'Brexit' Must Face a Parliamentary Vote, U.K. Court Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world ... ament.html
So glad about this.
Brexit
Re: Brexit
It is good to see the injection of some sanity around this issue from the courts, but the decision is still open to appeal (a date has already been earmarked for this).jim234 wrote:'Brexit' Must Face a Parliamentary Vote, U.K. Court Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world ... ament.html
So glad about this.
I can't see this stopping Brexit, but with a little luck it will be the catalyst for some more sensible decisions around what it should entail and how it might work.
What a mess!
Re: Brexit
You were saying?vexed87 wrote:Now we have a pro-remain Prime Minister, fully expect that the UK going forward will still have strong ties with the EU going forward.
Full disengagement is highly unlikely and we are likely to emulate Norway and Switzerland's bilateral agreements with the EU.
Re: Brexit
@radamfi, it ain't over until the fat lady sings! Talk is cheap and it wouldn't be the first time a politician promised one thing and delivered another.
Of course, I expect the EU will do it's damn best to appear to make an example out of the UK to avoid a domino effect of departing member states. But can they really afford to do so? Don't forget we still have an ace up our sleeves, we import more from the bigger economies than we export in turn, Germany and France in particular stand to lose their trade surpluses, many corporations will be freaking out if their exports are tariffed, we are not a small economy. Economic growth is king in the neoliberal world and it seems to be the only concern of the supranational institution's. Freedom of movement and single market speak are not benevolent policies, they are means of maximising freedom of movement of capital in all forms. Would the EU sacrifice the UK and their trade surpluses to keep the EU dream alive? Maybe but it's in no one's best interest to destroy our interwoven economy. If hard brexit does pan out, it's really not game over if we leave with zero trade ties, things will just look different.
If we do end up with a hard brexit. On the plus, when we leave, we can trade outside the EU under our own terms, something the EU currently forbids. It stands to reason, if goods from the EU become more expensive, we will simply get our imports from elsewhere. The UK is a strong economy and there's going to be a long queue of people hoping to supply us their wares.
In the end it doesn't matter, because the tidal wave of populism that is sweeping the world will either lead to greater protectionism, or if the neoliberals keep their stranglehold, we'll face a race to the bottom. I get the impression the latter is more likely under May, expect more neoliberalism, deregulation of the economy and attacks on workers rights and tax haven status in the UK, unless of course there's significant kick back from the plebians.
In the end it won't matter a damn because the EU has no answers to our two long term predicaments, endless growth on a finite planet and dwindling natural resources. At least outside the EU, we have a chance to be masters of our own destiny. Who gives a shit if we we can't export british beef, financial services or Rolls Royce engines and munitions to France or Germany, or for that matter bring in BMWs or french cheese without a 35% tariff. We have an opportunity now to develop more resilient economy that doesn't rely on imports, build and grow things at home, rather than import/export our produce at the expense of carbon emissions and environmental havoc. Bad for economic growth yes, bad for manufacturing, possibly, more expensive consumer products, likely, but in the end the less dependent we are on our neighbours to provide our own needs and wants, the better we will be in the long run. Try to view localism through the lens of re-tooling the UK economy with the things it needs to be self-sufficient, it makes more sense in a world with shrinking energy supplies than centralisation, globalisation and and neoliberal economics. If we seize the oppertunity, in John Michael Greer's words, we might just have a chance to crash now and avoid the rush.
Alas, all hope is not lost. So long as the UK economy remains relevant and we can produce quality goods, we can still produce and export things that people actually need and want, even if the EU slaps tarrifs on them. With a trade deficit to the EU, we can raise more than we pay to offset certain industries that are considered priorities. We could be in for a bumpy ride in the short term, I agree, but it will make no difference in the long haul. I care not if we have a race to the bottom, or choose a route of protectionism, regardless, there will always be opportunity, we just need to look for it.
Of course, I expect the EU will do it's damn best to appear to make an example out of the UK to avoid a domino effect of departing member states. But can they really afford to do so? Don't forget we still have an ace up our sleeves, we import more from the bigger economies than we export in turn, Germany and France in particular stand to lose their trade surpluses, many corporations will be freaking out if their exports are tariffed, we are not a small economy. Economic growth is king in the neoliberal world and it seems to be the only concern of the supranational institution's. Freedom of movement and single market speak are not benevolent policies, they are means of maximising freedom of movement of capital in all forms. Would the EU sacrifice the UK and their trade surpluses to keep the EU dream alive? Maybe but it's in no one's best interest to destroy our interwoven economy. If hard brexit does pan out, it's really not game over if we leave with zero trade ties, things will just look different.
If we do end up with a hard brexit. On the plus, when we leave, we can trade outside the EU under our own terms, something the EU currently forbids. It stands to reason, if goods from the EU become more expensive, we will simply get our imports from elsewhere. The UK is a strong economy and there's going to be a long queue of people hoping to supply us their wares.
In the end it doesn't matter, because the tidal wave of populism that is sweeping the world will either lead to greater protectionism, or if the neoliberals keep their stranglehold, we'll face a race to the bottom. I get the impression the latter is more likely under May, expect more neoliberalism, deregulation of the economy and attacks on workers rights and tax haven status in the UK, unless of course there's significant kick back from the plebians.
In the end it won't matter a damn because the EU has no answers to our two long term predicaments, endless growth on a finite planet and dwindling natural resources. At least outside the EU, we have a chance to be masters of our own destiny. Who gives a shit if we we can't export british beef, financial services or Rolls Royce engines and munitions to France or Germany, or for that matter bring in BMWs or french cheese without a 35% tariff. We have an opportunity now to develop more resilient economy that doesn't rely on imports, build and grow things at home, rather than import/export our produce at the expense of carbon emissions and environmental havoc. Bad for economic growth yes, bad for manufacturing, possibly, more expensive consumer products, likely, but in the end the less dependent we are on our neighbours to provide our own needs and wants, the better we will be in the long run. Try to view localism through the lens of re-tooling the UK economy with the things it needs to be self-sufficient, it makes more sense in a world with shrinking energy supplies than centralisation, globalisation and and neoliberal economics. If we seize the oppertunity, in John Michael Greer's words, we might just have a chance to crash now and avoid the rush.
Alas, all hope is not lost. So long as the UK economy remains relevant and we can produce quality goods, we can still produce and export things that people actually need and want, even if the EU slaps tarrifs on them. With a trade deficit to the EU, we can raise more than we pay to offset certain industries that are considered priorities. We could be in for a bumpy ride in the short term, I agree, but it will make no difference in the long haul. I care not if we have a race to the bottom, or choose a route of protectionism, regardless, there will always be opportunity, we just need to look for it.
Last edited by vexed87 on Wed Jan 18, 2017 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
ducknalddon
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am
Re: Brexit
There has been a lot of noise over the last six months from opposition politicians and journalists, largely because they are opposition politicians and journalists.
The general message is that we are going into a trade negotiation. We aren't, what we are entering is negotiations over how to separate ourselves from the EU, set your expectations accordingly.
The general message is that we are going into a trade negotiation. We aren't, what we are entering is negotiations over how to separate ourselves from the EU, set your expectations accordingly.
-
ducknalddon
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am
Re: Brexit
You can't really think we are going to get this from a Tory government? Look at the people who wanted us to leave, I didn't see many environmentalists in there.vexed87 wrote:We have an opportunity now to develop more resilient economy that doesn't rely on imports, build and grow things at home, rather than import/export our produce at the expense of carbon emissions and environmental havoc. Bad for economic growth yes, bad for manufacturing, possibly, more expensive consumer products, likely, but in the end the less dependent we are on our neighbours to provide our own needs and wants, the better we will be in the long run.
Re: Brexit
@ducknalddon, of course not, I expect very little from government, regardless of which party is in power. Government do not control the fate of economies, or opportunity. Policy can influence, but it won't stop people working towards their needs and wants. People working together to meet their needs and wants is the economy.
Also, most environmentalists I know are more interested in virtuous signalling than getting to grips with the basics of economics, or understanding the consequences of pursing neoliberal economic policies under the thin-veil of benevolent EU directives and regulations. Those that do, and I know a few, voted out.
Most of the left-wingers/self-proclaimed progressives and environmentalists that I know spent more time moaning about the racists/immigrant haters that get interviewed purely for shock value on the news (neoliberal propaganda, anyone who votes out is racist/deplorable!) rather than seriously considering the implications of pursuit of economic growth at all costs vs. the environmental/social benefits of localism. From a purely practical point of view, I am totally down with restriction or better, an outright ban on immigration. Not because I hate foreigners, but because the UK is a tiny island nation who already relies on food imports. What happens when the trucks stop rolling? It's not going to be pretty. Of course, it's totally impossible to police immigration for all sorts of reasons, but more so when growth is the only issue on the agenda.
Also, most environmentalists I know are more interested in virtuous signalling than getting to grips with the basics of economics, or understanding the consequences of pursing neoliberal economic policies under the thin-veil of benevolent EU directives and regulations. Those that do, and I know a few, voted out.
Most of the left-wingers/self-proclaimed progressives and environmentalists that I know spent more time moaning about the racists/immigrant haters that get interviewed purely for shock value on the news (neoliberal propaganda, anyone who votes out is racist/deplorable!) rather than seriously considering the implications of pursuit of economic growth at all costs vs. the environmental/social benefits of localism. From a purely practical point of view, I am totally down with restriction or better, an outright ban on immigration. Not because I hate foreigners, but because the UK is a tiny island nation who already relies on food imports. What happens when the trucks stop rolling? It's not going to be pretty. Of course, it's totally impossible to police immigration for all sorts of reasons, but more so when growth is the only issue on the agenda.
-
ducknalddon
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am
Re: Brexit
@vexed Even if all the immigrants left we still wouldn't be anywhere near being able to grow all our own food, currently we import more than 50% of it. I'm not even sure we could, during the second world war blockages meant we were slowly starving as a nation.
I understand your frustration with politicians/environmentalists however I think it's rather naive to think we are going down a green route by leaving the EU. The reason many on the right wanted us out is so they can unpick inconvenient legislation that comes from the EU including environmental laws, all that pesky "red tape".
I understand your frustration with politicians/environmentalists however I think it's rather naive to think we are going down a green route by leaving the EU. The reason many on the right wanted us out is so they can unpick inconvenient legislation that comes from the EU including environmental laws, all that pesky "red tape".
Re: Brexit
@ducknalddon, just because the task of developing self-sufficient practices is a great one, or perhaps even impossible in our present situation as you suggest, it doesn't mean we should keep piling on more mouths to feed. Its nonsensical, why make the fall greater? It makes sense to have unlimited migration in an economy without restrictions on food imports, that's not the way the world will work in the future and exposes us to some mortal dangers. Leaving the EU was a first step to end unfettered immigration in the name of free-market economics. Although I recognise that local birth rates are problematic, and the sentiment and motivation to leave was not the same for all who voted, it's at least a practical step in being the masters of our own destiny.
WRT WWII, arguably the nation was slowly starving because it didn't have an established and resilient agricultural economy in place to weather a storm like WWII. We had long since been dependent on American wheat imports since the early days of the agricultural revloution, occasional crop failures aside, not because we couldn't produce our own wheat (we did for centurie)s, but because American wheat was cheaper and preferred by consumers because of the higher protein/gluten content which gave an airier bread. The advent of steam boats was one of the first enablers of globalism, it wasn't economically viable to produce wheat at home any more, so farmers gave up as UK producers were priced out. See the corn laws for an interesting parallel of today's protectionism vs free-trade arguments and take careful note of which industries stood to benefit from free trade vs policy. Its rather interesting history! I have spent a lot of time reading around this because I am a bread baker and love to learn about the history of wheat/bread. TL;DR We could have cheap food and by extension economic growth, but only at the expense of local resilience.
By the time of outbreak of war we had crippled and dismantled our own agricultural system responsible for supplying the bulk of our calories in favour of pursuing the fancies of airy bread, building a more complex civilisation, industry and the great colonial project (empire). The dig for victory campaign was necessary for this very reason as blockades starved the nation. The resilience of the nation's food supply was tested in a way that it hasn't been since, and that's f@$king scary.
I have no doubt that elements of the right had their own nefarious reasons for brexit, some which as a libertarian I sympathise with, and racists have their own unsavoury views, but the end result is the same. A vote in favour of localism. It was only possible because policy favoured the top tier of society by abusing free-trade at the expense the working classes. Hopefully there will be some positives for the plebians, there will be if they are smart enough to demand them. Elites can only have what they want if the masses consent to it.
I also agree, it's extremely naive to think that hard brexit will be a silver bullet for the environmental movement, and more deregulation pursued by an unrestrained right wing government might lead to more environmental blow back and worsening working conditions. This is why the UKs green party was in favour of remain. However, the EU wasn't a envriomental organisation, it pursues neolibeal policies of free-trade and growth at all costs. Its regulations and directives subject to the same lobbying that individual governments are, and the red tape that protected certain industries was another symptom of neoliberal practices, i.e. crony capitalism.
I have a little hope that now we are soon no longer subject to the will of a supranational organisation, we can take back control of our democracy, this will happen sooner if the right continue to push too hard. The increase in industrial action as of late is an indication that the plebs will not be pushed around for too long and are growing weary of conditions. If employee rights are restricted and drastically worsen in a race to the bottom, that'll only strength the resolve of many to move away from the traditional employer/employee relationship and abandon their careers, in favour of a more local and informal economy based on dignity, respect and mutual interest. That would inherently lead to a greener economy, and it took a bit of meandering and a few edits of this post to get there, but it's why I'm hopeful brexit was the right move.
WRT WWII, arguably the nation was slowly starving because it didn't have an established and resilient agricultural economy in place to weather a storm like WWII. We had long since been dependent on American wheat imports since the early days of the agricultural revloution, occasional crop failures aside, not because we couldn't produce our own wheat (we did for centurie)s, but because American wheat was cheaper and preferred by consumers because of the higher protein/gluten content which gave an airier bread. The advent of steam boats was one of the first enablers of globalism, it wasn't economically viable to produce wheat at home any more, so farmers gave up as UK producers were priced out. See the corn laws for an interesting parallel of today's protectionism vs free-trade arguments and take careful note of which industries stood to benefit from free trade vs policy. Its rather interesting history! I have spent a lot of time reading around this because I am a bread baker and love to learn about the history of wheat/bread. TL;DR We could have cheap food and by extension economic growth, but only at the expense of local resilience.
By the time of outbreak of war we had crippled and dismantled our own agricultural system responsible for supplying the bulk of our calories in favour of pursuing the fancies of airy bread, building a more complex civilisation, industry and the great colonial project (empire). The dig for victory campaign was necessary for this very reason as blockades starved the nation. The resilience of the nation's food supply was tested in a way that it hasn't been since, and that's f@$king scary.
I have no doubt that elements of the right had their own nefarious reasons for brexit, some which as a libertarian I sympathise with, and racists have their own unsavoury views, but the end result is the same. A vote in favour of localism. It was only possible because policy favoured the top tier of society by abusing free-trade at the expense the working classes. Hopefully there will be some positives for the plebians, there will be if they are smart enough to demand them. Elites can only have what they want if the masses consent to it.
I also agree, it's extremely naive to think that hard brexit will be a silver bullet for the environmental movement, and more deregulation pursued by an unrestrained right wing government might lead to more environmental blow back and worsening working conditions. This is why the UKs green party was in favour of remain. However, the EU wasn't a envriomental organisation, it pursues neolibeal policies of free-trade and growth at all costs. Its regulations and directives subject to the same lobbying that individual governments are, and the red tape that protected certain industries was another symptom of neoliberal practices, i.e. crony capitalism.
I have a little hope that now we are soon no longer subject to the will of a supranational organisation, we can take back control of our democracy, this will happen sooner if the right continue to push too hard. The increase in industrial action as of late is an indication that the plebs will not be pushed around for too long and are growing weary of conditions. If employee rights are restricted and drastically worsen in a race to the bottom, that'll only strength the resolve of many to move away from the traditional employer/employee relationship and abandon their careers, in favour of a more local and informal economy based on dignity, respect and mutual interest. That would inherently lead to a greener economy, and it took a bit of meandering and a few edits of this post to get there, but it's why I'm hopeful brexit was the right move.
-
ducknalddon
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am
Re: Brexit
I may well be wrong but I'm far from convinced, I just look at the people that have been agitating for brexit over the last few decades and conclude their motives aren't aligned with mine. It's interesting that these anti-establishment brexiters have been clambering over themselves to move up in the establishment post-brexit.
Re: Brexit
Higher population density is an advantage when it comes to the environment. It makes walking, public transport and cycling more viable. Compare a typical compact UK/European town/city to a North American town/city.
Also, heavily populated countries can be self-sufficient in food. Look at the Netherlands, more densely populated than the UK. They are massive food exporters.
Yes, fewer people is good for the environment, but if you are serious about that, have fewer children. If you assume a fixed world population, it is more environmentally friendly to have them crammed next to each other rather than spread across a wide area.
Also, heavily populated countries can be self-sufficient in food. Look at the Netherlands, more densely populated than the UK. They are massive food exporters.
Yes, fewer people is good for the environment, but if you are serious about that, have fewer children. If you assume a fixed world population, it is more environmentally friendly to have them crammed next to each other rather than spread across a wide area.
Re: Brexit
I see where you are coming from BUT...radamfi wrote:If you assume a fixed world population, it is more environmentally friendly to have them crammed next to each other rather than spread across a wide area.
It may make sense to dump your toxic waste all in one place but I would argue for human footprint, human's widely dispersed practising permaculture principles outside of urban environments may well have significantly less footprint on the environment than urban dwellers who are ignorant of their arguably larger demands on the earth's ecology. i.e. Outsourcing food production to the industrialised intensive mono-agriculture farming techniques which work against nature, not with it. A permaculture food garden can actively encourage and balances other life, whereas green revolution style agri actually suppresses it.
Of course, there are advantaged to living in towns and cities which cannot be ignored. Were going off on a tangent now
Re: Brexit
Part of our food export is first imported into the Netherlands, then processed or repackaged in the NL, then shipped out again. We're good at trading in the Netherlands.radamfi wrote: Also, heavily populated countries can be self-sufficient in food. Look at the Netherlands, more densely populated than the UK. They are massive food exporters.
There is a lot of food production, too, that's correct. There's lots of intensive animal farming - which is not very good for the animals, nor for the environment, and perhaps also not for our health (think zoonoses and bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). A second thing is that we have a lot of greenhouses. Also not very environmentally-friendly, because they need a lot of energy in these parts of the world.
In short, I don't think you should look at us for some sustainable answers.
Re: Brexit
Flowers, indeed. I've met some Dutch farmers who now grow their flowers in Africa (cheap labor, lots of sun) and then have them transported to the Netherlands for processing & selling.
-
ducknalddon
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 5:55 am
Re: Brexit
Visiting the flower markets in the Netherlands was fascinating, the scale is enormous.
Re: Brexit
My premature death is one step closer.
Re: Brexit
because of flowers?radamfi wrote:My premature death is one step closer.
Re: Brexit
Because of last night's vote.BRUTE wrote:because of flowers?radamfi wrote:My premature death is one step closer.
Re: Brexit
I don't see a hard brexit being geographically achievable in the long term; it would a require a hard border in Northern Ireland - highly contentious- or some kind of internal border along the Irish Sea, which is somewhat absurd.
We could just join the EFTA; which would be a workable compromise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea ... ssociation
We could just join the EFTA; which would be a workable compromise: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea ... ssociation