Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.

Using something like Single Transferable Vote, rather than another referendum, right?

Could easily have the referendum be:

"Rank options in order of preference (1=highest, 3=lowest):
1. Accept deal and leave
2. Reject deal and leave under WTO terms
3. Remain in EU".

Future War Cultist wrote:And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.

So why bother? Because your example is way too simple. Germany also pays more into the EU than it gets back in money alone. But there are other benefits. People can easily move to another country (we got a bunch of apprentices from Spain some years ago as they were lacking in opportunities and Germany couldn't fill the demand). This creates more tax paying citizens (but you don't see those benefits if you just look at the money flowing from the UK into the EU and from the EU into the UK). Companies also can trade easier inside the EU, that means more revenue for the company (and taxes for the state, again like above) but things being easier also means fewer hurdles of you want too setup a company that can deal with the whole EU, quicker deals (on a business to business or business to consumer level, not government) and much easier access the big market (instead of having to deal with each country's specific regulation). Everybody can act quicker to adapt to the market. Companies need less overhead to access the whole market, either saving them some money or making it possible like for small companies that would otherwise just act in the local market (and would see international expansion as much more risky).

Mario wrote:

Future War Cultist wrote:And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.

So why bother? Because your example is way too simple. Germany also pays more into the EU than it gets back in money alone. But there are other benefits. People can easily move to another country (we got a bunch of apprentices from Spain some years ago as they were lacking in opportunities and Germany couldn't fill the demand). This creates more tax paying citizens (but you don't see those benefits if you just look at the money flowing from the UK into the EU and from the EU into the UK). Companies also can trade easier inside the EU, that means more revenue for the company (and taxes for the state, again like above) but things being easier also means fewer hurdles of you want too setup a company that can deal with the whole EU, quicker deals (on a business to business or business to consumer level, not government) and much easier access the big market (instead of having to deal with each country's specific regulation). Everybody can act quicker to adapt to the market. Companies need less overhead to access the whole market, either saving them some money or making it possible like for small companies that would otherwise just act in the local market (and would see international expansion as much more risky).

It's a bit like saying "New York is a net contributor. So why bother?" Just because you put more in tax dollars in than out doesn't mean you aren't getting greater benefits.

@ Mario

Those Spanish apprentices might not have needed to go to Germany if Spain's economy wasn't doing so poorly on account of the Euro. Youth unemployment in the Mediterranean countries is at what level? 20% average last time I checked.

You have some points though. I laugh when people say that the EU is a socialist racket, because it's actually a corporate racket.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Mario

Those Spanish apprentices might not have needed to go to Germany if Spain's economy wasn't doing so poorly on account of the Euro.

Spanish economy has systemic issues going back to the readjustment to a market economy after years of autarchy during the Franco dictatorship. It rose up steadily after Franco's death to over 20% on the mid-80s, even before it was allowed in the EEC (and the Euro was nothing but a distant project at the time).

You will notice that it's doing rather fine lately, though. With an almost 10-point drop of unemployment from the height of the crisis and being the fastest-growing "big" EU economy for a while now.

Take a look at this 2013 piece:

To Hell and Back: Spain's Grotesque Recession and Its Surprising New Economy
A not-so-short history of the Spanish economy: The half-century housing bubble, the excruciating recession, the grisly unemployment, and, finally, a glimmer of hope.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/to-hell-and-back-spains-grotesque-recession-and-its-surprising-new-economy/280678/

That in hindsight has proven pretty accurate:

Spain’s reforms point the way for southern Europe

Having tackled its problems earlier than Italy or Greece, Spain is now seeing results
https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21723446-having-tackled-its-problems-earlier-italy-or-greece-spain-now-seeing-results-spains

It will still take a while but for the first time in centuries the foundations are starting to look solid.

Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely happy to hear that. But what about Greece, and Italy's ticking debt bomb?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely happy to hear that. But what about Greece, and Italy's ticking debt bomb?

Both countries have issues significantly more complicated than "it's the EU's fault".

What's more interesting, looking at Portugal and Spain tells you how to get good results using pretty much opposite policies. Spain being a tory-like center-right government using tory-like cuts and austerity while Portugal has the Communist party supporting the Socialists in power.

https://www.ft.com/content/ea7f2a22-4219-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.

A solution so impractical as to be almost useless.

And to think you were accusing me of being a parody account!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely happy to hear that. But what about Greece, and Italy's ticking debt bomb?

Shhhh! That goes against the EU is perfect, and we'd all be dead without it, narrative!

To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, don't mention the Greeks!

@ DINLT

As bad a situation as Greece is in, Italy's is a whole lot more dangerous for everyone.

Being in or out of the EU won't make a huge amount of difference as concerns the Italian situation, though on balance we will probably be worse off outside.

Italy are in the Euro, we are not, so our exposure to banking risk through the ECB is minimal.

We of course are still exposed to trading risks because the EU is our biggest trade partner and will remain so after Brexit. (Though reduced in value due to new trading barriers.)

We are likely to lose the advantage of being a major clearing centre in the Euro forex trade, though.

Finally, as outsiders we won't have any say in how to handle the crisis.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.

A solution so impractical as to be almost useless.

And to think you were accusing me of being a parody account!

Please, do go on. How is it impractical? Future War Cultist's suggestion has merit but assumes that people that people that vote for one Leave option would prefer the other Leave option over staying if their option doesn't win. It's essentially the same system France uses in its Presidential elections, it's hardly "impractical".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.

A solution so impractical as to be almost useless.

And to think you were accusing me of being a parody account!

Please, do go on. How is it impractical? Future War Cultist's suggestion has merit but assumes that people that people that vote for one Leave option would prefer the other Leave option over staying if their option doesn't win. It's essentially the same system France uses in its Presidential elections, it's hardly "impractical".

But it is excessive and wont work due to voter fatigue. To my knowledge voter turnout has dropped slightly everytime we've had a major vote recently. If the public is told that they have to vote, and then vote again voter apathy will skew the result.

Lets be fair here apathy was the main reason that Brexit won. Voter apathy will tell against the leave voters who are fed up being labelled as racist and stupid and will probably be dissuaded from voting while the remainers will be motivated to continue voting to stay in the EU.

Cheers

Andrew

I seem to remember something about "lazy non-voters only have themselves to blame". Something about how we shouldn't care about what people that don't vote think, because they had their chance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I seem to remember something about "lazy non-voters only have themselves to blame". Something about how we shouldn't care about what people that don't vote think, because they had their chance.

As opposed to ask7ng the same loaded question until you get the answer you want? The UK,rightly or wrongly, voted to leave the EU. If you can figure out a way to allow a vote where staying is not an option....

Cheers

Andrew

How is the question "loaded", exactly? You're assuming complete homogenity in opinion of people who voted Leave when the entire problem is that what constitutes "Leave" hasn't been defined.

"Would you like to stay in this plane or go for a skydive?"

"Well skydiving sounds cool."

"Ok here's the door out you go."

"What about the parachute?"

"Oh you have to make one on the way down"

"Waaaaaiiittt"

GoatboyBeta wrote:
"Would you like to stay in this plane or go for a skydive?"

"Well skydiving sounds cool."

"Ok here's the door out you go."

"What about the parachute?"

"Oh you have to make one on the way down"

"Waaaaaiiittt"

I'd put it more like:

"Would you like to stay in this plane or go for a skydive?"

"Well skydiving sounds cool."

"Ok, and do you want to hold the 10 kilo weight or the 50 kilo weight?"

"What? Why do I need to hold a weight?"

"Oh you have to hold a weight, weren't you told?"

"No! Okay, I want to stay on the plane."

"Sorry, that's not an option. Here you go, 50 kilo weight for not making your mind up."
*Sound effect of a boot meeting backside*
"AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!"

Future War Cultist wrote:I laugh when people say that the EU is a socialist racket, because it's actually a corporate racket.

Well, the economic union bits benefit the corporations the most (because they already have more money and power than us) but at least there are some bits for the citizens. I would love some sort of tax system that would make it harder (so much harder) to push taxes around until you end up paying nearly nothing. And the EU has been pushing back against some practices of big internet companies (privacy concerns). The big problem is (like this thread, and similar ones have shown) that people assume the EU is some sort of quasi-dictatorship instead of actually being a form of government you can vote for to influence its agenda (and that perception being widespread leads to interests getting more attention that don't necessarily overlap with what the population wants). I still think the EU is (at the moment) humanity's best bulwark against corporate interest taking over even more, due to still being capable of being influenced by actual voters (in the other big trading blocks citizens seem to have less influence than other actors do) and being able to effect change due to it's size/power. Of course that means we need people to be more informed and active in that regard or the EU will just end up helping corporate interests instead of being there for actual people who live inside its borders.

The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.

What difference does this make at this scale?

The rules the EU vote on are broad general themes that all states should comply with. As such you need a voting system that provides a broad view of the populace as a whole. For example on air pollution. From a voter perspective you vote in EU votes on the basis of whether you want greater or less control on air pollution. How it is controlled is then implemented by the individual government. Fear of losing control is just nonsense made up by anti EU propaganda. As an individual you get more control as you get to vote on general principles and then more specific ones (which also happens in the uk with mp, council, parish elections and so on). Take the green agenda. In the uk your vote for the greens may mean nothing in parliament as there is never enough votes to grow their MPs. Yet in a European election that 3% of the vote across all countries can build to provide a louder voice to the green agenda than would ever be achievable under smaller elections.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is the question "loaded", exactly? You're assuming complete homogenity in opinion of people who voted Leave when the entire problem is that what constitutes "Leave" hasn't been defined.

How is the question not loaded? Just look through most of the posts and news items about brexit. Just about everyone who voted for Brexit has been labelled 'racist' 'small minded' or 'xenophobic' in some manner. Now I'm not denying that some of the people voting they way they did are exactly that. However the majority of people who voted for Brexit did so because of other reasons. For example the original vote in the 70s was for entering the single market. That was it. And somehow that simple question has led to open borders, the superiority of the ECJ, the loss of the fishing fleet (not that the fishing wars was anything to be happy about) and a few other things.

But because of all the furore over the racist angle people who voted leave will now be dissuaded from voting because they don't want that label. Because rather than accept that leavers have valid reasons, remainers have to demonise them in order to validate their position of staying in the EU.

I had hoped that the negotiations would have shown a willingness on both sides to try and make this process as painless as possible, but it seems that that is going to be a fruitless wish as the EU side has simply refused all proposals from the UK side.

tbh it looks as if it truly will be a hard brexit, as there is no way in hell that the voting public, after voting for brexit, will accept even stricter regulations for some half assed deal than they had under the previous full membership.

People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.

Cheers.

Andrew

On the subject of EU negotiations, I've been watching a lot youtube videos on what Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, has to say on Brexit and the EU.

He has a lot of good things to say about the EU, and a lot of bad things. Well worth the watch and recommended to anybody.

Two conclusions can be drawn from his dealings with Brussels and what he has to say about them:

1. Do not trust the EU an inch. Not one inch. They will leak, lie, and distort during these Brexit negotiations.

2. The EU are not interested in negotiations. They will pretend to negotiate, there will be the illusion of negotiations, but no actual negotiations will take place.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.

Hear hear

 AndrewC wrote:

People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.

Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.

The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.

I would go one step further with that plane notion.


It's like getting on a plane that you thought was going to Rome, except the airline changed the destination without telling you.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.

Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.

The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.

Then your argument is wrong. If the plane was never meant for skydiving then Article 52 would never have been written into the constitution. We got onto that plane knowing that we could skydive.

And whether you consider the proposals as delusional, they are a starting point to which the EU response has been no. In this particular case the EU is playing to the remain crowd by saying no, they the remainers get to say look the UK has no plan. Sorry I think you may find that the leavers aren't that bothered and are quite prepared to accept the hard brexit option.

Cheers

Andrew

OK, humor me.

Let's assume that a vote is called where you get to choose between one of the three alternatives below. Whether the winner is decided in a second run-off between the two top alternatives, through single transferrable vote or something else is irrelevant for your accusations of loading the quesion.

The UK should accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union.

The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union.

The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and remain in the European Union

Where is the loaded question? Bear in mind that a loaded question is a question like "have you stopped beating your wife?" that makes unwarranted assumptions in such a manner that the respondee have to agree to something that isn't the subject of the question. Where am I doing that?

I had an analogy for the eu and us involving a car. Britain was a car, the British people it's legal owner and the British government was our dopey 18 year old who just got their R plates and are named on the insurance. First our kid signs us up this 'automobile association' that provides cheap insurance and breakdown cover. And we argee to it because why the hell not? But then over time the insurance premiums start to rise, and then they're demanding that the car can only be serviced at one of their approved garages, which charge a fortune for suspect work. Then we discover that our kid has been lending the car out to other people and using it as an uber mobile on the side, and when we complain to these people they say 'oh but we signed a contract with your kid so it's all perfectly legal so if you don't drive us to the supermarket we'll sue you'. And when we do put a stop to it all, not only are they trying to sue us, but they're also threatening to slash the tyres and put a brick through the windscreen.

 AndrewC wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.

Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.

The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.

Then your argument is wrong. If the plane was never meant for skydiving then Article 52 would never have been written into the constitution. We got onto that plane knowing that we could skydive.

And whether you consider the proposals as delusional, they are a starting point to which the EU response has been no. In this particular case the EU is playing to the remain crowd by saying no, they the remainers get to say look the UK has no plan. Sorry I think you may find that the leavers aren't that bothered and are quite prepared to accept the hard brexit option.

Cheers

Andrew

The problem was Article 52 was an emergency parachute intended for the possibly of throwing a rogue state out, not for countries wanting to jump ship. There was never any intention that it would involve a nice soothe gentle landing, which is why we are in the situation we are in.

I've got an analogy involving a privately built Danish submarine.

There is a legitimate concern about the neo-liberal economic policies and tendencies of the EU in its current format. There is a legitimate concern that amalgamating into larger and more opaque forms of government dilutes the democratic power of the average voter. There is a legitimate concern about the EU's track record for consistently voting itself greater powers and slipping them past negligent or complicit national governments. And so on.

These problems exist whether one considers the EU inclusive or exclusive of Brexit. They concern a large number of people in many different countries spread across the EU. Unfortunately, they are also worries which the EU has systematically consistently failed to address.

The EU is, on an structural level, a tangled mess of cross-jurisdictions and private/commercial/national interests. One which, despite all of its grandiosely titled bodies and split domains of responsibility, appears to have very little in the way of strategic oversight, checks, and balances.

For me, these issues alone were sufficient of a reason to vote to leave. I suspect that blind nationalism tipped the vote in my favour. But then again, judging by what I have read in this thread alone, there is sufficient blind nationalistic style faith in the EU itself that it is not a one sided affair in that regard. The EU's consistent effort to instill a sense of 'European' identity has borne considerable fruit, it would seem. Which is interesting.

Beyond that, there doesn't really appear to be much more to discuss that hasn't already been chewed over at least five times. The thread seems to have devolved for the most part into point scoring.

On that basis, looking at other contemporary political going ons, apparently the UK operational deficit is down to 46 billion pounds a year now from 121 billion in 2012.