Post-BRexit fallout and happenings

it is not, not by any actual economics. The economic analysis is one of the cost-benefit trade off and if you are not playing an inversion of the Marxists a priori belief in an ideological precept, there is a continum where it goes from the positive to the negative.

in any case, all the actual analyses of the issue of the regulation impact on the united kingdom have found that the EU mandated rules are not very impactful, it is mostly the regulation and rule that is self-made in the United Kingdom that are the most economic growth harmful - to read the analyses in the very liberal Financial Times. So the comment was merely based on some ideological precepts

knee jerking of a certain americain political tendency.

This Stanislaus seems quite content ceding control of his own nation to outside entities, I don’t think he cares about this argument in the slightest. Not sure what it would take to be sacrificed before he would stop wanting to be in the Euro superstate club.

This is too simplistic a view. Reduced freedom of movement and employment and increased trade barriers that leaving the EU brings doesn’t count as “economic regulation” in your model, but they make it much harder for labor and capital and goods to go where they’re needed. Imagine that each state in the US could repeal any federal economic regulation, but also that states had to come to trade deals to allow interstate commerce, and also that US citizens couldn’t move from state to state without an application, approval, and naturalization process. Would that boost the economy?

That’s a weak prediction. In the past 5 years, Britain’s economy has grown faster than the EU as a whole, and that while it was part of the EU. The EU as a whole has to contend with Greece and Italy, after all. The real question is will the delta between UK GDP growth and UK+EU GDP growth increase or decrease over the next five years. FWIW, people with money seems to think you’re wrong about this.

I assume that you’re buying into the down market on this prediction?

I remember hearing that Nigel guy mention exactly this, it was sort of a fluke before the vote that they EVER dared let the people decide the fate of something like this, and they would not likely get the chance again.
I’m glad for the misstep, now the UK gets control back, and just like Norway, it will still be able to trade just fine.

Oh yes, just like the Norway, the UK will be the taker of the EU rules waiting in the lobby with the Swiss ambassadeur to learn what they need to do.

it is funny nationalist atavismes.

My first thoughts are along the lines of this. This is just filing for the divorce. There’s a lot of uncertainty dumped into what the formal relationships between the UK and the countries still in the EU will look like now. In the short erm of the next couple of years that uncertainty might almost be more painful.

Combined the union was one of the largest economies in the world. Pulling the second largest economy of the EU out of that union, with a couple years of uncertainty as they do, has a potential to produce some ripples out for the rest of us. Like messy divorces, friends and family might be drug into the pain.

Gibraltar may go over to Spain

Scotland is almost certainly gone, Northern Ireland may follow. Wonder if they’ll have to redo the flag?

Seems to me that Cameron has pushed “Peace In Our Time” Neville out of contention for worst PM of all time.

London is not a sovereign nation, the example fails on its face.

Only weird if you first accept that the UK has ceded executive power to the E.U.
I don’t accept that as fact and I don’t recall ever being asked my consent to it

you spectacularly miss the point. Had the UK voted to be part of such a set-up then there could be no complaint. They never have until now.
They were never asked, it was just assumed that however far europe went, the UK would follow. This vote is not the fault of some unsavoury far right groups. It is the failure of successive UK governments to listen and of the E.U. edifice’s refusal to consider any direction of travel other than expansion and greater union.

Look, I’m a huge fan of Europe, love the people, love the cultures and I’m a huge advocate of co-operation, free trade and movement. There is absolutely no need for the E.U. to exist in its current format for any of that to occur. The E.U. exists for the sake of the E.U. The bureaucracy is the end in itself.

and from where exactly came the mandate to set up such a structure in the first place?

I think the decision to leave may have been short-sighted. On the other hand, it may not be a disaster for the UK in terms of future trade deals with the EU. After all they are a far more valuable and influential trading partner than Switzerland and Norway.

That would set a bad precedent for the EU. The second that the UK got away with it, you’d have other EU members doing the same thing.

Did anyone else think Johnson during his victory speech had the look of a man who was processing that yes, the one night stand is really pregnant? I mean his words were basically a s=combination of “sure children can be a blessing” with a major undercurrent of “an abortion would be so much more practical”.

Disaster? maybe no, very bad, yes.

Of course neither the Norway nor the Switzerland came to negotiations after deeply damaging the EU and offending the Brussels bureaucracy.

As we have already seen with this vote, it is not always the rational economic analysis that prevails in the poltical deicsion, indeed it was the blase approach that got them to this…

:confused:
The treaties that created the structures of the EU were concluded by the elected governments of the respective countries, of course. Same way you got into Nato, the WTO, the ICC, and a slew of other organizations.

True. In the coming days/weeks/months I expect to see an, “OMG, what have we done?!” reaction to sink in.

Feel free to add the united nations in there as well.

The point is that, had NATO, WTO, ICC changed their reach, remit, powers and structure to the extent that the European project has, then I can well imagine similar demands for accountability. None of them have the law making power that the E.U. has and none affects the public so directly on a daily basis.

The whole point of the E.U. is the creation of an ever closer political union. I don’t believe any of the bodies you mention have that intent. You could well make the case that the E.U. actually started out as something far looser and more akin in scope and scale to those bodies

I can tell you are really bitter right now, but based on your other comments there is a silver lining. Scotland will likely break off and join the EU, as the Netherlands and others bail, so it’s not a full loss in the potential domino effect. And the UK was one of the strongest non US hating blocks in the EU, their leaving will shore up the Israel hating forces within the EU block turning it into an ever more jew hating… I mean Israel hating force in the world. You can fast track the bds movement.

Uncalled for? Tell that to large chunks of the muslim immigrant population that think that and worse of the jews in the country.

The WTO does not have law-making powers? Do you actually know how much of law which directly affects you is based upon international (and not EU) laws, rules, regulations, which are very often made by unelected supra national bodies,and in some cases private entities, with elected representatives having sweet fuck all power to influence that in anyway. Rules which decide how much your car costs, the quality of your mobile connection, the fees you pay for luggae in airlines, the bacteria you are permitted to ingest, what stuff you can move over borders.

Don’t get me wrong, the problems with the EU as it exists are manifold, and could (and have) fill whole books. But the popular complaints about it have always been hollow. The tonnes of regulation it produces are a fact of modern life, those will still be produced only by local rather than EU bodies (they are produced anyway to have harmonisation amongst member states) and it was elected governments which signed the various integration accords. Major signed Masstrict and won reelection. Blair came with a agenda for further integration and signed Amsterdam and Nice; and won reelections.

In short, the sovereign British Parliament voted for it to be so.

We live in a representative democracy. We elect representatives to make decisions for us. They don’t consult us on every foreign policy decision, any more than they consult us on tax rates, criminal sentencing or NHS funding.

That’s how Parliamentary democracy works. We vote for a government, and they have a term to do as they see fit. This can’t be news. But you don’t demand consultation on banking regulation, housing policy or Trident, despite these being at least as important on who makes regulations about fruit.

Perhaps it is you who should have another reflection and realise that a significant minority of Scots voted to leave the EU?

And BTW the EU habit of forcing countries to have repeated ‘reflections’ / referenda when they don’t et the right result is one thing that has pissed people off.

No, his analogy was perfectly valid. In fact before I saw it I was going to make exactly the same point. The relationship of member nations to the EU is exactly analogous to multiple levels of government in those matters over which the EU has jurisdiction, and the dislike of the EU by some is exactly analogous to why many Americans dislike the federal government but are loyal to their state or local governments.

There is nothing magical or absolute about national sovereignty – it is diminished every time a nation signs a treaty or accord or any other international agreement. It is diminished by every member nation of the UN, whose members agree to abide by the rulings of its many agencies, councils, and courts. We do this because it’s in the common interest to have shared values and some level of international governance. Of course wingnuts also object to the UN, which is ironic because the Americans who rail against the UN undermining the sovereignty of the United States are usually the same wingnuts who hate the federal government.

If there is any argument to be had here, it’s about the question of whether or not the EU is beneficial overall. From what little I know of its long history and incremental evolution, going back to the Common Market and then the EEC, it seems that it is. It’s indisputably the case that much of the “leave” vote was cast for very, very stupid reasons, the kinds of reasons that Donald Trump would approve of, and indeed has just bloviated accordingly.