Brexit

[bryan]

amusing: Why doesn’t England just leave the UK?

[jacob]

One thing I've noticed since Brexit is that the number of ERE books sold on amazon.co.uk vs amazon.de has changed significantly. The respective channel volume used to be about 1:1. Now it's 1:3.

[Seppia]

Do you mean you sell more on the German Amazon?
I would have thought brexit would have motivated the brits to live more efficiently, maybe out of fear?

[saving-10-years]

@Jacob, has the volume sold on Amazon UK gone down or has the amount of interest in Germany gone up? (This is unusually imprecise reporting on your part). Is the UK (apart from the US) usually the most ERE-book-buying audience? (I don't think that we have reached saturation from what I am seeing). And there are no limits to the applicability of the message!

@Seppia, no bad thing (as we here know) to live more efficiency and perhaps there is some truth in this. The perceived waste of belonging to the EU may have played into voting to leave. It was fascinating that Wales (which has huge gains from EU funding because much of it is economically deprived) voted to leave. Why? One reason might be that the things that they have had funding for (huge road projects in the middle of nowhere, restoration of historic Lido, a lovely Cardiff city centre for the politicians) are not the things that they would have used that money for had they had a say directly. My DH (who is Welsh and knows 'the valleys') points out that building an expensive leisure centre on the site of a former steelworks in an area of high deprivation could be seen as taking the mickey (substitute wording at end there).

More broadly things like the moving of the EU parliament to and from Brussels and Strazburg monthly are seen in the UK as very strange inefficiencies.

Under the current scheme all of Brussels' 751 MEPs along with their papers and official documents are carted between the Belgian capital and Strasbourg, 400 kilometres away, every month.

Tory MEPs have estimated the cost of the gargantuan operation at around £130 million every year, which includes £250,000 for transporting documents, £2.5 million for relocating translators and £1 million for extra catering services.

An official EU report estimated the cost at slightly less - around £93 million a year - but even that figure would mean the scheme has cost £1.7 billion.

Most MEPs apparently want to stop this but are unable to halt it (18 years and counting) because a few countries benefit and refuse to change. Coverage of such inefficiencies in the press doubtless fueled votes to leave: http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... -taxpayers Meanwhile the EU Parliament FAQs page makes it clear how impossible it will be to change ...

17. Why does Parliament move between Brussels and Strasbourg?
The EU's national governments unanimously decided in 1992 to fix permanently the seat of the EU institutions. The official seat and venue for most of the plenary sessions is Strasbourg, Parliamentary Committees and Political Group meetings are held in Brussels and administrative staff are based in Luxembourg. Any change to this current system would need to be part of a new treaty and unanimously agreed by all Member States.

There were 12 member states in 1992, there are 27 now and more to come.

[ducknalddon]

@Seppia half the voters chose to leave, they think everything is fine (and it pretty much has been so far).

@saving-10-years I don't think EU inefficiency was a big issue, virtually every leaver I've spoken to was worried about immigration. I have some sympathy with this as the figures have been very high in recent years.

[vexed87]

It is likely that the increase is seen in the UK due to currency arbitrage, i.e. devalued Sterling to Euro, making it cheaper to import to Germany from UK than buy within the EU, that is until the dastardly EU politicos impose tariffs on ole blighty to protect the single market from such shenanigans .

This is the reason why the tourism, retail and service economy has been doing pretty well since the referendum, despite the uncertainty.

[Seppia]

@Seppia half the voters chose to leave, they think everything is fine (and it pretty much has been so far).

Too short a time to judge, for sure.
The one thing we know for certain is that removing barriers creates a net benefit overall (there might be losers obviously), so adding barriers should do the opposite.
In the very short term U.K. currency lost quite a bit of value, this could have either a positive or negative impact depending if England is a net importer or exporter.

Also, there is the risk that some financial firms move or reduce their presence in the U.K., which would obviously be a big loss.
We will be able to have a first jusdgement in 5-10 years, but I really do not see how this is good for anybody.

[Chad]

NYC and a few cities in the EU will benefit.

Some pain is starting to happen in London.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... at-of-glut

[jim234]

I read that May was a Remainer prior to the vote. If she knows it will be bad for the UK what are the chances that she deliberately throws a monkey wrench in at the last minute and it never actually happens?

For the record, I hope they Remain since I just got a UK passport which will be a lot less useful if they leave.

[ducknalddon]

The city has been losing jobs since 2008, I don't think we can pin all of its troubles on brexit (much as I'd like to).

[jim234]

'Brexit' Must Face a Parliamentary Vote, U.K. Court Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world ... ament.html

So glad about this.

[Ydobon]

'Brexit' Must Face a Parliamentary Vote, U.K. Court Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/world ... ament.html

So glad about this.

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).

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!

[radamfi]

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.

You were saying?

[vexed87]

@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.

[ducknalddon]

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.

[ducknalddon]

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.

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]

@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.

[ducknalddon]

@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".

[vexed87]

@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.

[ducknalddon]

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.