Brexit Bad? · 3:30am Jul 14th, 2016
IN WHICH I give my opinion on something I know very little about
(If I wasn't supposed to stick my nose into things I don't understand, why did God make it so big?)
I didn't know what "Brexit" was until after the vote. I saw it in Google search results and guessed from context that it was a right-wing blog.
I have no opinion on whether leaving the EU is the right thing for Britain to do at this time. The strange thing is that, since the vote, I've read a lot of impassioned blog posts about how awful it is for Britain to leave the EU, and none of them have any opinion on whether it's the right thing for Britain to do at this time, either.
Let's take, for example, the Schlock Mercenary blog which I just read.
I don’t know what the UK’s older generation, the ones who voted “Leave,” have spent twenty years thinking, but the younger generation has spent those years looking forward with hope, not backward with fear. With Brexit, the older generation voted against the future that the youth of the UK overwhelmingly desired.
... Young me probably would have been won over by words like “sovereignty” and “independence.” Old me sees how connected we all are, and how every single act of ignorant distrust tears at the fabric of the future we want to build.
Fellow old people: Look around. Listen and learn. That thing you’ve believed for decades may not be true anymore. It might not even have been true then. Inertia is not wisdom, and those who praise common sense are often calling for you to remain ignorant.
Young people: Old people aren’t all jingoistic relics of the isolationism that has been useless since before most of them were born. Some of us want to hand you a world that is better than the one we were handed, better even than the “good old days” that we, in our more honest moments, will admit never actually existed.
The blog called the vote "disastrous". The peculiar thing is that, in explaining why it was so bad, it said nothing about Britain specifically. It didn't even say anything about economics. It spoke instead in terms of universal ethics: Staying in the EU is morally good. It's "looking forward with hope" and "connected". Leaving is bad. It's "ignorant distrust", "isolationism", and (in defiance of the meaning of the word) "inertia".
This is pure demagoguery.
Any discussion of Brexit, particularly any discussion that condemns it as the End of the World, needs to say something somewhere about Britain. Like, what trade laws are advantageous to Britain and what laws are advantageous to the EU. Who will be hurt and who will be helped because the pound falls.
So far I have not seen that. I have only seen blogs that condemn it in general terms because it's against a "progressive" ideology that says bigger nations are always better, and integrating bureaucracies has somehow become a moral issue, equivalent to joining hands and singing "Kumbayah". Sometime in the past 20 years, this apparently became a universal truth. I didn't get the memo.
If you don't have anything to say about Britain's specific conditions, you have no opinion on whether leaving the EU is the right thing for Britain at this time. You just have an opinion on whether leaving a larger union is the right or wrong thing to do in principle.
If we follow that logic, either every person should be zer own nation, or every nation everywhere should always join with its neighbors to make bigger nations until there is just one.
This is idiotic.
Look. Nations gotta be some size. There are advantages to being big, and there are advantages to being small. There is no a priori reason to think that Britain is too small to be a nation. Historically and theoretically, the evidence is that Britain is a pretty good size for a nation. (See, for example, The Size of Nations, an entire book about calculating the theoretical optimum size of nations given their circumstances.)
Britain can take care of itself. Or it can stay in the EU. I don't care. The sky is not falling. What I care about is the dangerous idiocy of insisting--without argument--that bigger is always better. Of the substitution of a theological principle for rationality. This is a return to the mindset of the Dark Ages, in which right and wrong were decided on the basis of religious metaphors rather than facts.
(The unanimity of the parts of the Internet that I frequent is also alarming. Logically, there must be people out there who think "Leave" was the right thing. Because, you know, Leave won. Yet not only don't I hear from them, I don't hear from anybody who thinks "leave" is a rational alternative, e.g., probably the entire Internet that I know is two degrees of separation from anyone who voted "leave". That suggests a deeper cultural divide than I'd imagined could exist.)
...are you sure you're American?
That's because the Brexit vote was made entirely based on emotion. Both the Remain and Leave campaigns were garbage, and because of the UK's lack of free speech, independent groups who wanted to run their own, less inane campaigns couldn't, there was just the official campaigns with official money given by the government, and with people appointed by the government.
Also, frankly, because almost no one actually understands economics (see also: opposition to free trade deals).
The sad reality is it was stupid because the UK has to do so much business with the EU that they have to abide by many of their trade laws anyway, but by leaving the EU they lose their seat at the table determining said laws, meaning that now the EU can determine those rules internally without them and potentially intentionally screw over the UK because the EU is very protectionist.
And of course London is a major financial center in large part because it is a convenient connection to Europe. But with the UK not in the EU, there's no particular reason to do banking there instead of in Frankfurt or some other continental banking center. Given that the financial industry makes up something like 11% of the UK's tax revenue, this is a real problem.
On top of that, the immigrants that everyone gets angry about (those dirty Muslims) mostly come from former British colonies, not the EU's immigration program, meaning that leaving the EU doesn't even block off the people that they hate.
Thus, voting Leave was pretty stupid because they basically are going to have to deal with the EU whether they like it or not, London is likely to lose its status as one of the two premier global financial centers, and the immigration problem isn't primarily caused by EU immigrants, at least as is popularly complained about (though some people are whiny about Polish immigrants).
It isn't the end of the world and people saying it is are being stupid. But it is probably bad for the UK, and it is a bad sign that people are still so susceptible to nationalistic arguments with little to no basis in reality.
4090195 I learned more from your comment than from news articles.
Can you elaborate on that?
Weird. You must frequent different places than I, I mostly hear about the economics and legal ramifications. For example, the pound dropped sharply after making this decision. Similarly, a bunch of retired British citizens who were living in other mainland Europe suddenly found they could no longer enjoy all their benefits unless they moved back thanks to the end of a bunch of inter-country agreements based on being part of the EU. It's basically created a huge mess, because people's life decisions and many government policies were all founded on the idea of being part of the EU.
Small is always better. Larger nations are not as efficient as small, ethnically homogeneous ones. The EU, like Rome before it, will collapse in on itself. It's simply too large to be efficient.
4090215 Maybe that's because I'm not looking for information on Brexit. I just keep coming across tangential expressions of despair about it in places usually devoted to other topics.
The reason you aren't seeing any specifics in the conversation about what it means for Britain, or what it means for the EU for that matter, is because nobody really knows anything about what the ramifications of Britain leaving the EU will actually end up being. Stuff that was outlined by the EU such as trade agreements and emigration policies will need to be renegotiated, which can result in something more advantageous for Britain, less advantageous, or roughly equal. It's all currently up in the air. It might be really bad. Or not. Who knows? Not anybody, because nobody can know yet, though one could make some educated guesses, considering that everyone coming to the table for those negotiations will be wanting the best deal they can get, and it's hard to really say whether Britain or the EU members have the beefier arm for those negotiations. I suspect that some things will end up better off for Britain and some things will end up worse, the pound will take a pounding in the short term but recover in the long term, and nobody will learn anything as time marches forward, but that's just my gut speaking.
As a result of the big scary unknown of what it actually means, all people can really do is fall back on ad hominem constructions of what it means. Criticize the people who voted for one way instead of the other and make the issue be about stereotypes of those groups in regards to why Brexit happened. Much easier that way.
Of course, because the economy is what it is, the mere act that people are freaking out about it makes it a pragmatically-harmful move. Until things settle down, of course and we can actually assess what's what.
Based on no facts whatsoever, I'm pretty sure things are eventually going to be fine, or as fine as national politics ever get (read: not fine at all, but whatever). Maybe it's because I'm old. I mean, possibly this is all more traumatic for people who have never not known the Eurozone, but for about half my life it wasn't even a thing that existed, and things seemed to be fine, or as fine as national politics ever get (read: ditto). It's important to recognize that cooperation can exist without institutionalized cooperation.
I think perhaps what people are anguishing about is that regardless of the economic facts, some of the fuel behind Brexit at the grassroots level had the odor of toxic xenophobia, and I'm not sure the higher-ups did a lot to disavow this portion of the base (and why would they, I suppose?) It likely makes some feel like the "bad guys" are winning. Completely independent of the economic logic one way or another, it probably makes the Left feel bad when the result of any vote leaves people like the EDL celebrating. Like, if these people are happy, we must be doing something seriously wrong.
4090211
Well, in the US, we have stuff like, say, Fahrenheit 9/11, where Michael Moore basically produced a movie saying "George Bush is a shitty president, you shouldn't vote for him." I mean, it is more complicated than that, but that is basically what it was. And companies could put it in theaters, and sell tickets, and show it on TV, ect.
Various special interest groups are another example. You'll see ads on TV talking about how awesome the oil industry is, or how politician X sucks, or about how certain political positions are bad. You'll see shit like this:
motherjones.com/files/remington-nra-250.jpg
That's a gun company which is saying to vote for your 2nd amendment rights (and that if you join an organization that protects the right to bear arms (the NRA) you'll get a $50 rebate on buying a gun).
In the UK, they had an "official leave campaign" and an "official remain campaign". These campaigns received public money and got media time on publicly owned stations. Now, as in the US, you can also privately donate money as an individual to campaigns, though unlike in the US, they have spending limits, but no donation limits - in other words, you can only spend X amount of money, but you could, say, have one rich dude write you a check for 500,000 pounds, whereas in the US, you are limited to only a few thousand dollars of campaign contributions from any individual donor to a campaign, so you need more of them.
The thing is, in the US, after you hit your limit, you can, say, donate a bunch of money to the ACLU, or the NRA, or the Sierra Club, and they can campaign for issues by buying advertisements to lobby for their political positions and whatnot. When people say "X donated $1 million to a campaign", what they're really saying is "X just gave a SuperPAC that promised to support a candidate a bunch of money." Or you can even just run ads on your own to push for your point of view, as Remington did above, and as energy companies do periodically on TV.
In the UK, though, you aren't allowed to buy political TV and radio advertisements (and possibly others as well) - the only such advertisements are done by the official campaigns designated by the government, at specific times before the election. In other words, if, say, the banks wanted to get together and run an ad to tell people "The only reason we're headquartered in the UK is because of your access to European financial markets; if you vote leave, we're going to have to relocate so we can continue to operate in the EU, and we pay 11% of your total tax revenue so you'll all lose your benefits", they couldn't buy a TV or radio ad saying that - that's forbidden. Only the official campaigns can run ads on TV, and then only in limited times, and unless you're a part of that campaign (i.e. a member of the group running said campaign), you have no control over their message. Also, if you hit your spending limit, you're done spending money - it doesn't matter if you have more money left over from excess donations, you can't spend it.
That's not to say that there aren't other groups which can push for things, but they're sharply limited in what methods they can use to do so. So if you don't like how the official, government-designated campaign is being run, you can't just get together another group of people and run your own independent campaign and be treated the same way as the official campaign and advertise on TV or other broadcast media, making it much harder for you to get out your message.
The assumptions you make expect people to act on logic, reason and consistency rather than ambigious terms and emotion, mostly it is not the case.
Most of the younger generations in UK did not vote, brexit happend because younger people did not move their asses and went to voting (averagely %30 of 25 year old voted). UK made a choice but the choice they made were based upon the delusions of their old empire complex and the frustrations of being left by the goverment and elitist since the margaret thatcher decided to destroy the british industry and condemned people to poverty.
In economical terms there is going to be a bigger collapse especially in Britian if they choose to act the article 50: fall of the housing market, moving of the financial sector to frankfurt and paris, move of the innovational start up firms to berlin is already happenning and it will get much worse.
If the article 50 is not triggered since the referandum is not legally binding it will cause another political crisis and will cause a bigger generational divide and acts of violence.
It is a loose-loose situation.
That is what happens when people act on their emotion rather than reason and suddenly apolitical persons all around the world decides to post blogs about the topics they are not aware and make statements which are not consistent.
Well, will I think Titanium Dragon covered the core of the discussion, I wanted to point out, that (at least as what I see) the “moral” or “ethic” motivation of a lot of that “demagogy” wasn’t the discussion about a supposed more “progressive” “big state” against a “bad small state”, (that’s a very north-american perspective), what I mostly saw was mostly a lot of demagogy about the immigrant question in which the leave vote was associated to the nationalist anti-immigrant side and the remain with...well, the opposite idea?.
That’s at least what I mostly saw people/internet discussing about.
4090303 In someway I think that is fair, it prevents extreme lobbying by financially strong people
The big issue here is that it is hard to actually pin-point what it means for UK to exit the EU. It wouldn't surprise me to see the UK stay in the Schengen Area, and to have very similar free trade agreements with the EU, while opting out of other things, like some of its regulations. It will lose some of its privileged position, but should gain some additional freedom to deal with other countries, like Russia, the US, and China. I mean, if Switzerland and Norway can make it without the EU, then so can the UK – which has a much larger population and territory.
It is also important to note that the market crash isn't about "The UK will crash and burn without the EU", but more about investors being really risk adverse, and knowing that any uncertainty will drop the price of stocks. We shouldn't really judge political decisions based on short term market trends, otherwise we would rarely switch out the ruling party during elections.
The Remain group tried a lot of rational arguments before the Brexit, telling people basically what 4090195 just said. A conscious decision was made to focus on the economic costs of leaving by the remain campaign. Leave campaigners called it fear-mongering, and as you can see people didn't really listen to all the economists. I think now that the vote is over, a lot of Remainers are voicing their private emotional feeling about Brexit that they didn't share ahead of time, because as you pointed out, it sure sounds like demagoguery.
4090327 they still abide eu regulations like free movement of people (immigration), food regulations, quality regulations etc.
UK still have to abide them regardless of the decision to leave EU or not. If they leave they just loose right to negotiate those regulations
4090263
The problem is that the UK needs the EU more than the EU needs the UK, which creates a fundamental level of assymetry. Moreover, there are already existing deals with countries like Norway and Switzerland which are no more favorable for the UK than the present deals are, and which are likely to be used as guidelines.
That's not to say that there are no costs at all to staying in the EU - there are. You are functionally ceding some of your sovereignty in some important ways by being a part of the EU, and you're subject to some rulings as part of the EU that you wouldn't be as not part of the EU. And to be fair, some of the EU rules are pretty stupid. That said, there doesn't seem to be huge rage in the UK over most of these laws, which suggests that most people there don't actually care about them.
The other benefit of leaving in theory is the fact that the UK pays more in dues to the EU than it receives in return. In principle, this means that if the UK leaves the EU, they can keep the balance. The problem is that in practice, it isn't clear if it will really work this way; if they lose even a small fraction of their trade and banking industry, they'll not end up with any more money than they have now, as the overall imbalance is not exactly huge (the Leave campaign grossly exaggerated how much they'd keep, as they noted that they paid $350 million per week or so in EU dues, but left out the fact that they got most of that back in benefits from the EU's various programs).
The problem is that the most relevant ones (at least as far as most people are concerned) are probably the economic deals, because trade ends up having an outsized impact on smaller countries packed more tightly together. And as far as economic deals go, Norway and Switzerland have to abide by a lot of trade rules that EU states do - which means that, if the UK does end up in the realistic best case scenario, their trade rules won't really functionally change very much at all. Moreover, to maintain full market access, they'll probably require that EU citizens be able to work there and vice-versa - which undermines any anti-immigration platform they'd have against EU migrants (and as noted, the no-EU migrants - such as people from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh - wouldn't be effected at all).
The whole thing is kind of a cluster because the Leave campaign made a bunch of promises it couldn't keep - it promised to put a bunch of extra money into the NHS, for instance, but a lot of the money it promised doesn't exist unless they don't replace EU programs with British money (which means that a lot of eco-devo projects in many regions, such as Wales, would get hosed). Indeed, many of the regions which got the most EU money voted strongly for Leave, and then demanded that the UK replace the money that the EU would no longer be sending them.
There are some valid arguments for leaving - if you believe that, for instance, the UK could form a separate, better economic union with former colonies (say, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, ect.) in a way they couldn't if they were a part of the UK, and thus maintain their relative economic power, that's not a crazy argument. But no one has any plans or preparations for such a thing, and it isn't clear that those countries would even be interested, as they primarily don't do trade with the UK (Canada, for instance, is much closer to the US and does most of its trade with us, and we have a lot more money than the UK) and the UK is actually poorer than its former Anglosphere colonies. So it isn't clear that something like that could even come about.
The sovereignty argument is more meaningful, and if you, say, strongly opposed the "Right to Be Forgotten", maybe leaving the EU wouldn't be so bad. But that's an obscure issue that I think relatively few people in the UK care about deeply - I didn't hear anyone campaigning against a lot of those EU rules that they wouldn't like. Most of what bitching I saw about EU rules had to do with trade rules, and those are the ones which are least likely to change in the UK's favor.
Pretty much the best case realistic scenario for the UK is that nothing really changes, and the worst case scenario is that it becomes another Australia - that is to say, a country that no one hates, but also that no one particularly cares about either and which isn't seen as a vital chain link in the global economy, at least not in the same way that it is now.
My friends over there voted "Yes" on Brexit, simply because they didn't like "faceless beurocrats in Brussels" telling them "how to run things" in their own country and taking their money "to bail out other shitty little countries who can't get their act together".
And they are college-age.
I have to say, I concur.
Part of the problem was that nobody had any plans for what to do in the case the UK voted Leave. Most of the major parties officially wanted Remain, and it was sold as a simple in-or-out rather than a package of this is what happens if we stay and this is what we get if we leave. From the time Article 50 is invoked, there will be two years to negotiate the terms of leaving the EU. That's not long to hammer out a very complicated trade and travel agreement, where essentially the best case scenario would be something along the lines of the agreement with Norway, which would amount roughly to keeping most of the same requirements but losing a say in deciding policy. Other nations in the EU have pretty much stated that any agreement maintaining anything like the current free trade/access to Europe for UK exports would require the UK to keep pretty much the same freedom of movement as now, which basically removes the motivation in the first place.
And that's all complicated by the possibility of Scotland attempting to veto the move, or seek independence (potentially Northern Ireland too), because they really wanted to remain in the EU. And because of the failure of the Remain campaigns, the head of the Conservative Party stepped down and was just replaced, and the head of the Labor Party saw mass resignations in the shadow cabinet and a vote of no confidence from the Parliamentary Labor Party, losing something like 80% to 20%, and has refused to step down, leaving the Parliament without an effective opposition for the time being. Now, this last part probably isn't fair to blame on Brexit itself, but it is another illustration of the problems going into it without any contingency planning.
I suggest FT Alphaville as a general resource on the topic, and Mainly Macro/Simon Wren-Lewis for some of the economic aspects and crucially talk on the media environment leading up to and following the referendum, related to what Titanium Dragon had to say on free speech.
4090327 The UK isn't in the Schengen Area.
To play somebody's advocate I will say as far as I have seen, a large reason many Britons voted leave was because they felt a threat to their sovereignty, and considering the EU's reaction to the Brexit was to throw a temper tantrum on the world stage, threaten to just force the UK out by giving Scotland the UK's entire former seat, and roll out plans that push the EU far closer to being a federal government than a mere federation, it's hard for me not to have some sympathy for that position now.
I doubt we've seen the end of the Brexit. The Leavers have no idea what to do with their victory, the EU is teetering precariously as Germany and France alienate Poland with their "Super State" shenanigans, and Scotland's disgust is threatening to dissolve the several hundred year old institution that is the United Kingdom.
It's a giant mess and unfortunately the entire state of political discourse everywhere is decaying dangerously close to really just being two sides screaming at each other, one about vague patriotic sounding secretly bigoted nonsense and the other about how anyone who won't instantly meet their demands could only be doing so from a manifest desire to rape every brown woman on the earth to death. You don't have the whole story, and honestly neither do I, but everyone has a flag to stake on the UK's corpse, so it won't be easy for anyone to get it at this point.
Brexit certainly has negative consequences for science in the UK. Many researchers there depended on funding from the EU to support their work. As the UK exits the EU, these researchers must find other sources of funding. I was talking to a friend at the University of Cambridge recently who said he's likely to either leave for somewhere else in Europe or come to the US when he begins applying for faculty positions. The universities in the UK will probably have trouble recruiting top talent because EU funding will not be available to them.
Another big issue with Brexit is the matter of the border with Ireland, an EU member. Ireland and Northern Ireland could maintain an open border when both were EU members, but when the UK exits the EU, there can no longer be an open border there, a problem given the amount of goods and people who move across that border daily.
4090296
To clarify, that guy wan't the leader of the official Leave campaign. Farage was the leader of the UKIP. He wasn't in charge of (or a part of) the official Leave campaign. What he said the morning after the election was that he disagreed with the way the Leave campaign ran things, but because he wasn't a part of it, they didn't listen to him or care, and he thought that promising the NHS that money was a mistake because they couldn't do so.
People said that the Leave campaign lied, and they did, but Farage wasn't a part of it (he was doing his own advocacy for it on the side).
Not that Farage is a good guy (he isn't) but it wasn't fair to blame him for the Leave campaign lying.
One of the big economic reasons they left the EU was because "Yeah, trade with Europe is great, but what we really want is to open trade with China"
Dear Britain:
Good luck with that.
Sincerely, Australia
4090327
The UK isn't actually a part of the Schengen Area as-is.
Switzerland and Norway are both much wealthier than the UK. Indeed, they're two of the wealthiest countries in the world. Their position isn't exactly analogous to the UK, and their wealth is a big part of why they're not a part of the EU.
That said, it isn't that the UK is going to die horribly, it is that the way that the UK's trade is structured isn't really conducive to it leaving the EU. It is unlikely to be really beneficial to it unless there's some reason that someone else would want to do a lot of trade with the UK - but few countries really *need* the UK.
This is absolutely true, but it is worth noting that the markets elsewhere have already recovered while the UK market hasn't. That indicates that investors are betting that no one else is really going to be really much affected by it, but the UK is going to be hurt.
I'm not saying that investors are always right (they're not) but that is the market consensus at the moment.
Wouldn't it be awful if people did the same kind of thing when people were getting killed?
A very helpful starting point for understanding why Brexit is hard to understand (I do not understand Brexit either, and after reading what others have to say, my conclusion is that we are in the vast majority) is to realize that Britain is made of different people. Some people will expect to benefit. Others will expect to lose. Some will expect "the nation" to benefit, but by "the nation" they mean a very small piece of it that comes to mind. Others will expect "the nation" to lose, but by "the nation" they mean a very small piece of it that comes to mind. All of these interests are competing, all of these interests see their interests as the nation's interests, or their idea of a small part of the nation's interests as the nation's interests. All are baffled as to why others do not share this perspective.
So should "Britain" remain or leave? There is no right answer. There are only the consequences, and your values.
As for the consequences themselves, very hard to predict because the EU does not exist, it is imaginary, joining or leaving it is not of great significance per se. It would be completely possible for a post-Leave Britain and the remaining EU to establish a relationship near-identical to one where Britain is in the EU. It would also be possible for Britain to devote its navy to keeping out anyone who doesn't naturally regard sausage and beer as a healthy breakfast. So it is up to "the people," who are all different people. As such, no definite answer, only the outcome of the competition of a multitude of differently-valuing, differently-equipped parties in a complex games with indefinite rules and an indefinite end.
All this complexity manifests itself in the newspapers and on the Internet as "Nyer, Buncha Berks."
4090323
That's the argument for it. But it fundamentally goes against the entire principle of freedom of speech as it means the government decides who does and doesn't get to broadcast their point of view. That's why the ACLU is opposed to such things in the US.
4090414 yet extreme liberalism taken in US is causes another set of problems, it is my opinion but I strongly favor certain limitations and restrictions done by the goverment.
That is not limitation on free speech that is limitation on the financial resources that can be used so that rich corporations don't completely dominate and dictate politics. That regulation exists in one way or another in the rest of the world and it should be.
For example that regulation prevents the power trump would have if he were a candidate in UK.
The definition of free speech changes from country to country, the regulation is constituional in UK and in press freedom index UK is not on a bad spot. You cannot simply say ''the free speech was prevented'' it is a huge accusation. The contexts can be significantly different and if the understanding of context is a different for you that does not mean it is completely wrong.
Another example the word ''liberal'' in US is different than the world. For the rest of the world the word ''liberal'' means ''Libertarian''. Based on that I can state ''US fails to achieve its liberal traditions as it subsides agriculture and fails to achieve a real and proper Laissez-faire'' but that statement would be wrong from the perspective of US citizen as the liberal tradition in US is different from the rest of the world.
Same can be said for the UK and rest of the world, the statement you made is a false accusation from my perspective as I have grew up with different tradition of free speech.
To better understanding of this problem you can refer to Wittgenstein's Logic of Language.
For what it's worth, at work most of the arguments for leaving were based on EU wastefulness and corruption (plenty of examples if you look), lack of sovereignty (debatable), and racism. The racism is pretty overt - I remember explicit insults against Germans, Turks, Poles, and several comments about Muslims. A significant block of people voted for Brexit for purely racist reasons.
On the matter of the suprisingly large cultural divide there is this excellent thinkpiece blog.
As it is quite long, the TLDR version is that social and psychological separation between the 'conservative' and 'progressive' groups is far greater than the divisions between gender, race, age, income or just about anything else. Theres a few stats, but this example gives a good impression of the width of the divide:
If you are 'progressive' you work with progressives, hang out with them, visit the same resturants, watch the same TV shows and visit the same websites. And vis-a-vise for conservatives. A country is really two countries in the same physical place, but with almost no common experience. It's rather scary when you see it.
4090327
The UK is not now nor has it ever been party to Schengen. It's part of the series of sweetheart deals it negotiated with the EU.
Norway is part of the EEA, though, as was Switzerland until very recently.
This is a topic I actually know something about. Strap in, boys.
A little history. In the immediate postwar era, the Brits were somewhat skeptical of the whole European Project (and really they still are, which is why we're having this discussion) and because they had the largest economy still standing, they didn't much care about it either. That changed in the late fifties, when recovery on the Continent started going like gangbusters; the other economies of Europe were still smaller than that of the UK (except for West Germany, but that was a unique case), but collectively they were a force to be reckoned with and they were growing at enormous rates every year, much higher rates of growth than the UK was experiencing. Suddenly the UK was very eager to get some of that sweet sweet common market action. For a long time, de Gaulle blocked them (de Gaulle hated the UK and regarded them as an enemy for a lot of reasons) to the point of threatening to blow up the nascent EU if they were allowed in over the objections of France, but the rest of what would become the Eurozone very much wanted the UK on board and eventually various deals were struck. The UK managed to negotiate sweetheart deals, although that didn't stop the French (and for awhile, Italy of all countries) from lapping them economically, a situation that only reversed itself in the 90s.
The EU has been very, very good to the UK. Access to the common market as a full member has allowed what had become an increasingly sclerotic British economy to grow much faster and larger than it otherwise could have. Without the EU the British economy is, conservative estimate, about 20% smaller than it is now; they'd be the sick man of northern Europe. A shit-ton of manufacturing and financial interests that would otherwise have not based themselves there found it convenient to do so because of their EU membership; Nissan, for example, would not have built their plant there if they couldn't then ship those cars to the rest of Europe without a customs regime in the way. And there's the City, of course, which is a grotesque and evil thing, but which sure does bring a shit-ton of money into the UK.
Moreover, the EU has bent over backwards to accommodate the UK, especially in recent years. They have all kinds of special deals and waivers that don't apply to most countries, because the EU would really have preferred to have the UK in rather than out for a whole host of reasons. Indeed, David Cameron negotiated a new set of concessions from the EU just last year, which are, of course, a dead letter now.
Leaving undoes all of that. The UK will have to negotiate access to the common market on the same level as, say, Russia, or China, or other countries. This is perfectly doable! But it isn't doable without taking a huge economic hit as the British economy adjusts itself to dealing with the EU as an outsider that is forced to accede to their wishes, rather than as an insider that gets preferential treatment because it is an insider. Ironically, a lot of the parts of the UK that voted most strongly for Brexit will be hardest hit; Cornwall, for example, depends very heavily on EU industrial and cultural subsidies because it is one of the most economically blighted places in all of Europe, and a UK with a suddenly contracting economy is not going to be interested in maintaining those.
There are other downsides as well. Plenty of people depend on free movement throughout Europe these days; an increasing number of young British people were choosing to be educated in Germany, for example, because the British ended free post-secondary education whereas the Germans continue to provide it free of charge even to foreigners. Conversely, you had a lot of well-heeled foreigners choosing to be educated in the UK, because a degree from a high-end British university is worth more internationally due to certain reciprocal recognition agreements the UK has with the US that other nations do not.
Now, it is theoretically possible for the UK to join the EEA without being a member of the EU. Norway was mentioned up above; the Norwegians have done exactly that. But they only managed that because they basically agreed to sign onto all the requirements a member of the EU would have to meet anyway. (With a few minor exceptions.)
And that's a big fucking problem for the UK, or, more specifically, for Theresa May, the newly-minted Prime Minister. Because the Leave campaign... I'm not going to sugar-coat this. It was a vile pack of lies and racism. It's central message was "Wogs out!" and that message was being shouted to the rooftops by people who think wogs begin at Calais. They want to kick out Johnny Foreigner and they want to do it yesterday.
Being a member of the EEA will require them to agree to the precise same freedom of movement and employment policies they're currently a party of as a full member of the EU. If the Tories try to do that, they'll face a screaming meltdown from their own base, because that will mean they underwent a massive economic dislocation and pain (although the Tories have been running on a "Pain is Good For You" platform for the past six years anyway) in order to get a worse deal that doesn't even kick out the foreigners!
But wait, it gets better.
Ever heard of the Good Friday Accords, the historic deal that largely ended the Troubles? Yeah, about that. A number of clauses in the GFA guarantee Northern Ireland access to the Republic of Ireland and to a large number of EU institutions. Indeed, during the negotiations a major sticking point was "we're part of Europe and we want EU access and representation." So there's a colorable argument to be made the the UK hauling Northern Ireland out of the UK violates a rather important peace deal! Plus, since the Republic of Ireland will be remaining in the EU, this will necessitate a robust customs and immigration regime to be established along the ROI/Northern Ireland border. I'm sure both of those polities will fucking love checkpoints staffed with armed guards (armed British guards) being established there, right? The Irish love seeing British people with guns!
And then you've got Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon is probably planning on when (not if) to spring another independence referendum right now. And it will almost certainly win, because the Scots are deeply committed to remaining in the EU, for both economic and political reasons. (Also cultural ones. The Scots have long seen the Continent as being their friends, a lot more than they see the English as their friends.) The main reason Scotland didn't bail a couple years ago is because the EU was all "no, you won't automatically be a member, you'll have to join up normally" and Westminster was all "you'll need to establish your own currency, you won't be able to use the pound." The first reason vaporizes if the UK leaves the EU and the second is something that can be worked around if the EU is prepared to cut Scotland a sweetheart deal, which it was not willing to do so when Scotland was threatening to blow up the UK but which it might do if it perceives the UK as forcing Scotland out. The Tories might try and crack down, of course, do something nutso like revoke devolution, but that would probably lead to actual-factual violence.
Speaking of Scotland... this is how dysfunctional British politics are right now. British Parliament doesn't really recognize formal political parties as they're constructed in the modern day; it recognizes MPs and those whom said MPs declare to be their leader, but that's basically it. The official post of Leader of the Opposition usually is held by the MP who can claim the loyalty and support of the most MPs who aren't already part of the government. (The MP who can claim the loyalty and support of the most MPs who is part of the government is, of course, the Prime Minister.)
There is an argument to be made that right at this moment, the Leader of the Opposition is not Jeremy Corbyn. That it is, in fact, Angus Robertson, leader of the Scottish National Party, because he can claim the loyalty of more MPs willing to vote for him to form a government than Jeremy Corbyn can! Fifty or so Scottish Nationalists can claim a more solid mandate for being the Opposition than the Labour Party can!
Now. It is still possible for the UK to step back from the brink. The referendum they just had has no legal power whatsoever; as far as the law is concerned, it was no more impactful than Eurovision voting is. Parliament has to remove the UK from the EU, by formally invoking Article 50. That starts the whole process off, which has a two-year timer. Parliament could decide to simply... ignore the referendum. This is very dodgy on legitimacy grounds, but it could be done. Indeed, the argument could be made that it is the correct and noble thing to do; the Tories could declare "Leaving the EU will cause massive damage to the UK and its people, and that is not to be borne. If you want that to happen so badly, you're going to have to vote in people who actually support that. We realize this may result in the UKIP having a hundred and fifty seats in Parliament a few years from now. We don't care."
Problem is, if the Tories had the balls to do that, there wouldn't have been a referendum in the first place. David Cameron only acceded to it because he needed to shore up his right flank int the 2015 elections; you will note that the Tories actually campaigned very hard against leave, and the business interests who are the Tories real constituency (the Tories give lip service to the cultural reactionaries whose votes they need, but they're owned lock, stock, and barrel by business and finance) are dead set against it. But those cultural reactionaries do vote, and they're willing to vote UKIP.
So the Tories have to at least make a show of negotiating to stop their base from imploding. A big problem there that the UK doesn't currently have any trade representatives with any experience at all with this sort of negotiation, and that's assuming the EU wants to start talking at all before Article 50 is invoked.
Lest it be said I'm blaming the Tories overmuch here, the British (or should I say, specifically the English) electorate is deeply and truly delusional on this issue. A majority of them hold the same two views simultaneously; that British people should be allowed to freely travel, live, and work anywhere they want in Europe, but that people from other European countries should not be freely allowed to travel, live, and work in the UK.
That's fucking nuts. It's not the 19th century anymore. You're not an Empire anymore. The EU is happy to deal with you as equals and as friends. They won't deal with you making ludicrous demands.
One final thing. Most of all this information and analyses that I know? I got it from... blogs. It might be wrong (it might be very wrong!) but I don't think anyone can say that it is without substance.
Bad Horse, I would respectfully submit you find better blogs to read.
4090441
The entire premise behind this idea is flawed.
There are two possibilities:
1) People are so stupid that whoever spends the most money will win the vote. In this case, we should abolish democracy; people are too stupid to be able to vote, as they vote based on entirely arbitrary reasons. Restricting political spending won't help, because they've already proven they're too idiotic to vote based on anything sensible; they'll just vote based on other nonsense.
2) People aren't so stupid that whoever spends the most money will win the vote. In this case, restricting political spending is pointless and achieves nothing of value.
It is widely agreed that only bad people are opposed to freedom of speech.
Thus, people who are opposed to freedom of speech redefine it so they aren't "opposed to freedom of speech" so that they aren't bad people.
China ostensibly has constitutionally protected freedom of speech (the UK lacks a constitution).
Do you think China has freedom of speech?
Of course not.
It is like the white supremacist groups claiming that they aren't racist, they're just "pro-white". Racists are bad people - even in their own minds - so they have to redefine themselves as not being racist.
Or like black nationalists who claim that only white people can be racist, and no racist act by a black person is ever racist.
It is a convenient redefinition by people advocating for something seen as bad to assuage their guilt. But it doesn't change the fact that the underlying concept doesn't change.
The reason that spending on speech is protected in the US is that it costs money to print books, make newspapers, broadcast videos, and everything else. If you don't protect spending on speech, you make it so that the government can censor whatever it wants.
The ACLU recognized this, which is why they oppose the government being able to restrict spending on speech - it would allow the government to censor all speech which costs money to produce and distribute.
That infringes on freedom of speech by definition.
If you can only project your voice if the government gives you permission to do so, you don't have freedom of speech.
Liberal means "in favor of civil liberties" (i.e. civil rights) - this is the reason why liberal and liberty look so similar.
The difference comes from the fact that the US is a liberal democracy (and indeed, was founded by what we would today describe as libertarians, though they were pragmatic ones). In other countries, like the UK, the "liberal" party was the party in favor of economic rights. Historically speaking, both parties in the US have mostly been in favor of civil rights. Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court - a "conservative" - consistently rules in favor of free speech.
In the US, the Republicans were traditionally more socially and economically liberal. That gradually changed, and in the 20th century the Democratic party became increasingly socially liberal, which eventually alienated the socially conservative Dixiecrats, who ended up going over to the Republican party.
Thus, we ended up with the Democrats being "liberals" because they were more socially liberal. But the Republicans were socially liberal historically as well; most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance. It is only in more recent times that they have become so socially conservative - and even then, many of them still have strong principles in favor of things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
People sometimes use the word "liberal" in the US to instead mean "leftist". But this doesn't change the fact that there is a concept attached to "liberal", and that concept doesn't change regardless of the word used.
It isn't a false accusation at all; the UK doesn't have full freedom of speech. Very few countries do.
Freedom of speech is defined as "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
If the UK censors or restrains speech, it doesn't have freedom of speech.
Does it?
Yes.
So it doesn't have full freedom of speech.
If you redefine the phrase "freedom of speech" to mean something else, it doesn't change that the underlying concept still exists, and the UK still doesn't have it.
4090473
The Scotland and Northern Ireland things are also huge issues.
That being said, Scotland trying to leave the UK and join the EU is... dicey. The problem is that Scotland is not at all connected to the EU physically, not even by the Chunnel, and its #1 trading partner would be the UK. Combine that with the fact that many people cross the border from Scotland to England to work, and the fact that there's no guarantee that Spain would allow Scotland in or even recognize them as existing because of its own concerns with potential breakaway areas of its own country, and the fact that the UK could and would say "Well, you aren't part of the UK, you don't get to use the pound", and the fact that Scotland's economy isn't great right now, leaving the UK would be somewhere between "risky" and "deeply stupid".
And as for Northern Ireland... well, God only knows what is going to happen there, and he's laughing.
4090398
The UK stock market (FTSE 250) has recovered, if you measure its value in pounds. I think this means the problem is the pound, not the stocks.
4090490 which country have a proper freedom of speech then. Don't tell me US pls, it has also a censor policy like every country and a great phobia against social reforms and leftists, sanders was labeled socialist when he was favoring the most fundamental rights even the right parties defend in the rest of the world.
And the government must limit certain things, what masses want is usually not right and reasonable, the examples of that are seen right now, brexit, trump, the rise of the far right. It is governments job to protect certain aspects, extreme liberalism and let them do anything they want leads to mass exploitation, environmental and social issues which ultimately leads to anger and dictatorship.
People are emotional and not reasonable in most cases, the democracy has its faults as it some times let the rise of tyranny .
There are no absolute values and the problem we are having is because of our difference in political traditions, your perspective is also biased, like many issues nothing is simple nor any country in the world have a true ''freedom of speech''.
4090547
There may be a chance for Scotland to become successor state of the UK, which could bypass the issues with Spain. But it is a highly technical argument I don't understand fully. Friends I trust and who understand it better rate the chance at maybe, then think about the clusterfuck we have and collapse in hysterical laughter.
4090249
That probably makes a big difference, true. Long story short, everythings fucked up good for Britain short-term but it's really hard to say if it's going to stay that way long-term or if they can mostly recover (though some stuff, like easily retiring to continental Europe is almost certainly not recoverable without rejoining the EU). It does indicate, however, that the people who pushed for it didn't put enough thought into the consequences of what they were asking for.
I'd say more but Titanium Dragon and Murcushio have already discussed most of it.
4090555
"It has a very strict censor policy"
Oh really? Can you elaborate on that? Because none of your attempted examples indicate anything of the kind. "Being opposed to something" is not at all the same as "stopping people from being free to say it".
You see:
That's not censorship.
4090599 sorry exaggerated that statement and changed it
We're not Americans if we can't give our opinions on things we know little about.
Summarized, IMOHO, Brexit was a crisis of trust. Older and more experienced people have heard the arguments used by politicians who wanted Britain in the EU and know just how full of (censored) they were when they were used ten or twenty years ago, while young people don't read history. Old people know the difficulty the EU has made in creating jobs because they create jobs, while young people work in these jobs and don't see what all the fuss is about.
A *smart* political move for the EU would be to recognize the bloated mess that the administration of the EU has become, as well as the inability of voters in the member states to have any say in said administration, and work out a reduction in the scope and control that Brussels has over the members, as well as permitting member states to influence the membership of the councils in something other than back-room appointments. (Allowing the common people to vote on who rules over them. What a shocking concept. How quaint.)
It will never happen. Once given power, a bureaucracy will fight to the death to keep it.
Oh, and for everybody who is saying "University X or Company Y will no longer be able to attract the best and brightest because their funding will be reduced" Please remember that this funding has to come from *somewhere* in the first place, and if the EU was giving it, they had to be taking even more, once you account for bureaucratic inefficiencies (about 50% if I guess right).
4090636
I fear there is a fundamental misunderstanding here on how the EU works, how it was shaped and what its role is. It is far less gargantuan than you think and far less undemocratic. It has it's problems, a lot of them, but this specific objections are generally not rooted in reality. You are not at a fault here, the EU has been the favorite scapegoat of tons of politicians for their own failures and so this perception was created, but it's not really possible to productively discuss and disagree without some common framework.
I regrettably don't have time to explain it now (it's lengthy and I am on the phone) but, if I don't remember in the next 24 hours please send me a PM to remind me.
4090555
It is the US. The US has the freest speech of any country, though a handful of other countries have similarly free speech.
You seem to misunderstand what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech is, at its heart, the ability to express and promote any idea you want without getting in trouble with the law for it. In the US, you can deny the Holocaust, blaspheme, run your own independent political campaign, say that white people are the devil, and any number of other things and not get in legal trouble for it. That's not to say that anyone will like you, but you won't go to jail for it.
As far as the US government is concerned, the only censorship we engage in is of public airwaves, and then, it isn't censorship of ideas, it is censorship of swearing and pornographic materials. You can show almost anything you want on cable or the Internet, with the only real exceptions being when you infringe on the rights of others (you can't commit slander or libel, make false advertisements, or share pornographic images of actual children).
Classified material cannot be disclosed by people who have signed up to view it, but if it gets leaked to the public, the public can share it freely.
Suggesting that labelling someone as a socialist is somehow anti-freedom of speech is ridiculous; insulting people falls under freedom of speech.
You mean like when people advocate for abolishing freedom of speech?
If you want true democracy, you need freedom of speech and to allow people to express their ideas to the public.
If I call the color "red" "blue", that doesn't change what color apples are, it just changes what word I'm using to reference that concept.
The concept of freedom of speech exists regardless of what you call it. Most countries have not embraced freedom and liberty as much as the US does. That's just the way the world is. The US highly values liberty, freedom, and individualism. It is part of our culture.
Most countries value these concepts less than we do, but recognize that freedom is good, which makes them resentful of the US, because it makes them look backwards.
4090398
Yeah, that was a brain fart.
I really don't buy this argument. UK's economy is both stronger (in absolute numbers) and more dynamic than either of those. Even considering per-capita numbers, the UK doesn't lag too much behind. Also, again, it is not like Germany and France will suddenly stop interacting with the UK.
Even considering what Bad Horse brought up up there, it is important to note that this uncertainty period hasn't ended, and that the UK has suffered the sudden evisceration of its political class. That is a still ongoing consequence of the Brexit vote, yes, but it isn't necessarily related to them actually leaving the EU.
4090355 Those agreements can be renegotiated. That is my point.
4090636
You're a bit off. The actual figure is more like 6%.
As someone who works for University X, I have spent a lot of time studying our future prospects and discussing it with friends. I don't know anyone in the University who thinks things will get better or stay the same. The debate is just about how bad it will be. Yes, we will survive, but all the signs suggest the post brexit administration will not consider funding science and higher education a priority. We are one of the largest recipients of EU research funding, and we get back more than we pay in. The reason why is that Britain is very good at attracting talented researchers from overseas (it's not British researchers winning all these grants, but also researchers from other states who chose to work in Britain). The prospects of greater restrictions on immigration threatens this.
Another fascinating discussion on a bad horse blog!
( my phone's voice to text thought I said "bad divorce blog", which is pretty accurate, really.)
4090454
Well "In the same physical place" isn't always accurate since these divisions are often based partly on geography. Certain locations in the country tend to be inhabited by people holding certain views, though it's not absolute.
4090473 Thanks for saving me writing an overly lengthy explanation, I think you covered most of the points.
This just in: Theresa May has made Boris Johnson, of all people, (one of the lead Brexiters who lied his ass off in the campaign) foreign secretary. From the Guardian:
However, his track record when it comes to interacting with other cultures is patchy to say the least, and politicians around the world will no doubt be intrigued by the prospect of working with a man who once wrote a poem about the Turkish president having sex with a goat. In the US, the official reaction was one of carefully restrained laughter.
Ahem. Anyway. Trade. The thing about trade deals that the Brexiters claimed to 'just' having to re-negotiate is that they take time. As a rule somewhere between two and ten years, depending on the complexity of the economies involved. This isn't something you do on the back of a beermat. As the then still minister of foreign affairs said a few days back, it will take at least six years to finalize a new treaty with the EU after invoking article 50: even if a trade deal can be negotiated within the two year time frame of article 50, it will then have to be ratified by all 27 member states. The fastest this kind of deal has ever been ratified has been four years. In the meantime, the UK will have to trade under WTO rules, meaning that there will be at minimum 10% tariffs imposed on British exports among other drawbacks. Additionally, many business models of large financial institutions in the City depend on free access to the common market. They will have to relocate.
The Norway model is costly by the way. If Britain should join the EEA, it will have to accept all EU rules for access to the common market anyway and pay a lot for the privilege. And the main issue, immigration, has nothing to do with the EU anyway. That's a foreign affairs issue, something that the EU has left entirely in the responsibility of its member states. A missing common EU foreign policy is something even the US has complained about many times.
4090675
The problem with the EU is similar to the problem with the Articles of Confederation in some ways, and this sort of thing is part of the issue with the EU's loose system.
4090645
We kinda fought two wars (one with ourself!) over it, and FDR shoved us into a third over it. And the Iraq conflict was retconned into being about it. It's a really big thing for US.
Well , shame I saw the blog so late, 'cause I'm OPINIONATED about this. Also, yadda yadda law european wob wob.
The main reason why leaving the EU is perceived with such despair is that Europe has been trying to evolve as a union from the get-go, aiming for a fiscal and political fusion in the long run, and always trying its best to fight against the antieuropeans. You can blame WWII for that, because the european nations wanted to create some kind of way to solve conflicts without fucking bombing each other.
Shit, Churchil is one of the fathers of the EU. The precursor of the Union was an alliance between Germany and France to avoid war over oil and coal, and from there it evolved.
So that's part of the reason for all this passion: the EU is a thing created to bring some spirit of unity, to allow peace in Europe and entertain the idea of equality among nations. The economic angle is just the way they chose to do that, because politically it was harder.
And then Brexit comes, after years and years of progress, and bam! Off we go. Down the drain. We're not allies anymore, apparently. And the main reason why it won seems to be racism, so it's hard to side with that. No shit people are angry.
Economically it's fucked up, of course. Half the treaties and agreements and whatnot are made by way of the EU, which means now they gotta renegotiate, only now Britain has much less negotiating power. It won't get the same deals, 'cause you don't get the same prizes if you're selling to an expected market of 5,000 people than if you expect 50,000. Export and import are gonna be hard.
It' almost impossible to get out of the Schegen zone, so fuck the whole closing barriers bit -- if it happens, it will be super messy. And now Britain can't influence the rules of the EU, rules that will still affect it because geographically it's in Europe.
Britain lost a lot, gained little, offended many, and pissed off most of Europe by forcing the Union to step back thirty years and demolishing the europeist sentiment. Brexit was stupid, man. Stupid.
Also, Scotland and North Ireland and shit. That'll be fun, won't it?