Brexit

Huckleberry wrote: In reply to alfadriver: They will still have to follow EU standards to trade with an EU country - except where they are able to negotiate an individual deal on their own. I think that is the important point here. They shed the least common denominator level playing field and hope they can do better in making agreements themselves. I think immigration is the big one now - and I'm not sure if they will be successful but money talks and they have more of it than all the EU countries except Germany. I expect them to be able to do business on their own terms after the dust settles.

See, that's what I don't think is possible. And the EU certainly wont allow a member state to let non conforming stuff to be brought in- especially from a former member.

All they have done is remove themselves from any future negotiations of EU standards, and will still have to meet them. Other than home ones.

In reply to alfadriver:

The EU you describe - ie, the level playing field with the free movement of goods and workers - is the one that was sold to my generation, and pretty much all of us believed in it. And we like(d) it, because a lot of us remember what a pain in the posterior it was to move to another country if you wanted to. When I was at university a friend of mine and I were looking at buying a cottage across the border in France as it was within commuting distance and would've cost us about a year's rent(!) to buy, but at that point in the late 80s the requirements to settle in France pretty much prevented this from working. A few years later it would've just been a matter of moving there, registering with the local authorities and job's a good 'un.

IMHO the problems started really with the currency union without the necessary political union. That exposed a lot of the issues in the construct of the EU and leaves people with the somewhat correct impression that it's a rather undemocratic institution by design. I think the EU politician of older times were at least better at pretending to listen to the people of the EU than the current lot, whose only answer is "more integration and more bigger sticks for people who disagree with us" (like Greece...). That didn't help. I still think the smartest thing that Blair and Brown as the chancellor did was to stay out of the Euro.

That said, there's always been a right fringe of the Tory party that wants to party like it's 1850 and hasn't quite got over the loss of the Empire, if they even acknowledge that it was lost in the first place. Both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were "journalists" (quotes intentional) whose reporting and opinion pieces especially in certain Murdoch-owned newspapers pandered to that fringe and explained every perceived negative point as being the fault of the EU, including the weather. People used to laugh at that but I guess about 25 years of that crap and it took root. Combine that with a fair number of areas in what used to be the industrial heartland that never recovered from the deindustrialisation that was a result both of the labour issues in the 1970s and Maggie's attempt at "modernising" the economy and you do get enough people believing that it's not really possible for things to get worse when you leave the EU.

Heck, there were (and AFAIK are, but I haven't been in that area for about four years) places around Manchester, Bolton and Liverpool that look like Detroit, and not the refurb'd hipster parts of Detroit.

Re the "immigrants taking our jobs, money and women", well, let's just say that when the people from Poland were allowed free movement in Europe, a bunch of tradespeople showed up in the UK. One suddenly find a plumber who would show up on time and actually fix E36 M3, which was clearly unacceptable. Funnily enough the Polish economy improved and most of them went back. Admittedly it didn't help the already depressed wages of tradespeople, at least not for a short amount of time until the immigrants had built a reputation that allowed them to basically charge the same. But to be fair to people, in some of the really depressed areas you can't even get an apprenticeship in a trade, so unless you somehow do really well in a E36 M3ty school and somehow manage to do to university, there isn't much of a way out.

Plus wages in the trade aren't that great either - I paid about 2/3rds of the US cost per hour to competent mechanics over there (that's independent shop vs independent shop), in a semi-affluent area and an economy where taxes are considerably higher than over here. If you're a professional you can generally make pretty good money, but if you're a working-class stiff who's good at his trade, it's not that great. Heck, some of the restoration work a friend's bodyshop did on my cars was farmed out to people who worked for Rolls Royce and still had side gigs despite being recognised as being amongst the best you could find.

STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Doesn't the British Government pay significant money to be part of the EU? And doesn't the British economy (and the Germans) buoy the laggard economies of all the other member states? What is the incentive to stay and continue to pay into the EU when they can leave and have more autonomy? The products they produce will have to comply to EU standards either way, so why add additional burdens?

They also get some back, especially in the income of stuff built in England and sold in the EU.

Lots of people point out that England sends money to the EU, but few seem to see the money sent back, or negotiated as rebates, etc.

Even still- the UK exports between 20-30 Billion pounds per MONTH. Over 20x what the "cost" is. Will that change?

STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Doesn't the British Government pay significant money to be part of the EU? And doesn't the British economy (and the Germans) buoy the laggard economies of all the other member states? What is the incentive to stay and continue to pay into the EU when they can leave and have more autonomy? The products they produce will have to comply to EU standards either way, so why add additional burdens?

They do pay a fair amount of money to the EU, but a lot of that comes back via the various funding initiatives for depressed regions, of which the UK has several, agricultural subsidies and other things like them. They're still a net payer, but the people who went around saying "we should use the money for the NHS instead" already went "just kidding, we've been defunding the NHS for years now to help our friends in private healthcare".

One of the sad jokes was that Cornwall - which is one of the depressed regions - voted "out" with a pretty overwhelming majority and then wanted reassurances from the government in London that they'd still get the subsidies to make up for the EU structural funds that they'd be losing.

Maggie actually negotiated a substantial discount over what the UK had to pay when you compare it with countries like Germany etc.

tuna55 wrote: The fact that the media is going nuts over this confirms that it's probably a really good call for them.

Just wanted to quote my own post regarding this mindset from page 6, in case you didn't read it:

GameboyRMH wrote: It's better to assess the situation on its merits for yourself than to blindly "stick it to the man" on the assumption that he's trying to hold you down by telling you not to use a box of tacks as a breakfast cereal.

In reply to BoxheadTim:

Thanks for the long explanation. Helps quite a bit.

I guess we have all exposed the reason why the vote was only 52% in favor of exiting. This is a SUPER complex situation that only gets worse when trying to point out someone at fault. Basically everyone has a part in why it isn't working well. But when you have a pure democracy you will necessarily expose that system to the mob mentality that humans unfortunately seem to never avoid. Mobs don't make good choices.

Back just 60years and further many elites(I equate this to rich) got there by "capitalizing" on others through what we see today as rather bad stuff. Slave labor, horrid environmental controls(looking at you silicon valley), murder, wars, etc

New money guys and elites can easily be taken down a notch by everyone doing their part. There is no reason for Mark Zuckerburg to be rich if everyone didn't facebook. No sports athlete would make more than a good wage (100s of millions is excessive) if we didn't buy anything with their name on it. So that takes care of the elites.

Media - Listen to the extreme media, but make it a point to read many different sources of news and entertainment. Done with that one. Don't pigeon hole yourself. It isn't like you are stopped by police from buying the other paper too.

Many want capitalism but when an immigrant or other country finds a better way or cheaper way that isn't bad (forced work, bad environmental stuff) many of those former capitalists all of a sudden want protection from capitalism. This seemed to me the core of the EU failures to date. French wine makers wanted to protect French wine industry, Spanish wanted to protect their cheese, then eventually the EU listens to all the grassroots people trying to protect their livelihood and make up all these rules to protect them but end up restricting others in ways unfair to them. Odd that THIS culture is all of a sudden the one that must be preserved when all of humanity has progressed over the centuries in large shifts. Anyhow this all then spirals out of control. From what I see the EU is basically reconstructing a copy of the member countries within a new framework, or under a new name as it were.

To Boxhead Tim, thanks for your post it was really good: I am sure there are numerous reasons why you moving to the cabin with the controls Pre EU and Post EU were both bad or good for the French locals and France nationally. There is always going to be the fight between local and national or global progress/benefit. Some say just stay local, forget a global unity government. Others say we should all go in on the global government. Each can bring its' own forms of horror and success. From clan wars between local communities to systematic oppression with a mega government. Or unique culture and ideas to planetary improvement of environment and human well being.

I think the United Kingdom exit of the EU is a sign of weakness of the UK. I would have been much more impressed if they tried to fix what is going wrong with the EU. Create a continent that is unified and eventually expand that to the world after 4 or 5 generations. I will see how much or little actually changes. As this is just the vote of the public opinion I would actually take it as a wash and try to implement changes in the EU that align with the 52%'s main issues.

BoxheadTim wrote:

STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Doesn't the British Government pay significant money to be part of the EU? And doesn't the British economy (and the Germans) buoy the laggard economies of all the other member states? What is the incentive to stay and continue to pay into the EU when they can leave and have more autonomy? The products they produce will have to comply to EU standards either way, so why add additional burdens?

They do pay a fair amount of money to the EU, but a lot of that comes back via the various funding initiatives for depressed regions, of which the UK has several, agricultural subsidies and other things like them. They're still a net payer, but the people who went around saying "we should use the money for the NHS instead" already went "just kidding, we've been defunding the NHS for years now to help our friends in private healthcare". One of the sad jokes was that Cornwall - which is one of the depressed regions - voted "out" with a pretty overwhelming majority and then wanted reassurances from the government in London that they'd still get the subsidies to make up for the EU structural funds that they'd be losing. Maggie actually negotiated a substantial discount over what the UK had to pay when you compare it with countries like Germany etc.

I like this topic as I find it interesting how it ebbs and flows. The European continent seems to still be trying to stop the cycle of violence due to one oppressed people living near another. The last such cycle generated a depressed Germany after WW1 that got unified and pissed and went crazy almost taking the world in WW2. Since then the plan was to try and spread the economic burden seamlessly through borders. So yes if Greece falls, help them get back up.

Kind of like if parts of WV flood, expend money and resources collected from every other state to help them get back up.

So yeah the proper working system is one in where when in a time of need Greece, Germany, UK, or Spain will get help. Collapse of the auto industry in Spain, ok allow those workers to follow the jobs to another country and/or help them transition to something else.

I have yet to figure out how Greece collapsed. I have read many things and each one of the theories makes sense but there doesn't seem to be any clear "thing" to fix.

From my admittedly limited understanding, Greece was a classic issue of income less than expenses. Lots of social programs, and lots of tax evasion, and they had just spent a lot of money hosting the Olympics. When the financial markets turned south, the lending that made all of the previous possible dried up, and down went the Greek economy.

szeis4cookie wrote: From my admittedly limited understanding, Greece was a classic issue of income less than expenses. Lots of social programs, and lots of tax evasion, and they had just spent a lot of money hosting the Olympics. When the financial markets turned south, the lending that made all of the previous possible dried up, and down went the Greek economy.

IDK I have gotten what you write in my reading is a good summary of it all. I am not seeing how all of this just happened? Were they that good at hiding the balance sheets? Was everyone in on it? Nobody cared? I guess I see the similar here. Too much focus on changing taxes without asking first, what do I want from my government and how much does that cost? I rarely hear that discussion just reduce or raise taxes. Not this is what I want and what it costs.

Sorry end sidebar.

I executed a shexit just in the nick of time. It would have made a terrible mess in Lowes.

Advan046 wrote:

szeis4cookie wrote: From my admittedly limited understanding, Greece was a classic issue of income less than expenses. Lots of social programs, and lots of tax evasion, and they had just spent a lot of money hosting the Olympics. When the financial markets turned south, the lending that made all of the previous possible dried up, and down went the Greek economy.

IDK I have gotten what you write in my reading is a good summary of it all. I am not seeing how all of this just happened? Were they that good at hiding the balance sheets? Was everyone in on it? Nobody cared? I guess I see the similar here. Too much focus on changing taxes without asking first, what do I want from my government and how much does that cost? I rarely hear that discussion just reduce or raise taxes. Not this is what I want and what it costs. Sorry end sidebar.

I think it's kind of a good illustration of the weakness of the EU. This and the VW scandal.

There are EU rules, as well as individual country rules, but the enforcement of the rules seems to be a gray area. So, somehow, in Greece- nobody could enforce the tax laws, nor could anyone enforce any corruption laws WRT the EU. Or looking at the VW scandal- it's pretty clear that laws were broken- as the intent was to cheat. But there isn't an overall EU enforcement like the EPA+FBI and the individual countries don't seem to be setup to deal with them, too. Otherwise, the bloodletting at VW would have already gone far and deep- as the impact over there is FAR more than here.

(there's also some underlying back issues there, too).

But, as you said, it would have been nice to see the UK try to fix them instead of bailing.

Spain had similar problems, but no oomf to back up the laws.

Huckleberry wrote: It imposes rules and restrictions about immigration and many other things that England no longer wanted to have imposed without an opportunity to negotiate on their own.

I thought the UK was unique in the EU in that they weren't signatory to immigration/free travel. Meaning, leaving the EU will do nothing as regards to immigration.

The EU just seems like a larger version of the US states. Some bring in more revenue then they spend and others don't. The theory is that it all equals out when spread across all states. Imagine if we started kicking out all the states that take more than they contribute?

I imagine Colorado is a lot more green nowadays (pun intended).

I learn something new from this forum almost everyday. Most of it is mechanical or some factoid but the thing that stands out sometimes are conversations like this (unless they collapse into name calling). You have to dig deep in most news media to get anything of substance if you can find it at all.

The Hoff wrote: The EU just seems like a larger version of the US states. Some bring in more revenue then they spend and others don't. The theory is that it all equals out when spread across all states. Imagine if we started kicking out all the states that take more than they contribute? I imagine Colorado is a lot more green nowadays (pun intended).

It's actually much closer to one of the proposals when the United States was founded. Basically a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak & effectless central government.

Also, I'd be surprised if Indiana wasn't in the green & Illinois in the blood red on that map now.

WOW Really Paul? wrote: Also, I'd be surprised if Indiana wasn't in the green & Illinois in the blood red on that map now.

IL is definitely in the red now.

Advan046 wrote:

szeis4cookie wrote: From my admittedly limited understanding, Greece was a classic issue of income less than expenses. Lots of social programs, and lots of tax evasion, and they had just spent a lot of money hosting the Olympics. When the financial markets turned south, the lending that made all of the previous possible dried up, and down went the Greek economy.

IDK I have gotten what you write in my reading is a good summary of it all. I am not seeing how all of this just happened? Were they that good at hiding the balance sheets? Was everyone in on it? Nobody cared? I guess I see the similar here. Too much focus on changing taxes without asking first, what do I want from my government and how much does that cost? I rarely hear that discussion just reduce or raise taxes. Not this is what I want and what it costs. Sorry end sidebar.

As I understood it at the time, tax laws in place would have adequately funded the government, except that evasion was so prevalent and the enforcement just wasn't there. It is something the Greek government still struggles with. Whether the tax burden would be bearable had everyone paid is another question.

The other side of it was the same problem that got everyone else - as long as the economy kept growing along, banks in the EU continued to be willing to lend more and more money. And then the growth stopped...

petegossett wrote:

WOW Really Paul? wrote: Also, I'd be surprised if Indiana wasn't in the green & Illinois in the blood red on that map now.

IL is definitely in the red now.

Maybe not. That is showing Federal taxes vs. Federal spending, if I'm reading it right. I'd expect that it is still very green.

What you're thinking of is a map showing the same thing for state finances. That map would be so far in the red that the map would light on fire. Thanks Mr. Madigan.

Knurled wrote:

Huckleberry wrote: It imposes rules and restrictions about immigration and many other things that England no longer wanted to have imposed without an opportunity to negotiate on their own.

I thought the UK was unique in the EU in that they weren't signatory to immigration/free travel. Meaning, leaving the EU will do nothing as regards to immigration.

That's my understanding as well

mtn wrote:

petegossett wrote:

WOW Really Paul? wrote: Also, I'd be surprised if Indiana wasn't in the green & Illinois in the blood red on that map now.

IL is definitely in the red now.

Maybe not. That is showing Federal taxes vs. Federal spending, if I'm reading it right. I'd expect that it is still very green. What you're thinking of is a map showing the same thing for state finances. That map would be so far in the red that the map would light on fire. Thanks Mr. Madigan.

Yes, I was definitely referencing the state finances.

Interesting Brexit twist this morning. Boris Johnson (the big motivator behind the exit vote and presumed front runner for new PM) has announced he will not "stand" (run) for the office of Prime Minister. Weird.

Looking for memes, I've learned the term Texit. So much simpler than saying Texan secession.

KyAllroad wrote: Interesting Brexit twist this morning. Boris Johnson (the big motivator behind the exit vote and presumed front runner for new PM) has announced he will not "stand" (run) for the office of Prime Minister. Weird.

Sounds like he doesn't want to drink from the punchbowl he's now just figured out he dropped a big turd in.

In reply to Karacticus:

My understanding is that his second in command in the party, who is much more a Brexit true believer, announced his own candidacy 3 hours before Johnson, and used his announcement to heavily criticize Johnson.

Et tu, Brutus.