Brexit

[mykonian]

I'd try the BBC website right now, Molla. Everybody is a bit in shock and stuff isn't super clear yet, but it's basically the only news they are going to have today.

[mykonian]

ftr, I see some british looking at this as a possible start of a process to Europe. I'd be very surprised. Eurosceptics exists, but the environment is so different than in the UK, in terms of history, geography, but also demography (a fact that I didn't really appreciate before yesterday ). Unless this somehow becomes a success story, I don't see any country with as big an incentive to leave.

[mykonian]

https://twitter.com/GoogleTrends/status ... 8820937728

One would think one would look at this before one voted

[mykonian]

idk. It's appealing to think: "Well, we just tell Brussels we don't need their laws, we'll do with a few less immigrants. Then we renegotiate some trade agreements and it won't be so good but then what did I ever see of that? We can cut the middleman if we just get the subsidies from London in stead of through Brussels".

But then you wake up, the pound has dropped off a cliff, Scotland is seriously thinking about leaving again and the prime minister has quit. Suddenly it's not "going to be alright" and what is happening is rather confusing. Can't exactly begrudge people for trying to figure out what's coming next, but yes, wished they had done that beforehand

[mykonian]

heh, funny that you should say that. If you've had the Norwegian option (part of the market, free labour movement, no political influence), the swiss (part of the market, no political influence), next option is the Canada one. A special set of trade agreements between a foreign country and the EU (there's a small set of nations like that, but Canada was the first). That should be a baseline goal of the Brits to make in the two years that they move away from the EU, because otherwise they leave with no special connection at all, while they were very connected to the European market.

I'm with springlullaby in a way. The UK had a pretty good deal, which they are going to lose. Europe has nothing to gain from ruining the Brits and I don't believe it takes much to make the Brits be worse off. After that I suspect the bigger issue is what the Brits could get through parliament. It won't be popular politically, unless there are some changes, to once again pay money to Brussels or still accept the Polish labourers coming in, which really limits the options.

[mykonian]

But if you think the masse is ignorant, you can only blame the elite for not doing their job at educating it.

That takes someone special and you know it. This is an unfair statement.

[mykonian]

I wouldn't doubt that, but the extent this changes life might be limited. You may be fine cdb, depending on what they arrange during those 2 years.

[mykonian]

or it's a way to gain favour while being in a tough spot.

It's an interesting discussion, but perhaps not one that should be held here?

[mykonian]

You have the February 2014 Revolution in Ukraine that resulted from President Viktor Yanukovych which ended up with him being impeached and fleeing the country, and the 'Maidan' protesters instituting a new form of government.

Well this is missing some key information. Also it's hardly related. I'd say you are trolling, but then you are American. You are hardly looking at the EU creating controversy here, you look at a country that's between the influence of the EU and Russia. You could technically say that the growing EU is upsetting the status quo, but then again the controversy in the UK is that they disliked the status quo.

IDK. Hard to relate these.

[mykonian]

And I don't know how to help to make things better again.

At this point, it has happened. You can make your world smaller, not reading the news etc, just focussing on your own community mostly. Some political discussions probably can't be avoided, but otherwise, life will go on! You may have left the EU, but that doesn't mean we kept all the love. Around you people still depend on another, neighbours, friends, etc.. You can't fix the whole world, but you can for a moment focus on where you can make a difference. It's no use to let this get you down.

[mykonian]

I voted remain because i knew what would happen. It was clear that Boris et al didn't have a plan from the start, but just wanted to get one up on Cameron.

Otoh, Cameron wanted to place a masterstroke. Can't exactly feel sorry for him either.

[mykonian]

ok, this is again where I'd need some "help" from you Brits. I thought you'd be pleased if it wasn't the opportunist Johnson leading you. Why he does it is his problem moreso (idk if it'd be political suicide to lead the country now for him).

And I'd probably need someones (nexus? ) opinion on Gove, don't know the guy at all.

[mykonian]

this is the gift that keeps on giving

It's all show. He's not disappearing.

[mykonian]

So you shift towards the policies that form the problem? That's what got them in this mess. You just do that if you want to win for your person rather than what the party stands for. Scotland showed Labours problem, so did this Brexit vote. Labours traditional support (the common worker) has walked away to wards the extremists, or the nationalists. Clear messages at least, and you can say a lot about populists, but they tend to look after the common man.

This is what labour has stopped doing. They are preaching leftist policies to more or less nobody. Liberals don't want to hear it, and the common man doesn't get it and doesn't feel represented. In these years of neoliberalism in Europe, it's enticing to go with the flow even if you are social democrat yourself. It's good for everybody obviously, and it was for a long time. It's hardly just english labour that moved towards the right in that time and mixed in some neoliberal policies.

Now if Labour wants to get voted, they don't have a story to tell to the voters on the right. They already compromised towards there. They'd have to regain their traditional support, because in all honestly nobody is really representing the common labourer at this point, they are escaping to somewhat extreme options.

[mykonian]

Labour have even less hope of getting elected any time soon by being a slightly less mean version of the Tories (a position that will only continue to mean being dragged further and further rightwards), which was demonstrably shown to not be a thing at the last general election, than they do under Corbyn.

I heartily disagree.

I think it succumbs to the natural inclination that the way to win is to be closer to ones personal values and rationalize around that. But it's fantasy.

It's not like offering some throwback party that was routinely trounced from '79 to '92 is offering this "third way" that suddenly people will come to realize is the way forward.

I mean, you could take this to a ridiculous point zor, so take this as that. What use is it to become a copy of the conservatives (and have equal chances at winning) if that just means you going to do the same shit? At what point are you selling too much of your soul for that chance of a victory? That point surely is somewhere along that line. I think we are arguing here if labour already passed that point.

And in this case, I don't think soul is as woolly as it sounds. There is a group of voters associated with it, that left labour for this very reason. You seem to think that labour could compete with the conservative voters, while in the last elections they didn't lose their votes to them. They lost them to the scots and ukip. I don't know if agree with your statement that they are lost forever. Ukip for sure is riding a high now, they'll run out of steam. The Scots are going to be interesting for sure, but regardless their message is way different. I think it might be easier for labour to find votes on the left. Not even the progressive left, they don't matter.

[mykonian]

Well insofar as things can be broken down on a simple left-right continuum (and yes, it's substantially more complicated than that), the idea is to place yourself slightly more center than your primary opponent while trying to capture as much of your policy preferences as possible. In this fantasy simplistic world where both parties are totally rational actors, both will tend toward the middle (whatever the middle happens to be, there's not an objective middle or anything, just the middle voter's preference at the time of the election), but in the real world party, individual leaders, a more complicated field than simply "left or right" on a multitude of issues (see immigration), ability to influence voter preference through campaigning, difference in salience to various voters, an uneven distribution of policy preferences among constituencies, and a lack of perfect information on what that policy position keep it from ever being truly the same.

Regardless, the idea isn't to become a copy of the Conservative Party, it's to place yourself competitively enough to win while capturing the most you can of your own preferences, particularly those that are important to you. Negotiation and compromise is a feature of democracy, not a bug.

I said that was pulling the argument into ridiculousness Just wanted to set the far limit of the scale of how much compromise you can afford.

And I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think the issue here is that the "center" changes over time, and in the last decade or two it has shifted away from labour. And you might know this better than I do, but what is percieved as the center is hardly random, it's something created by politicians, the media, economic fortunes, etc. I wonder if chasing the center that you cannot really cover with your ideals is a workable solution, or if perhaps providing an alternative that way trying to influence the political debate to include your ideals, in a way moving the percieved center closer to you (and hoping for a little bump from the economic situation along the line). Surely, with harsher times to come and the common man voting against the establishment as it was, there's something to say for that argument.

UKIP may capture a certain number of votes from traditional Labour strongholds, but unless Labour wants to go down the road of xenophobic isolationism that's not going to be something they can compete with either. I don't think being to the left is going to convince these voters to turn Labour.

I think that's the wrong way to look at UKIP voters. You aren't going to beat UKIP on racism, that's their thing. But the people voting them aren't racist per sé. Voting UKIP is a protest vote of sorts, for people who don't feel represented by anything else, who feel they are the losers of life atm. Populists like that are a sign that common politics is failing if they get bigger. UKIP has only a marginal voice in terms of economics, basically try to please the common man with very basic solutions. And UKIP didn't get that many votes from the conservative base, so this is essentially the failure of labour. These are votes that can and should be won back when UKIP shows that they don't actually have a plan how to make life better for the common man and when they devolve into petty politics amongst themselves or run out of steam otherwise.

[mykonian]

Populists like that are a sign that common politics is failing if they get bigger.

Not necessarily!

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... or-renewal

Though you'll find no love for UKIP in me.

Trump is a perfect example for my statement, I'm sorry. If a big man with an incoherent story but at least simple messages can connect with the voters, why can't the establishment? And they didn't want him. Even that article itself describes how a rising gap between rich and poor could push America to Trump.

There are examples of populism working out in the long run (iirc one or two in south america that ended up being beneficial), but that also arose from a stormy rise in power as the people did not feel represented by the nationalist governments put there.

Common politics must be failing for populists to get the disgruntled common man they need.

[mykonian]

I was listening to Dan Carlin, and he made the interesting point that things like this were the reason why the American system doesn't have referendums. You get all sorts of weird things when you make decisions based on a poll of a bunch of non-experts who don't understand the full implications of the decisions they're being asked to make.

On the other hand, it's good to stay in touch with the people when it comes to real change, where politics might be entrenched.

Say, imaginary world where Clinton becomes president and really wants to abolish the right to carry guns. This is not going to work out, as you know.

However, suppose she'd bypass the house and ask the people what they want, there's a possibility that a conclusive answer might actually get her somewhere. Also not likely, but it's a reason why a referendum might be a healthy option, making sure politics and the real world don't diverge too much.

[mykonian]

I mean Brexit wasn't something that a referendum

had

to be made of

Cameron just decided that (as part of his policy if the Tories won) he'd hold a referendum on it (to reduce people voting for UKIP as their policy was just to leave the EU, as Cameron was worried of a potential pseudo-Brexit vote as the votes split between UKIP and Tory in the general election depending on which people wanted to exit the EU).

Parliament could have easily just made a decision independently

(Disclaimer: not an expert so something is probably wrong here, but this is along the right lines)

Not really though. Parliament wanted to stay. They still do. The people didn't.

Now you could argue who's right and who's more qualified to make that decision, but point remains that parliament is supposed to represent the people. It's not a good state to be in where the two don't agree. Regardless of how you think about the result, the concept of a referendum worked here, I think.

[mykonian]

Yeah Zor has the gist of it, I think. The EU from a rich country point of view goes well beyond how much money is thrown towards Brussels. It might seem "unfair" that Poland gets x amount of money, and pays only y. But with that money to invest, what are they supposed to do? Infrastructure is greatly improved in these countries, meaning they are much more unlocked to take part in the trade. Sure, there's money thrown at agriculture, but is the Polish industry supposed to compete for cost on machinery with German producers? And sure, Polish workers end up migrating as well, including to Brittain: who really benefits from this cheap labour just being accessible like that? Investment opportunities are bountifull in less developed countries. Bring some knowledge and a pile of money and your effect will be much bigger than a developed country where the margins would be smaller. Yet who has this pile of money ton invest, and reap the returns? Overall, money flows towards where it mostly is already. Germany pouring money into this European project isn't out of generosity, they stand to win the most, as they have the biggest pile of money, the most developed industry as it stands.

Now from an EU point of view, it's one less competitor for these boons. But a bigger effect is probably that the UK is a sizable market to sell to after all. Not that it will disappear, but it'll become harder to sell to, so like the Netherlands, for who the UK was decently important as a place to trade with, iirc it's projected to cost a percent or two in money made, which is sizable. Specific countries stand to gain though. Purely on budget, I shouldn't think that France is sad about the rebate disappearing, even if it could be rediscussed. With the economic center of London potentially disappearing behind borders, there's another English speaking country nearby, still within the EU. I am not saying Dublin is the new London, but there are opportunities there. Otherwise, there's always Frankfurt. Overall though, it's a big market disappearing, and that'll sting. The main difference is that the effect is spread out on that side. In nearly all cases I spoke about there were two sides that benefitted, though I suspect the rich countries couldn't complain. The further the UK wants to throw up the barriers to Europe, the further they are cutting into their own benefits as well.

Which means it's still a question how thorough this is going to be. Whatever we hear now really is already part of the negotiations, the game that's played there. Too early to tell imo.

[mykonian]

eh, not quite that bad. There's something to be said for ruling ones own country. Depends a bit how good you think the deal you got was.

[mykonian]

"suddenly"

That it had settled didn't mean the pressures around it disappeared. You can wait another 100 years and Spain still will want it to become Spanish. It's very convenient if you want to show you are going to play hardball.

shrug.

[mykonian]

well, there's something to be said for being allowed to set your own taxes and stuff, not being Spanish and being British for the sake of it.

Surely you could see the benefits of freedom

[mykonian]

Crummy has a negative tone to me. If you intended that differently, feel free to clarify.

[mykonian]

Yeah, I see this as EU/Spain putting it on the agenda as a point the UK has to fight for, in stead of assuming it'll work out down the road. The UK still has the same goals with Gibraltar, which have nothing to do with the economics of it, never have. To a point it got the benefit of being in the Eurozone yet not really being part of it. Now if your assumption is that Gibraltar, with the UK, would come behind import taxes etc, then sure, theyd be stuck in a bad place. Then again, such a hard brexit leaves all parties suffering. Further, Spain really has little to win by cutting off gibraltar from it's lifeline. It's practically part of the Spanish economy. If this wasn't talked about, beyond the formality of reorganising how the border was going to work (and it is already a special case), really from the point of gibraltar little would change. I don't see how anything could change all that dramatically.

See the first post in respect to this. It's a very convenient topic from the EU to put pressure on the UK. From the point of the UK, since forever, it's been a military base and otherwise they can sort themselves out. And sure Spain would very much like it to be part of their nation, though that's not going to happen in forever. In the end what mostly matters for gibraltar is how hard the brexit will be, the particular point of them is but a tiny topic on that agreement. But making it a topic now is a way to make the negotiations more difficult for the other side.

To me this the game of negotiations being played, nothing to really get worked up about.

[mykonian]

It's a weird duality where you're assuming Spain cares exclusively about the economy and the UK doesn't at all.

The UK historically, hasn't. It's let the reigns loose for idk how long. It's far away and as long as it's there they are happy.

When it comes to the simple thing as shopping, buying a car, etc, they don't do that in England. That's done in Spain, given they can walk there. To a point the EU was annoyed that it is a tax haven of sorts, and the free market is apparently less free for gibraltar (as far as I can tell customs are collected), but otoh, given it's near them, Spain is the least served by a ruination of the enclave. You showed the numbers: that's a shitload of money passing through a couple of square miles. The profit made, now that has to be spent somewhere.

We aren't having a different discussion, you assume the situation as it is isn't actually beneficial to multiple sides. Sovereignity, the line over which this is fought, is really not going to change. You assume the economic situation has to change. I think at the end of the road, Spain is fairly happy to concede the status quo in gibraltar for w/e advantage they can get in the negotiations, given they shouldn't really mind it, it should have a sizable positive effect on the nearby area economically. The UK however assuming it wouldn't have to be talked about, now that was letting it go a bit too easily. By putting it up as a point of discussion, now May&co have to spend energy in representing their citizens, in that faraway place.

So I don't think the duality is that weird at all, it's based in geography. I could be proven wrong, but I'd be surprised if the situation about gibraltar is significantly changed 2 years from now.

[mykonian]

I'm trying to explain that nobody actually wants the situation to change. You somehow expect one to happen, on the basis that Spain wouldn't care about the economic situation in gibraltar.