The Brexit disaster

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
SKYO
MVP
MVP
Posts: 14992
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by SKYO »

Bus hijacked by protesters and set alight on sixth night of unrest in Northern Ireland.
Violence has been escalating as loyalist groups protest amid tensions over the Northern Ireland Protocol on Brexit, which puts a de facto border in the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, and police handling of coronavirus regulation breaches by members of the Sinn Féin party.
Can the Canucks just win a Cup within the next 5 years.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18097
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Topper »

SKYO wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:36 am Bus hijacked by protesters and set alight on sixth night of unrest in Northern Ireland.
Violence has been escalating as loyalist groups protest amid tensions over the Northern Ireland Protocol on Brexit, which puts a de facto border in the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, and police handling of coronavirus regulation breaches by members of the Sinn Féin party.
Orange Lives Matter

Now if the Canadian aboriginals wound stop culturally appropriating our colour, we'd be a hell of a lot happier.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

SKYO wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:36 am Bus hijacked by protesters and set alight on sixth night of unrest in Northern Ireland.
Violence has been escalating as loyalist groups protest amid tensions over the Northern Ireland Protocol on Brexit, which puts a de facto border in the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain, and police handling of coronavirus regulation breaches by members of the Sinn Féin party.
As predicted. :(

And even though a majority of Northern Irish voted to remain in the EU, their wish was overridden by a majority in England and Wales, who voted in favour of sabotaging the fragile peace on Ireland.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18097
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Topper »

Per, just more of your "Orange men bad" rhetoric.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

Topper wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 6:45 am Per, just more of your "Orange men bad" rhetoric.
Not really. In this case the orange men feel betrayed by Boris Johnson, and I do not blame them.

Thing is, Boris promised to not have border control between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic reinstated.
He also promised to not create a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The only way he would be able to keep both promises is by staying in the EU.
And of course he also promised to not do that.

Because of Brexit, the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic is now the outer border of the EU. This should entail that all goods and people crossing that border must be subject to border control. The Brexiteers also talked about ”taking control of our borders”, which they by definition cannot unless there is some sort of border control.

Now, the Good Friday agreement, of which both the EU and the UK are signatories says there should be no border control on Ireland, between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, so reimposing those controls would be a violation of that treaty.

Instead the EU and the UK agreed that until some technical solution can be found, all border control will instead be between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Now, this is something Boris had said he would never agree too, but then he did, and signed the agreement. Afterwards, as Northern Irish unionists started protesting, he suggested that the UK unilaterally would scrap that part of the deal, but the EU promptly pointed out that no, you cannot do that, and threatened to sue the UK at the international court in Hague if they did. The British, realizing that they would lose, backed down.

And there we are. The orange men are understandably angry, because they see this as a betrayal by the conservative government, that in practice has separated Northern Ireland from Great Britain and which facilitates a future reunification of Ireland, which they do not want. And so tension is rising in a region that long was probably the most volatile and dangerous place in Europe.

It’s no surprise. Everyone who bothered to look into this predicted that there would be unrest in Northern Ireland if Brexit came to pass, and now we are there. Yet this unrest is just a breeze compared to the storm that would be unleashed should border control between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic be imposed again. The border stations used to be prime targets for bombings by the IRA. When border control was removed things got much easier, and the Irish on both sides have now lived for over 20 years without it, being able to crisscross the border at will and often not thinking much about where it is.

It will be interesting to see what happens. A poll made in Northern Ireland prior to Brexit showed that some two thirds favoured being part of the UK, but in the case of a hard Brexit, more than 50% would favour reunification with the Irish Republic rather than have border control reinstated.

Now, according to the Good Friday agreement, if there at any point in time seems to be a majority in favour of reunification, a referendum must be held. I think this will probably happen in the near future.

The only question is if the Northern Irish or the Scottish will be the first to leave the UK.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

Shelves are empty in UK stores, McDonalds no longer serves milk shakes or canned drinks, Nando’s and BP are closing sites temporarily because of a severe lack of truck drivers in the UK. And British crops are rotting before they reach the shelves of supermarkets. I read of a blueberry farm that now only could get their product collected once a week, while the fresh blueberries have a shelf life of five days... You see the problem. :|

Image

This problem is mainly caused by Brexit; truck drivers from mainly Eastern Europe have returned home or chosen to work in France or Germany instead to avoid the hassle and red tape of crossing borders to and from the UK after it left the common market. The drop in value of the British pound since the Brexit referendum in 2016 has also been a factor since they can get better pay elsewhere. And of course, UK transport companies can no longer recruit from other European countries the way they used to, as their is no longer free movement. Instead they are supposed to employ British drivers, but that doesn’t work as there aren’t enough people with the necessary qualifications.

The pandemic has added to the problem as it served as an initiative for foreign nationals to return home to their families, while it also closed down training facilities in the UK, so no new truck drivers have been able to take the tests necessary to be allowed to drive trucks.

A long term solution is to train more drivers, but young people in Britain aren’t really interested, despite the job actually paying quite well. It’s long hours and a low status job, despite the pay.

Expect things to get even worse as shops are unable to stock up ahead of christmas.

https://www.bbc.com/news/57810729

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/30/10325551 ... 1954679817

Image
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13325
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Meds »

The problem isn't Brexit, the problem has just been exposed by Brexit. It's called outsourcing and globalism. A lack of self-sufficiency from nation to nation because of free-market global economics. Canada had a similar problem early in the pandemic when it came to medical PPE.....we outsourced everything to Asia or buy through US suppliers. We had no way to sustain for ourselves.

There's nothing wrong with relatively open borders and movement of people, but when you don't prioritize independence you end up becoming dependent upon whoever it is you've decided to make your crutch.

And as for status, what's wrong with a world that assigns low status to vocations that are absolutely critical for the ongoing functioning of a society.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

Mëds wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 3:49 pm The problem isn't Brexit, the problem has just been exposed by Brexit. It's called outsourcing and globalism. A lack of self-sufficiency from nation to nation because of free-market global economics. Canada had a similar problem early in the pandemic when it came to medical PPE.....we outsourced everything to Asia or buy through US suppliers. We had no way to sustain for ourselves.

There's nothing wrong with relatively open borders and movement of people, but when you don't prioritize independence you end up becoming dependent upon whoever it is you've decided to make your crutch.
There was no problem until the UK decided to close its borders, so yes - Brexit is what caused it. Self-sufficency is a pipe dream that leads to terrible waste of resources and has mostly been pursued by communist and fascist regimes. Well, OK, prior to the 18th century it was pursued by everyone, but you can also argue that prior to the 18th century there weren't really any true democracies. Free trade and democracy go hand in hand.

Also, interdependence does wonders to promote peace. A lot of people believe the purpose of the EU is to facilitate trade. It’s not. The clearly outspoken purpose of the European Union, from day one, has been to prevent wars in Europe. The free movement of goods, services , people and capital within the union is a tool to help create dependence between the different nations, so that they cannot go to war without ruining their own nation. The EU has been hugely successful in achieving this goal. I challenge you to find any other 70 year period in the history of mankind that did not have a single war in Western Europe.
And as for status, what's wrong with a world that assigns low status to vocations that are absolutely critical for the ongoing functioning of a society.
I agree, it’s completely irrational. Truck drivers are better paid than the median wage in Britain, so it shouldn’t be so hard to recruit. But truck drivers in movies and television are usually portrayed as buffoons and simpletons - or worse: rapists and murderers. When was the last time you saw a movie where the hero was a truck driver?

My youngest daughter just got her license to drive trucks though, and there are several companies that want to employ her. She doesn’t intend to be a truck driver her whole life, but it’s good money and she says it will help her pay her way through college. Wish more kids were as smart as her. But then, she’s Swedish, so no help to the UK. She has lived and worked in the UK before, but that was when they were still a member state. Now there would be way too much red tape and hassle. Not worth it. And hey - it seems they don’t want foreigners there, so we had better leave them alone.

When Britain was still a member of the EU there was a steady stream of East Europeans who were willing to fill the positions, as well as doing seasonal labour in agriculture. Now that the borders are closed both these businesses have major labour shortages and that is reflected in empty shelves in stores. But hey, that’s what they voted for. :drink:
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

Intriguingly, a majority of British fishermen voted for Brexit. Or, I can see how it would seem smart, they did not like to have to compete with French and Spanish boats in UK waters, and now these are gone. But so is most of their market. As they no longer are members of the open European market, the cost of exporting the fish has gone up and everything has to be documented and checked at the border, which adds even further to the cost and causes delays, which is unacceptable for a product that needs to be fresh to be enjoyable.

Add to this the severe shortage of truck drivers in Britain and you have a recipe for disaster.



We’ll see how long it takes till the young generation in Britain (more than 60% of those under 30 in 2016 voted to remain) take power and apply for membership again. :drink:
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
UWSaint
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by UWSaint »

Per wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:54 pm Also, interdependence does wonders to promote peace. A lot of people believe the purpose of the EU is to facilitate trade. It’s not. The clearly outspoken purpose of the European Union, from day one, has been to prevent wars in Europe. The free movement of goods, services , people and capital within the union is a tool to help create dependence between the different nations, so that they cannot go to war without ruining their own nation. The EU has been hugely successful in achieving this goal. I challenge you to find any other 70 year period in the history of mankind that did not have a single war in Western Europe.
The (beginnings) of the EU started 70 years ago, (2) there has been peace in Western Europe for 75 years, (3) therefore the EU is responsible for peace is a fallacious argument. A lot changed after World War II. The Cold War made western European nations dependent on one another and the US. Europe finally abandoned is colonial ambitions. The nuclear bomb scares the shit out of people. There were stable democratic systems in most of Western Europe during this time period (and that wasn't the case in the 70 years prior -- 20th century political movements were rejecting such a thing and those movements prevailed in lots of countries). All of these are equally plausible explanations.

As a general matter, peace through interdependence is not as good as peace with independence. The latter *might* be more difficult to achieve, but the former encapsulates all sorts of interdependence that frustrates values much greater than "no war between nations." Peace can probably come from an effective totalitarian who has purged any effective resistance and otherwise "forces to be free" any subversive individuals or groups.

On the flip side, interdependence can be *less* than the EU and still great enough to affect positively the prospects for peace. Trade agreements might be enough; you don't have to have free movement of people or centralized regulatory controls of this and that.

Right or wrong, the Brits decided that the democratic mechanisms in the EU were too weak and too removed from the British people such that they felt there was no longer self-determination. That's a very serious critique, and one that can't be countered with a consequentialist response. If you feel you have no role in your government, you don't get placated by being shown growth rates are likely to be a smidge higher if your stay. In fact, the feeling you have no control or role or voice in the political process (at least in democratic countries) is *at best* a source of unrest and at worst both a source of unrest *and* an accurate description of a government's democratic responsiveness. Now this feeling exists outside the context of the UK and the EU -- most directly testable, I am sure there are many British who still feel that way post-Brexit. But that some institutions or structural conditions remain that create this sentiment doesn't mean all should.

Despite an anecdotal article or two about the supply of goods in Britain or highlighting particular goods and industries hardest hit by Brexit, at the end of the day, Brexit is neither the panacea some might have believe it to be nor the catastrophe that others fearmongered. Which was, well, quite predictable. Quite predictable too is that it takes a little time to adjust and get things better.

Moving along, Per, do you really think the UK's withdrawal from the EU increases the chances that the EU and the UK engage in war with one another? Why? I'm not seeing it. At all.

Last observation. I tend to think that if the EU were so wonderful no nation would wish to leave. But one did. And others, like France and the Netherlands, rejected the enlargement of the EU’s authority through a constitutional change (that was more or less effected by other means). I think the fear in Europe is that the UK is a harbinger of change, and that it is *that* change that could create the conditions for war. If so, the EU is far better off figuring out how to address the not-democratic-enough critique beyond pretending its not real. Or it needs to devolve its authorities that are traditionally sovereign authorities.
Hono_rary Canadian
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 am
Per wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:54 pm Also, interdependence does wonders to promote peace. A lot of people believe the purpose of the EU is to facilitate trade. It’s not. The clearly outspoken purpose of the European Union, from day one, has been to prevent wars in Europe. The free movement of goods, services , people and capital within the union is a tool to help create dependence between the different nations, so that they cannot go to war without ruining their own nation. The EU has been hugely successful in achieving this goal. I challenge you to find any other 70 year period in the history of mankind that did not have a single war in Western Europe.
The (beginnings) of the EU started 70 years ago, (2) there has been peace in Western Europe for 75 years, (3) therefore the EU is responsible for peace is a fallacious argument. A lot changed after World War II. The Cold War made western European nations dependent on one another and the US. Europe finally abandoned is colonial ambitions. The nuclear bomb scares the shit out of people. There were stable democratic systems in most of Western Europe during this time period (and that wasn't the case in the 70 years prior -- 20th century political movements were rejecting such a thing and those movements prevailed in lots of countries). All of these are equally plausible explanations.
The EU was formed after the end of WW2, so yes, obviously it was not the formation of the EU that ended the world war. Instead it was the world war that made obvious the need for the creation of a European Union so that we would not have another war start within a decade or two, as had been the case in Europe since as far back as we have records.

It was noted that one of the main drivers of conflict between France and Germany was the control over coal and steel production, and thus the idea to establish joint control over this was the first problem that was addressed through the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, with France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Italy as founding members. The French foreign minister Robert Schumann, who introduced the idea, stated that his aim was to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".

The ECSC created a common market for coal and steel with freely set market prices, free movement of products, and without customs duties or taxes, subsidies, or restrictive practices. And this became the embryo of what was to come.

In 1957 the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community (as well as the European Atomic Energy Comunity), which was based on the same principles as the ECSC expanded the scope, and then eventually more and more areas and more and more member states have been added to what eventually became the European Union.

I'm not saying that the formation of the EU created peace, but it has kept it. Before the EU there were major armed conflicts in Europe every other decade, if not more often, and that goes as long back as we have records and all the way up till WW2.

Also, whether or not it is the only or even the major factor can be debated, but the purpose of the EU was to make wars in Europe impossible, and it seems to have worked so far. The only conflicts that have occurred in Europe after WW2 have been outside the union, like the Russian invasion of Hungary, the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Russian invasion of parts of Georgia, or the Russian invasion of Crimea... and of course the war in former Yugoslavia.
UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amAs a general matter, peace through interdependence is not as good as peace with independence. The latter *might* be more difficult to achieve, but the former encapsulates all sorts of interdependence that frustrates values much greater than "no war between nations." Peace can probably come from an effective totalitarian who has purged any effective resistance and otherwise "forces to be free" any subversive individuals or groups.
This is mainly a philosophical question, but I'd like to point out that you can be independent and interdependent at the same time. All member states of the EU are independent sovereign nations. But they also have mutual interdependences.
UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amOn the flip side, interdependence can be *less* than the EU and still great enough to affect positively the prospects for peace. Trade agreements might be enough; you don't have to have free movement of people or centralized regulatory controls of this and that.
Well... different countries have different strengths, and thus the four freedoms of movement (goods, services, labour and capital) is meant to work as a self regulatory system that enables all countries to gain from the cooperation. Let's say that one country is much better at production and therefor gains almost all market share, the industries constantly expanding. That country will likely experience labour shortage, while countries with weaker companies face increased unemployment. Then the unemployed people in one country move to a country that has labour shortage.

To say yes to one part of the deal and no to another is not acceptable. Just having free trade, but not freedom of movement for labour would create increasing differences in prosperity between the countries, which would lead to tensions and perhaps even war.

Also, the outspoken purpose of the EU is to make wars in Europe impossible, and therefor having people moving around and having affection and loyalty for more than one country is an added bonus, as are mixed marriages. The EU encourages college students to spend at least one year of their studies at a university elsewhere within the union - free of charge.

Also, "centralized regulatory control" is first of all a prerequisite for facilitating free trade. To agree on what something means is important. Eg what is marmalade? The EU defines the minimum fruit content for a product to be called marmalade, there are also rules for what fruit is (eg, in the case of marmalade carrots, rhubarb stalks and sweet potato also qualify as fruit), it specifies that ingredients must be listed in order of magnitude and that the sugar content per 100g of finished product must be stated on the label, etc. Yeah, this may seem like unnecessary fidgeting, but it means that a small import firm in Estonia know whet they will get when they order a shipment of marmalade from a Portuguese company, and thus it helps build trust and facilitate cross border commerce.

It used to be that all cars in France must have yellow headlights, while in Germany there was a total ban on yellow headlights on cars. By setting union wide rules, this kind of subtle trade barriers are eliminated. The basic rule is that a product that is approved in one member state should be allowed to be sold throughout the union, but to avoid a race to the bottom, more specific rules are implemented when necessary.

Another thing to remember is that most EU legislation requires unanimous approval. This is awkward and cumbersome and means that things take a very long time to work out, as every member state basically has a veto right. But it also means that when your national politicians say "the EU forced this rule upon us" they lie. They could have vetoed it, but they chose not to. Perhaps they horse traded for something else that they thought was more important, but the thing is - they had a right of veto and they did not use it.

But hey - it's a great way of getting laws in place while washing your hands and saying "it wasn't me". Sadly this has been used a lot, as it is very convenient for the national governments, and it has to some extent undermined the confidence in the EU. Yet a recent eurobarometer study showed that 66% has great or some trust in the EU while only 55% had great or some trust in their national government.....
UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amRight or wrong, the Brits decided that the democratic mechanisms in the EU were too weak and too removed from the British people such that they felt there was no longer self-determination. That's a very serious critique, and one that can't be countered with a consequentialist response. If you feel you have no role in your government, you don't get placated by being shown growth rates are likely to be a smidge higher if your stay. In fact, the feeling you have no control or role or voice in the political process (at least in democratic countries) is *at best* a source of unrest and at worst both a source of unrest *and* an accurate description of a government's democratic responsiveness. Now this feeling exists outside the context of the UK and the EU -- most directly testable, I am sure there are many British who still feel that way post-Brexit. But that some institutions or structural conditions remain that create this sentiment doesn't mean all should.
Well, the Scots have had this complaint about Westminster for a very long time, yet it gets shrugged off by the English. More Scots voted to remain in the EU (62%; remain won in all 32 districts) than to remain in Britain (54%, after England had vowed to veto attempts by an independent Scotland to join the EU, which was a major concern for many Scottish voters), yet the tory government turns a deaf ear to their complaints.

Northern Ireland and Gibraltar also voted overwhelmingly to remain. The whole Brexit affair is basically a strictly English affair, the other nations within the UK were less amused.

I'm also shocked that a major decision like this can be passed by a slim margin in a single vote without any consideration taken to voter turnout. 51.9% voted to leave of the 72.2% of eligible voters that bothered to turn up at the polls. Thus only 37% of Brits actually voted to leave, and there is complete disregard for the fact that two of the four nations within the UK voted to remain.

But then Britain does not have a constitution. :|

In Sweden, the EU membership has been added to our constitution, and to change the constitution you need a two thirds majority in parliament, twice, with a general election in between. To let 37% of the population make such a fundamental change to the entire foundation of the country just on a whim like that is incomprehensible to me. But I guess I'm more of a constitutionalist.
UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amDespite an anecdotal article or two about the supply of goods in Britain or highlighting particular goods and industries hardest hit by Brexit, at the end of the day, Brexit is neither the panacea some might have believe it to be nor the catastrophe that others fearmongered. Which was, well, quite predictable. Quite predictable too is that it takes a little time to adjust and get things better.
Well, I don't think people will end up starving, but I'm convinced quality of life, and perhaps even life expectancy, will suffer in the UK as a result of leaving the Union. The problems they've seen so far is just the beginning. Britain was not doing so well in teh /='s, before they joined the union, and I expect to see them drop back to the sad state they were in back then.
UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amMoving along, Per, do you really think the UK's withdrawal from the EU increases the chances that the EU and the UK engage in war with one another? Why? I'm not seeing it. At all.
Well, I do think it increasees it, but still to a very low level. I do not expect any war on the horizon within the forseeable future, but there's definitely an increased risk compared to if they had stayed.

Just look at the current Aukus spat that has made the French furious. They have recalled their ambassadores from Australia and the US, but not from the UK so far. I mean, the main beef is of course that Australia tore up the contract they had signed to buy French subs when the US gace them an offer they couldn't refuse to get American subs instead, but the forming of Aukus, without even informing the French, who have been very active in the South China Sea, is seen as a grave insult. And the British were in on it.

A few more things like that and Anglo-French animosity could escalate to traditional levels.
UWSaint wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:44 amLast observation. I tend to think that if the EU were so wonderful no nation would wish to leave. But one did. And others, like France and the Netherlands, rejected the enlargement of the EU’s authority through a constitutional change (that was more or less effected by other means). I think the fear in Europe is that the UK is a harbinger of change, and that it is *that* change that could create the conditions for war. If so, the EU is far better off figuring out how to address the not-democratic-enough critique beyond pretending its not real. Or it needs to devolve its authorities that are traditionally sovereign authorities.
Well, no one else wants to leave.

Image

And the popularity of the Union has increased since Brexit. Apart from the current 27 member states there are also five candidate countries negotiating membership (Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Turkey), two more that have expressed interest (Bosnia and Kosovo) and then you also have the EES members Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein, that have free trade with Europe and are part of the Schengen area, plus Switzerland that has a bilateral agreement that allows for free trade and free movement.

The disagreement of the scope of what the EU should mean has been a constant discussion since day one, and that the Netherlands and France voted against some specific constitutional change does not mean they would want to leave. That's a complete misunderstanding of the situation. In fact, France is in favour of creating a standing European Army, which is something many other member states find going a bit too far. It's just part of the gradual formation of the union. 27 countries cannot agree on everything.

A problem with the "not enough democracy" argument is that it is exactly the same people who say so that refuse to increase the power of the directly and proportionally elected European parliament. As long as that does not happen, the power remains with the individual nations, that have to discuss everything at length until they can find a solution that is accepted by all.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
UWSaint
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by UWSaint »

Too much in there to respond point by point and not enough time as it is. A few top line observations, though:

* The complaint in Scotland to being in the UK (prior to the UK's withdrawal from the EU) is similar in kind to the complaint of the UK being in the EU. That this exists within the UK doesn't show the UK to be hypocritical (or that hypocrisy is interesting at all in this context), but as proof that (1) national determination remains an important value to many and (2) remote and powerful government is disliked by many. Over the years, my basic understanding is that Scotland has more determination than it had before, but whether its enough to placate the feeling to keep it a minority, I have no idea. And now that Scottish nationalists and Scottish internationalist have cause to join forces (on the idea its better to be a little fish in a huge pond with lots of little fishes than to be a (population ratio) little fish in a medium sized pond with just a couple little fishes), the prospect for Scotland voting to leave is better. [The situation is more complicated in Northern Ireland because you also have an Irish unification movement].

* Though you provided many words, there isn't a coherent argument that you can't have a less tight coordination/independency as the current EU structure and make it work. You cite the four freedoms of movement (goods, services, labor, and capital) as inseparable, but their EU-level treatment wasn't as strong before in the EU's history (yet there was peace) and it could conceivably be tighter. You write "to say yes to one part of the deal and not the other is not acceptable," which is precisely the attitude that inspires resistance to the EU. Once you are in, you have no choice but to go all in.

* People mixing doesn't prevent wars. That assertion rings like a religious mantra. Sounds good, but what's the proof? The number of non-European tyrants who were schooled in Europe or America is innumerable. Its also a fallacy that mixing people require the absolute free movement of people, or that the absolute free movement of people requires the EU.

* It isn't ironic or inconsistent that people suspicious of the EU's authority won't vote to give EU parliament more authority. The issue of democratic responsiveness is on of scale as well as formal authority. I think our countries founders had it right in the beginning with a federal government of limited power, and I also think the erosion of federalist principles is likely to contribute to Brexit-like movements in the US. These are starting today, but they are not mass movements by any stretch.

* Switzerland and Norway are able to access many of the good things that the EU provides as a tied package without tying themselves to the entire package. Their status as non-EU nations has neither harmed them nor increased the changes of war.

* There hasn't been a war in North America (other than civil wars) for a very very very very very long time. There is no apparatus like the EU in North America. One explanation is the size of the military stick that the USA carries. I imagine mixed feelings about that outside of the US; I bet most see it as providing stability but impeding free action. There's a part of me that sees the EU as also being dominated by one country -- Germany -- especially when the issues with the prospects of unravelling things are fiscal in nature. I'm not saying Germany is to Europe as the US is to North America, and its only a part of me that thinks there's any analogy.

* There have been very few intercountry wars since World War II outside of the EU (though civil wars are frequently fought through foreign powers....)

* At the end of the day, frustrations about freedom or access to goods (and economic concerns more generally) drive conflict. The EU doesn't prevent those frustrations from arising except insofar as it secures freedoms (political and individual) and isn't perceived to make economic problems worse. Its an issue that faces all governments, and there are peculiar concerns with large democracies. I think there's a point where governments become so large that if they function as republics, the representatives represent so many people that the people do not feel connected to their government. Add to this the increasing bureaucratization and technocracy of the modern state, and people no longer view their government as having democratic legitimacy.

Eventually, the bubble bursts and large states will devolve power to their component parts or they will become more and more autocratic or oligargic.
Hono_rary Canadian
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9331
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by Per »

UWSaint wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:06 am There is no apparatus like the EU in North America.
Uhm... yes, there is. It’s called the United States of America.

The United States have 50 member states, 9,826,675 square km and some 330 million inhabitants.
The European Union has 27 member states, 4,236,231 square km and some 448 million

The relation Norway and Switzerland have to the EU can be compared to the relation Canada and Mexico have to the USA through Nafta (or whatever Trump renamed it). It provides access to the market, but not quite on equal terms.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
donlever
CC Legend
Posts: 10188
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:07 pm

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by donlever »

Per wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:11 am Uhm... yes, there is.
...I'm not speaking for Saint but just so you know many current date NA's would take the bolded comment, preliminary to the words following, as highly condescending.

As a matter of fact many would find that far more distasteful than the goddamn hockey talk message board "barroom comments" you elected to speak to this past weekend.

If you get my point....
DeLevering since 1999.
User avatar
UWSaint
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: The Brexit disaster

Post by UWSaint »

Per wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:11 am
UWSaint wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 10:06 am There is no apparatus like the EU in North America.
Uhm... yes, there is. It’s called the United States of America.

The United States have 50 member states, 9,826,675 square km and some 330 million inhabitants.
The European Union has 27 member states, 4,236,231 square km and some 448 million

The relation Norway and Switzerland have to the EU can be compared to the relation Canada and Mexico have to the USA through Nafta (or whatever Trump renamed it). It provides access to the market, but not quite on equal terms.
The states in the US are not countries, and you know this. As for some of the dynamics being the same in terms of lack of democratic responsiveness due to size and distance of government in the US, it is a problem. Its why we have federalism and its why federalism's erosion could contribute to Brexit-like movements down the road.

And yes, the mostly friendly trade policy with both Mexico and Canada contributes to the long peace between these countries. The trade war flare ups keep the countries honest. The movement of people across the borders is controlled, and that hasn't created the sparks that lead to war. But it does mean I have to tell the Ontarian dude with frosted hair at border "in the case? Its a guitar, not a rifle."
Hono_rary Canadian
Post Reply