Donald Tusk being special

[Saracen999]

I know you don't give a toss about the EU project, but presumably you understand the EU do? And if the UK wants some of the benefits that those in the EU get, then unfortunately the UK will have to compromise, just the same as those countries within the EU have, and also those like Norway and indeed Canada have who are not in the EU, but have extensive deals with them have. But it's actually as I said in my first post; there are those who are willing to sell the next generation down the economic river with a no deal just to satisfy their own selfish wants. And that's a perfectly fine position to hold, but let's not pretend it's something else, or someone else's fault.

What benefits? Our formal position is out of the single market, out of the customs union, and that a free trade agreement should be able to be negotiated post-exit, just like so many other non-EU countries have .... if it benefits BOTH sides.

As for the benefits of being in the EU, that isca complex argument. There have been benefits, but also significant costs. But assessing those benefits is an exercise in complex statistical interpretation and much (if not all) of the figures cited by remain-supporting organisations, like the Treasury and IMF, use a method that acribes the (largely bavk-loaded) benefits equally among EU members, and accodingly, projects disbenefits as reversing all that. The problem is that a more granular statistical analysis looking at member-state to-outside world trade shows a marked difference between eurozone and non-eurozone states, and that a broad, aggregated approach overplays the benefit to jon-eurozone members (like us) and that therefore applying that aggregated disbenefit also overplays the downside.

But in any event, all such arguments are based on statistical interpretation and assume benefits accruing during membership are due to membership. There are numrerous reasons for treating such an assumption as, at best, speculative, not least because we have a very different economic structure to most/all other EU states. For instance, compare the UK and Germany. We have an economy heavily centred on finance and services, and Germany has an evonomy heavily centred on (high-end) manufacturing. We can equally make the argument that a major factor in finance, for example, is the dollar and that membership or not of either the EU or Eurozone is less relevant to us than, say, Germany.

In sny event, broad-brush statistical analysis where benefits are assessed EU-wide and distributed pro-rata are speculative, because of the aggregated methods used and especially because the assess what hapoened over a period, not why it happened.

[Corky34]

We will be affected by what happens in tne EU, just as we are affected by what happens in China, but that doesn't mean being part of China is a desirable option. And post-Brexit, we will have about as much say about what happens in the EU, as we currently do in what happens in China.

In either case, we can still trade with the EU, and with China, just as an outside, independent nation does, like .... oh, most of the world.

True, but if we could exert influence on China in order to reduce the chance of a global economic shock then IMO it's something that should be exerted as if the action of an individual within the community has the possibility of effecting you it's only prudent to exert whatever influence you may have.

AFAIK i didn't say we wouldn't be able to still trade with the EU, and with China, so I'm not sure if that was direct at me or just a general point.

What benefits? Our formal position is out of the single market, out of the customs union, and that a free trade agreement should be able to be negotiated post-exit, just like so many other non-EU countries have .... if it benefits BOTH sides.

That's not really our formal position, it's Mrs May's formal position and she settled on that formal position entirely on her own and after being elected in 2017. I say it's not our formal position because before and even after the referendum politicians were telling us something entirely different.



If it was our formal position we wouldn't have parliament tying itself up in knots with just over a month to go until B-Day.

[opel80uk]

What benefits? Our formal position is out of the single market, out of the customs union, and that a free trade agreement should be able to be negotiated post-exit, just like so many other non-EU countries have .... if it benefits BOTH sides.

As for the benefits of being in the EU, that isca complex argument. There have been benefits, but also significant costs. But assessing those benefits is an exercise in complex statistical interpretation and much (if not all) of the figures cited by remain-supporting organisations, like the Treasury and IMF, use a method that acribes the (largely bavk-loaded) benefits equally among EU members, and accodingly, projects disbenefits as reversing all that. The problem is that a more granular statistical analysis looking at member-state to-outside world trade shows a marked difference between eurozone and non-eurozone states, and that a broad, aggregated approach overplays the benefit to jon-eurozone members (like us) and that therefore applying that aggregated disbenefit also overplays the downside.

But in any event, all such arguments are based on statistical interpretation and assume benefits accruing during membership are due to membership. There are numrerous reasons for treating such an assumption as, at best, speculative, not least because we have a very different economic structure to most/all other EU states. For instance, compare the UK and Germany. We have an economy heavily centred on finance and services, and Germany has an evonomy heavily centred on (high-end) manufacturing. We can equally make the argument that a major factor in finance, for example, is the dollar and that membership or not of either the EU or Eurozone is less relevant to us than, say, Germany.

In sny event, broad-brush statistical analysis where benefits are assessed EU-wide and distributed pro-rata are speculative, because of the aggregated methods used and especially because the assess what hapoened over a period, not why it happened.

To be honest, I think this running with the hare and hunting with the hounds thing I think you are doing is indictive of a lot of Leavers positions, especially when it comes to the economics. Let’s for a second (and I don’t BTW) accept what you say that assuming benefits accrued during membership are due to membership is merely speculative. What is not speculative is that during the period of EEC/EU membership the UK did, economically, expotentially well (median income, GDP, disposal income, etc). Even if, for arguments sake, we accept that we don’t know whether EU membership was a cause of that, equally you do not know that it wasn’t the main, or even a large contributory factor to it either. The fact that someone who may have economically benefitted from that membership is still willing to support leave, despite acknowledging that it is economically at best a gamble, and despite now knowing that the generations to come who have the majority of their working life still in front of them want to remain, is IMO the very definition of selfishness.

But equally, I understand that no amount of economic damage, companies leaving or jobs moving will make a difference to certain leave voters. They voted for leave despite all of this, not to prevent it. It was collateral damage, if you like.

[Saracen999]

To be honest, I think this running with the hare and hunting with the hounds thing I think you are doing is indictive of a lot of Leavers positions, especially when it comes to the economics. Let’s for a second (and I don’t BTW) accept what you say that assuming benefits accrued during membership are due to membership is merely speculative. What is not speculative is that during the period of EEC/EU membership the UK did, economically, expotentially well (median income, GDP, disposal income, etc). Even if, for arguments sake, we accept that we don’t know whether EU membership was a cause of that, equally you do not know that it wasn’t the main, or even a large contributory factor to it either. The fact that someone who may have economically benefitted from that membership is still willing to support leave, despite acknowledging that it is economically at best a gamble, and despite now knowing that the generations to come who have the majority of their working life still in front of them want to remain, is IMO the very definition of selfishness.

But equally, I understand that no amount of economic damage, companies leaving or jobs moving will make a difference to certain leave voters. They voted for leave despite all of this, not to prevent it. It was collateral damage, if you like.

That such a position is selfish is only even possibly true IF economics is the only criteria by which to judge. It isn't.

To use an extreme example, would you be happy living in Stalin's Soviet Union, or the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia, or an ISIS Caliphate if you were economically better off?

But in one sense, you make my point. It is incorrect to mistake correlation for causation. Never mind being leaver or remainer, we know what happened to GDP (etc) over time, but not WHY it happened. Similarly, we know we haven't had WW3 since 1945, but not why not. Some people say "Oh, because of the EU". But they can show correlation but cannot prove causation. It could also have been NATO, or nuclear MAD, or economic rebuilding of Germany in the 50s. It could also be utter revulsion by the German population at some of what the third Re3ich got up to in thrir name. It could be that in early post-war years Germany (and others) weren't capable of a third try, and by the time they were economically capable, economic improvenents and a different mindset meant they had no inclination to so do.

The point is that in both cases we what happened, but not why.

The crux of it is simply we don't know.

Personally, my bet is that the EU is partly responsible, both for relative peace and for economic prosperity. Partly. It is also responsible for some economic disasters, not least, Greece, though to a lesser but much more dangerous extent, Italy, Spain, etc.

But to claim our relative prospetity in recent decades is solely due to EU membership is, IMHO, utterly unsupportable.

Even if it were, it misses tbe point. The EU is about more than economics, and so is leaving. The EEC might, at least superficially, have been solely about economics, but the EU certainly isn't.

[Saracen999]

@Corky ...

By "formal" position, I mean that of our elected government. Or at least, it's egat we were told it was, in referenda and numerous position speeches.

To go beyond "formal" by that definition really opens a whole supermarket-full of cans of worms.

How on earth do we asses "our" formal position? Referendum result? We know more voted to leave than remain but two years on, "we" (i.e. different camps) can't even agree on what "leave" meant.

Does Parliament truly represent "we", the people? No, because as our MPs never tire of reminding us, "we" are a representative democracy and they aren't delegates. Personally, I don't remember ever being asked if I wanted some political hack doing my thinking and deciding for me.

I've said it often before, and I still think it .... our "democracy" is a conjuring trick, especially with FPTP, with the primary function (and probably purpose) of keeping power in the hands of one or other of two parties. We could just as well decide with a coin-toss.


I think the whole Brexit debate proves one thing beyond doubt. For all that you and I have had a damn good argument, in the best sense of the word, the Brexit issue is really like looking something through opposite ends of a telescope .... neither end is ever really going to see it from the perspective of those looking in the other end.

I also happen to think that's true whether those doing the looking are me and thee, or the public, or May and Tusk/Junker.


I also think it's exposed one other indisputable. Brexit is an issue that cuts right across the party lines of traditional left/right, as indeed does "populism". Take a look at Italy's current government, for example. Who'da thunk it?

It remains to be seen, among rumours of party splits both in Tory and Labour, if that two-party hegemony can survive this.

It also, finally, suggests one more thing. Those telescopic perspectives run very, very deep, and the difference is a canker in our national psyche. Sadly, I don't see any end to that. Whoever "wins", whatever happens, ranging from No Deal Brexit to No Brexit at all, or anywhere in-between, a lot of people are going to be seriously unhappy at best, and lividly fuming is very likely, and I don't see that going away.

[SeriousSam]

To use an extreme example, would you be happy living in Stalin's Soviet Union, or the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia, or an ISIS Caliphate if you were economically better off?

Or in the case of Brexit the rather complicated philosophical discussion about whether Common or Civil law creates a more free and just society.

[Corky34]

Defiantly common law, because I'm common as muck me.

[Saracen999]

Or in the case of Brexit the rather complicated philosophical discussion about whether Common or Civil law creates a more free and just society.

Well, I have a natural (or feels natural to me, amyway) affinity for Common law rather than Napoleonic code because .... well ..... Napoleon, innit?

Serooysly, though, it is complicated. For a start, chicken and egg?

Does the legal system create society, or society create the legal system? Or, a kinda feedback-loop hybrid.

I do genuinely prefer common law BUT .... there's a lot wrong with our law, especially non-criminal, not least of which us that it is largely the servant of he (or she) with the deepest pockets. Now that ain't "fair", imbalanced or justice, and certainly not blind justice.

[The Hand]

On the "special place in hell" I saw this cartoon from Matt on the Telegraph:

[peterb]

The UK will have to compromise, if it wants to get those benefits, but not at any price.

Sorry, I missed this - had a lot of RL stuff to deal with.

It is easier to state what is not acceptable (to me) than what is, as it is a much shorter list.

Basically:

Any customs union that precludes our right to negotiate independent trade deals with non EU countries

The supremacy of the ECJ over the UK Supreme Court

The mandatory adoption of EU directives into UK law

The subsuming of competencies from the UK government by the EU.


In short any integration in the Political Union.