - in fact you can see in the inter-arab trade among the theoretical “free trade zones” (Maghreb, etc) that very little common trade occurs due to the non tariff barriers - the tariffs are gone but they use the other customs rules and products regulations and rules to exclude the goods - the Moroccans exclude the Egyptians, the Egyptians the Moroccans etc.

The same can be seen for the West Africa, etc. -

So why? Because centuries of experience show that they do not work without the common standards.

Although the other responses have focused on the idea of the currency manipulation, this is not really a serious motivation as that can be avoided via the exchange regimes - the set rules on the exchange rates, which in fact existed prior to the Euro for the major EU currencies.

As a matter of achieving a common market, a common currency is very helpful to reduce the transaction costs to the flow of the goods at many levels from the retail level – it is a reason why you have a common national currency and not multiple state currencies!!!

If you stop"wondering" and take a look at how the trade exists between your own internal “United States” many of your wonderings will be resolved. Even in the 18th century when your founders were writing their constitution, they were aware enough of the issues in Trade that they made your famous Commerce Clause as it was already in the 18th century well understood that besides Tariffs these rules were easily used to impede trade, to favor the home state over the neighboring state, etc. The common market then breaks down and does not in fact function.

And since outside of the feverish imaginations of the American extreme right Libertarians there has never existed an organized non-civil war country where there were not some levels of regulations on the quality of goods, on the rules of services - as in the real world - outside of the bad novels - the real human beings do not accept wild wild west conditions - standard rules setting on the goods and the services is an absolute necessity for a common market, a customs union, that actually functions.

Encore, these are lessons that have been understood since the 18th century, it is not a new lesson.

If you establish a customs union with the Free Movement you will be establishing something like the EU and you will need to have the common rules and the common regulations or it will break down.

It is not a new lesson. Your own constitution writers understood this when your independent states formed a common market.

UltraVires, you can trust that your Canadian breakfast won’t kill you because Canada has regulations very similar to those in the US requiring food safety. It’s the presence of those regulations that make Canada a safe, first-world country. If Canada ever repealed those regulations, then the US would want to withdraw from the treaties that allow Canadian food products to be freely sold in America or to Americans, and in fact, it’s probably built into those treaties that Canada is required to maintain such regulations or the treaty will automatically penalize them.


Some people take a position based on ideology, and some on practicality, on both sides.

Maintenance or surrender of sovereignty is an ideological matter, and likely to override practicality.

In terms of practicality, those who oppose the EU generally mention: the vast transfers of wealth out of Britain in terms of direct financial assistance to the EU, remittances from the huge numbers of EU immigrants in Britain and the tremendous trade deficit Britain runs with the EU; the perception that the EU is hidebound with red tape and internal trade within Britain, small businesses and the like, would benefit from being released from the quantity of regulation imposed by the EU; the perception that EU regulations are enforced in a partial manner which allows continentals to abuse the system, eg the state-backed takeover of various British banks by Santander, for which the Spanish government received a small fine but a major part of the British High Street remains under foreign control on an illegal basis; the imposition of neoliberal “competitive” policies which prohibit and hinder state intervention in the economy and public services; the perceived effects on wages, rents and prices of immigration and free movement; and so on.

Generally in Britain the attitude is that the EU is only worth being a member of if there is manifest benefit to being a member, not that membership is innately desirable on the grounds of solidarity or the delusional belief that the EU averts war or anything of that sort, only that there is material benefit, and the opposition to the EU comes from the perception that these benefits are illusory and the EU is a system which stymies trade and industry and sacrifices British interests and sovereignty for the benefit of other countries.

Two, come April of 2019.


Geographically speaking, the British Isles are and will always be a part of the continent of Europe.

So it will still be three.

Unless your point is that the Pound will no longer be strong. That one could be true.

Yes, that was the joke. Seriously, I do actually think the pound will deflate a bit, but it is strong because of British economic and banking practices, and I have no reason to think those will change, so I’d surmise that it will remain in the category of strong currency.

Indeed, if Canada decided to unilaterally pull out of those treaties and listed “we’re sick of dealing with the US’s stringent regulations” as a main reason why, you might be entirely justified in no longer trusting that Canadian breakfast.

(Bolding mine)

Are all of these actually arguments floated by the leave camp? Because the one I bolded is quite thoroughly backwards (and it’s probably not the only one). The idea that the EU stymies trade, when it is in fact one of the largest and freest free trade areas in the world and the single largest import/export market for Great Britain is just… weird. That the UK is leaving that free trade area is one of the major reasons cited for why brexit is almost certainly going to cause a major recession in Britain.

Another quite bizarre argument: that the Santander takeover was somehow illegal. I can’t find anything even related to that; could you elaborate a little bit?

Oh, and the idea that the EU doesn’t prevent war - there’s some quite serious concern about that one land border the UK shares with the EU. Y’know, the one where there’s been war within my lifetime? A war that lasted longer than I’ve been alive?

if this is the justification behind the Brexit thinking it is … in the realm of the black helicopters conspiracies… how very strange the idea of making such a decision on complete fictions.

Yes, they really are arguments floated by the Leave camp. And if you argue they’re mistaken, then they have the gall say that you live in a bubble.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

…says the side whose explicit goal is to live in a bubble.

That’s actually completely fucking insane. Like, not just a little wrong. That’s “We have to build The Wall so that illegal immigrants have an easier time getting into America” wrong - every single part of the statement is so twisted that it’s hard to figure out how anyone gets something that wrong.

I beg your pardon?

Unauthorized interpretation of Chronos’s remark: He agrees with you, he’s saying how ironic it is that the isolationist wannabe bubble-dwellers of the Leave movement are accusing the Remainers of living in a bubble.

Ah, understood, sorry. Carry on!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk