Brexit in a nutshell

[Augustus]

It is as much of a burden as it is a benefit as it ensures the economical advantages that can be gained.
To expect to be able take advantage of that structure without contributing towards it is unreasonable.

There is the EU economic project and the EU political project. Most of the political stuff is not essential for the economic.

People who are against Brexit seem to be arguing that this political stuff is a burden, hence Britain would get too good a deal by only joining the economic part and other countries might be tempted to leave if they could get such a deal. At the same time, they seem to be arguing that it is ridiculous and bigoted for anyone to wish to be free of the political stuff.

Remain: Short term economic benefit, yet political burden and democratic deficit (short-term as long term effects are unknowable)
Brexit: Short-term economic harm, yet political and democratic benefit

There is a reasonable case for preferring either one of those positions.

 

[Augustus]

the EU has a mandate to take care of the interests of members. Right?

The EU has a massive trade surplus with the UK and will be paid tens of billions in 'divorce fees' if there is a deal, their interest is a mutually beneficial deal.

They favour ideology over practicality though which lots of pro-EU people seem to think is the unforgivable sin of the Brexiteers

 

[Koldo]

There is the EU economic project and the EU political project. Most of the political stuff is not essential for the economic.

People who are against Brexit seem to be arguing that this political stuff is a burden, hence Britain would get too good a deal by only joining the economic part and other countries might be tempted to leave if they could get such a deal. At the same time, they seem to be arguing that it is ridiculous and bigoted for anyone to wish to be free of the political stuff.

The political and the economic project have always been interwined.
It is ridiculous to expect to be free of the political stuff when the members themselves are not.
They pay the political cost to achieve the economical benefit that the UK wants for free.

Remain: Short term economic benefit, yet political burden and democratic deficit (short-term as long term effects are unknowable)
Brexit: Short-term economic harm, yet political and democratic benefit

There is a reasonable case for preferring either one of those positions.

How do you gather there is only either a short-term economic benefit or harm in both of those scenarios ?
No one can rightfully predict that with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Koldo]

The EU has a massive trade surplus with the UK and will be paid tens of billions in 'divorce fees' if there is a deal, their interest is a mutually beneficial deal.

They favour ideology over practicality though which lots of pro-EU people seem to think is the unforgivable sin of the Brexiteers

I don't get why you keep mentioning a 'mutually beneficial deal'.
If that's what the UK wanted in the first place it would have remained in the EU.
Why would the EU offer that then when it can easily bargain for more than that ?

 

[Estro Felino]

The EU has a massive trade surplus with the UK and will be paid tens of billions in 'divorce fees' if there is a deal, their interest is a mutually beneficial deal.

They favour ideology over practicality though which lots of pro-EU people seem to think is the unforgivable sin of the Brexiteers

Bingo.
Because it is not about trade. It is about banking matters.

 

[Augustus]

The political and the economic project have always been interwined.
It is ridiculous to expect to be free of the political stuff when the members themselves are not.
They pay the political cost to achieve the economical benefit that the UK wants for free.

The point is that much of the political stuff doesn't have to exist, the reasoning behind it is ideological: 'ever closer union'. The EU could very easily have a highly effective economic community without most of it. So they choose to have it, not out of necessity, but because they want to have it.

Assumedly, the EU must believe Britain would be missing out by not getting the 'benefit' of all of these things while also contributing to the EU budget without having any decision making authority. They fear giving people the choice of economic only as they worry that people might just decide that this is actually far more desirable, which is strange if its obviously such an amazing thing to be part of.

It would be interesting to see how many people in Europe would choose an economic community over political union if ever given the choice.

Imo, in the long run, the political stuff will be what brings the house down as it did with Brexit. It's also already devastated the economy of Greece, arguably Italy too and then practically engaged in regime change in order to bail them out of problems exacerbated by the Euro (which Greece should never have been allowed in in the first place as it failed to meet the EU's own requirements). It's also contributed to rising far-right nationalism across Europe, and a 'one size fits all' way of governing very different nations/economies via horse-trading and muddled compromises may not be the best way to thrive in the uncertain world of the future.

The EU has shown no signs it is capable of learning from its mistakes though, and the next financial crisis won't be too far away. Governments also burned a lot of matches responding to the last one (while also not learning from their mistakes) and this could make it far harder to respond to the next one.

Only time will tell, but the EU is far from rock-solid, and its fragility is mostly of its own making.

How do you gather there is only either a short-term economic benefit or harm in both of those scenarios ?
No one can rightfully predict that with any degree of accuracy.

That's what I said.

Remain: Short term economic benefit, yet political burden and democratic deficit (short-term as long term effects are unknowable)
Brexit: Short-term economic harm, yet political and democratic benefit

People also said it was a terrible decision for Britain not to join the Euro too, but that doesn't look so bad with hindsight.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is the EU economic project and the EU political project. Most of the political stuff is not essential for the economic.

People who are against Brexit seem to be arguing that this political stuff is a burden, hence Britain would get too good a deal by only joining the economic part and other countries might be tempted to leave if they could get such a deal. At the same time, they seem to be arguing that it is ridiculous and bigoted for anyone to wish to be free of the political stuff.

I don't think that I have met or heard of anyone who opposes Brexit doing anything resembling any of that. I will be very surprised if I meet anyone who does.

Politically, the UK surrenders essentially nothing unless it goes ahead with Brexit, widely trumped urban legends not standing. Because if it leaves it will of course have no vote in the EU and no participation in certain joint initiatives, while still having to deal with EU trade policies if it hopes to trade with what is after all their main foreign market.

 

[Koldo]

The point is that much of the political stuff doesn't have to exist, the reasoning behind it is ideological: 'ever closer union'. The EU could very easily have a highly effective economic community without most of it. So they choose to have it, not out of necessity, but because they want to have it.

Assumedly, the EU must believe Britain would be missing out by not getting the 'benefit' of all of these things while also contributing to the EU budget without having any decision making authority. They fear giving people the choice of economic only as they worry that people might just decide that this is actually far more desirable, which is strange if its obviously such an amazing thing to be part of.

This is one of those situations where people benefit from the political stuff even if they are not the ones paying for it so they start thinking: What if someone else paid for it ? For instance, everyone benefits from a cleaner environment but nobody wants to shoulder the costs.

It would be interesting to see how many people in Europe would choose an economic community over political union if ever given the choice.

Imo, in the long run, the political stuff will be what brings the house down as it did with Brexit. It's also already devastated the economy of Greece,

They. Couldn't. Handle. Their. Freaking. Budget.

arguably Italy too and then practically engaged in regime change in order to bail them out of problems exacerbated by the Euro (which Greece should never have been allowed in in the first place as it failed to meet the EU's own requirements). It's also contributed to rising far-right nationalism across Europe, and a 'one size fits all' way of governing very different nations/economies via horse-trading and muddled compromises may not be the best way to thrive in the uncertain world of the future.

I still consider that a step up though. The usual european way to deal with their neighbors is to wage a war whenever trouble arises.

The EU has shown no signs it is capable of learning from its mistakes though, and the next financial crisis won't be too far away. Governments also burned a lot of matches responding to the last one (while also not learning from their mistakes) and this could make it far harder to respond to the next one.

Only time will tell, but the EU is far from rock-solid, and its fragility is mostly of its own making.

Everyone is fragile. The question is: Who is going down first ?

That's what I said.

People also said it was a terrible decision for Britain not to join the Euro too, but that doesn't look so bad with hindsight.

Ok. I get what you meant now.

 

[Augustus]

I don't get why you keep mentioning a 'mutually beneficial deal'.
If that's what the UK wanted in the first place it would have remained in the EU.
Why would the EU offer that then when it can easily bargain for more than that ?

You don't get why it benefits the EU to sign a deal to facilitate trade with a country with which it has a massive trade surplus?

 

[Augustus]

This is one of those situations where people benefit from the political stuff even if they are not the ones paying for it so they start thinking: What if someone else paid for it ? For instance, everyone benefits from a cleaner environment but nobody wants to shoulder the costs.

Britain would still be paying in to the fund, and the benefits generally come from the economic zone, not the 'ever closer union' bit.

They. Couldn't. Handle. Their. Freaking. Budget.

You don't think it is possible that a country can mismanage its economy and the consequences can be greatly exacerbated by belonging to a transnational currency with other countries that have very different economies to yours and a ECB that is not acting in your country's best interests?

Also go and read up how Greece got into the Eurozone in the first place (basically, they cooked the books and the EU allowed them to cook the books as it was politically expedient for them to break their own rules designed to prevent the kind of problems Greece experienced).

I still consider that a step up though. The usual european way to deal with their neighbors is to wage a war whenever trouble arises.

Given that the political aspects of the EU have certainly contributed to the rise of far-right nationalism, one might consider that a mostly economic zone would be the best way to continue this long term.

If you are interested in a scientific paper making a similar argument:

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model's success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country. In Switzerland, mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution guarantee either sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and that region has experienced significant violent conflict, leading to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

Everyone is fragile. The question is: Who is going down first ?

Nations have a far longer history of being robust than the EU does, so I know what my money is on.

Lindy effect - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

You don't get why it benefits the EU to sign a deal to facilitate trade with a country with which it has a massive trade surplus?

Absolutely. Which is why May got a deal after all. Just not the kind of deal that people were expecting.

 

[Koldo]

Britain would still be paying in to the fund, and the benefits generally come from the economic zone, not the 'ever closer union' bit.

If given the chance, would it ?

You don't think it is possible that a country can mismanage its economy and the consequences can be greatly exacerbated by belonging to a transnational currency with other countries that have very different economies to yours and a ECB that is not acting in your country's best interests?

Also go and read up how Greece got into the Eurozone in the first place (basically, they cooked the books and the EU allowed them to cook the books as it was politically expedient for them to break their own rules designed to prevent the kind of problems Greece experienced).

Most certainly. It sounded as if you were blaming EU entirely for it though, but it was Greece that dig up its own hole in the first place.

Given that the political aspects of the EU have certainly contributed to the rise of far-right nationalism, one might consider that a mostly economic zone would be the best way to continue this long term.

If you are interested in a scientific paper making a similar argument:

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model's success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country. In Switzerland, mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution guarantee either sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and that region has experienced significant violent conflict, leading to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

I don't consider Switzerland to be much of an example for... anything. It is a small country and a tax haven. Whatever one learns from it, might not be applicable in a larger scale.

Nations have a far longer history of being robust than the EU does, so I know what my money is on.

Lindy effect - Wikipedia

If by robust you mean maintaining sovereignty, no matter how wrecked up the country ends up, sure.

 

[Shad]

This is a big part of what I don't understand about Brexit.

If EU needs UK more than UK needs EU, then UK could press for a better and more favorable agreement. The UK wouldn't have to leave with no deal. They just demand terms that they consider more fair. The EU wouldn't be in a position to refuse.

But this doesn't seem to be the case. The EU seems to remain united, it's UK that is fracturing into warring parties.

What's with that?
Tom

Cake and eat it too issue in my view.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Funny Brexit summary I just read in a magazine:

UK: We want a unicorn!
EU: Unicorns do not exist. Instead, you can have a pony.
UK: We vote against your pony.
EU: We already discussed this in detail: it's a pony or nothing.
UK: We vote against your pony.
EU: Alright, then you get nothing.
UK: We vote against your nothing.
EU: ... you really don't get it, do you?
UK: We need more time to think about it.
EU: About the pony or about nothing?
UK: We want a unicorn.




It's a joke, but as an analogy, it seems spot on.

A BBC article was asking if Monty Python is running things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Freemasons are harmless, at least here in Brazil.

That's how they are in the US. Pretty much an adults "boys only club." Some people are suspicious of them, because they are a "secret society." (the literature of theirs I've gotten to read is actually pretty interesting, but no apocalyptic one world government, the rituals most definitely are not Satanic, and if anything their literature makes them look like a bunch of drama queens)

 

[Estro Felino]

That's how they are in the US. Pretty much an adults "boys only club." Some people are suspicious of them, because they are a "secret society." (the literature of theirs I've gotten to read is actually pretty interesting, but no apocalyptic one world government, the rituals most definitely are not Satanic, and if anything their literature makes them look like a bunch of drama queens)

Right, but you cannot serve the State and the Lodge at the same time. If they want to be politicians they have they quit their Lodge

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right, but you cannot serve the State and the Lodge at the same time. If they want to be politicians they have they quit their Lodge

Not that I'm aware. Men from municipal servants up to president have been Masons.

 

[Estro Felino]

Not that I'm aware. Men from municipal servants up to president have been Masons.

Yes...here Freemasons have unified Italy.
But now they is a witch hunt...since many Freemasons are either Bankers, Jesuits or the like.

 

[Augustus]

Absolutely. Which is why May got a deal after all. Just not the kind of deal that people were expecting.

Which goes back to the OP and 'unicorns'.

The UK are asking for something that the EU could easily give and would be mutually beneficial, Like Trump, the EU want a win-lose deal rather than getting a win-win though for reasons of political expediency.

If there is a no deal, both sides lose out, but if the EU wants to cut off its nose to spite its face with a no deal then that's its prerogative, but pretending the UK is asking for a 'unicorn' is a bit silly.

If you have a car worth $4000 you really need to sell, but only 1 potential buyer who really needs a car and has the money, you should really be able to get a deal.

If one side says I won't pay a penny more than $3500, and the other says I won't take a penny less than $4500, both sides lose out and both sides shoulder some of the blame. Saying "It's my car so I can do what I like" doesn't negate the loss.

Even if you are pro-EU, it's hard to argue against the idea that EU is a wasteful, corrupt organisation riven with petty infighting driven by national self-interest.

For example, their own study showed having a Parliament in Strasbourg instead of Brussels wastes 114 million Euros a year (not to mention the environmental impact), but France wanted a parliament for reasons of national prestige so forced the issue and refuses to give it up.

The EU is not a paragon of virtue comprising noble minded individuals driven by notions of fairness and public interest, despite its recent canonisation by some (a general comment, not directed at you).

If given the chance, would it ?

Yes, they would have to.

Most certainly. It sounded as if you were blaming EU entirely for it though, but it was Greece that dig up its own hole in the first place.

Greece and the EU cooked the books to let Greece join the Euro. Being part of the Euro enabled Greece to borrow lots more money, and being part of the Euro meant Greece had its hands tied in its response to the GFC.

The Euro was a terrible idea from the start and was far more political than economic (hence letting Greece in despite the risks).

If Frank keeps giving Jessie lots of heroin knowing she used to be an addict, it's Jessies fault if she relapses, but it wouldn't have been possible without Frank so he must shoulder a good portion of the blame too.

I don't consider Switzerland to be much of an example for... anything. It is a small country and a tax haven. Whatever one learns from it, might not be applicable in a larger scale.

Article also discusses the former Yugoslavia. Anyway, the article is specifically about reducing scale to empower smaller, cohesive units of people. The idea is that human differences can't easily be removed, so we need to accept that and focus on building a system which prevents conflict. Conflict often results from one group fearing they will be dominated by another group, and chances are greatly reduced when both groups feel in control of their own destinies.

2 different views of how greater peace can be achieved with 2 very different goals (goal = direction of action not that they necessarily believe it can be fully/perfectly achieved), and acting towards one generally moves you away from the other:

a) How do we create a world where everyone likes each other so we can live as one big happy family?
b) How do we create a world where lots of people don't like each other but con coexist without conflict/violence?

a) is the dominant liberal narrative, but, imo, is a naive fantasy that disregards human nature and experience for ideological reasons. The rise of the far-right in Europe is certainly facilitated by the policies and actions of the EU, but they won't learn and will insist the cure is 'more Europe '.

If by robust you mean maintaining sovereignty, no matter how wrecked up the country ends up, sure.

Or maybe being the first to leave a sinking ship will prove to be the right thing to do. Only time will tell.

 

[LuisDantas]

Right, but you cannot serve the State and the Lodge at the same time. If they want to be politicians they have they quit their Lodge

Politicians are neither able nor expected to "serve the State alone".

For that matter, no one is.

Heck, the State does not even exist in and of itself.

As for the lodges... well, they may mean even less than political states.