1x71: Divisions

Lots of discussion! My opinions on a few points:

EU laws: good or bad?

I personally consider this roughly a wash; that is, there are some bad laws and some good ones and it roughly balances out. The fishing laws are on the bad side, and we got them inflicted upon us where it would have been better if we didn’t; on the other hand, the EU mandated that every mobile phone charges over microUSB somehow which I think is a good thing and I do not believe that the UK would have declared that law by themselves (especially since we’re not big enough alone to enforce it). So, I personally consider this argument to not contribute to the discussion much one way or the other. (Others may of course disagree.)

Lies during the campaign

I’m ignoring this issue. Yes, many spokespersons on both sides misrepresented the truth. However, that’s water under the bridge now; the vote has happened. The time to complain about that was before the vote; it’s done now. The recent publication of the Chilcot report has shown that misleading the public† doesn’t actually get you punished (or at least it hasn’t so far). I also don’t like the way that “people told us lies” (which is true) gets shaded into “the stupid gullible public believed those lies because they’re stupid and gullible and therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to vote”. Hence, ignoring this.

Pursuing trade deals outside Europe

Yep. Certainly doing this is a good idea. What I don’t personally like is that we now have to do that; intending to pursue trade outside Europe is not the same thing as essentially being unable to pursue trade within Europe. Because, as noted, we can’t trade with just some European countries; you trade with the EU, or not. That’s the point of the EU. China or the USA or Bolivia may be able to strike a trade deal with the EU without “freedom of movement” being one of the requirements of that deal, but I consider it exceptionally unlikely that the UK will be able to do the same, partially because of geographic proximity, partially because of precedent (in essence, I think the EU will require joining the EEA or similar as a component of any UK/EU trade deal, or “Brexit Lite” as it’s referred to above), and partially because the EU want to make an example of the UK to discourage other $COUNTRYexits.

There is also the concern that we don’t have an army of trade negotiators sitting around looking for a job whom we can press into service to do all these deals.

Downward pressure on wages

This is what a minimum wage is designed to fix. (Or, more radically yet a universal basic income, which may come up in a future show.) The way you fix this is not by banning people who are happy with less money from moving to the UK. If the idea is that suddenly there are no Romanian immigrants happy to work for peanuts and so exploiting companies will have to start paying princely sums to native-born Englishmen to empty bins and pack meat, then people who hold that idea are likely to find themselves grossly disappointed.

Sovereignty

Speaking purely for myself, I have not yet heard any suggestion of a thing that “taking back control” will (a) let us do now that we are not in the EU (b) which we couldn’t have done before we left the EU and (c) which is not a terrible idea. Certainly there have been lots of proposals which fail point (c) – Andrea Leadsom’s suggestions that maternity pay and employee protections are scrapped in small businesses is a good example here – but I don’t want them to happen anyway, and the EU provide(d) protection against this sort of move by a national government.

Nation

There is an argument – @gerv for example makes it in his essay – that there is something special about a nation as a unit. Leaving aside the notion that nations are marked out by God – I would agree that the concept of there being nations is listed in the Bible and therefore important to Christians, but not necessarily that the nations we currently have had their borders stated thus – I think the idea that the UK is “a nation” is a bit specious. Applying this argument if you’re, say, Colombia or Iceland is one thing. But the UK is clearly a collection of separate states, and the lines are drawn fairly arbitrarily – nearly 50% of Scots don’t want to be part of it, Northern Ireland is similarly divided, etc. Suggesting that there is one UK national identity which should be cleaved to is a bit of a reach, in my opinion. I don’t think the UK should be broken up, certainly, but equally I think arguing that the UK maintains a strong overall national identity and that in itself is an argument that we should not be in the EU for fear of diluting that identity is on pretty dodgy ground.

Old Etonians

Can you unpack this in more detail? Specifically, I’d like to hear who the gents are who you felt you were voting against (Cameron? Osborne?) and how they differ from the ones we have post-referendum (BoJo, etc).


I am in general pleased with the tone of this discussion, though; respect for others’ arguments is being shown, and do please keep that up. (@neuro, minor waggy finger for the image thing, though. I feel roughly the same as you do about the argument being made, but please let’s keep things civil.)

† note: doesn’t matter here whether they were knowingly telling lies or just mistaken; the Crichel Down affair gave the precedent that a Minister who misled the House, even in good faith, should resign and I think communication to the public should be held to the same standard

2 Likes

2 Likes

Well to expand on that …yes you named a couple of them . Osbourne has been in the back pocket of the Hedge Fund Managers he went to school with and Cameron became notorious for his special invite dinners in No 10. Cameron did not do any favours with his “wins” from Europe, like securing London’s Financial currency trading passport. That kindof showed who he was really working for.

As for BoJo he scarpered once he realised he would have some real work to do. For the time being he is going to be the countries Mr Bean…the face of GB around the world. I know they are not all gone e.g. Mr Hunt but voting to remain would just have encouraged that political culture. Hopefully England and it is England specifically will learn not to encourage a culture were the privileged run the top of the country. It is that culture of privilege that created people arrogant enough to gamble on multiple referendums and loose.

And you are right UK is not a single country and the UK’s other states would never elect people of privilege.

to be fair, that is part of running a country. this is a sovereign responsibility that was ceeded decades ago and it’s kinda important.

Sadly I agree with this, I also don’t want the UK to split up but this is what happens when a country of countries follows it’s own rules of self-determination and maintains independent parliaments, institutions and national identities. It makes a country fragile because all it takes is 2 states (countries) to have contrasting differences to spark independence movements. This is most definitely a potential braking point for the 1707 acts of union.

Its ironic that I find a place to talk about such a subject in a civil manner after the darned vote has happened. The lead up to the vote was a frustrating embarrassment.

So you voted on that basis, rather than actually voting purely on the question of whether or not the UK should remain an EU member state? See, this is why we can’t have nice things.

Give Thatcher her due, she wasn’t a “person of privilege”.

Neither was Tony Blair (although he did attend Fettes College, not sure how you feel about that). Or John Major. Or James Callaghan. Or Harold Wilson. Or Ted Heath. Or Teresa May.

In fact, Cameron is the first Prime Minister to have been schooled at Eton since Sir Alec Douglas-Home ('63-'64).

Churchill went to Harrow; have you got any problems with Churchill?

1 Like

Mmmnnnnnyeah, but… so is defence policy. So we got together with a bunch of similarly aligned countries and said: why don’t we all work together on this and share this stuff in common, so everyone doesn’t have to independently build a zillion tanks and fighter aircraft and duplicate all that work, massively expensively? And thus, NATO. Similarly, there aren’t all that many trade negotiators around, so we clubbed together with a bunch of other countries and said, why don’t we act as a single block, pool our resources, and do trade negotiations that benefit all of us at once? And thus, the EU. Now, I’m happy for people to make the argument that the EU’s implementation of that didn’t work out, but challenging the very idea of collective action because it opposes sovereignty is to my mind daft, unless we’re also gonna tear down the UN and NATO and, honestly, the United Kingdom (also a collection of states who have banded together for common purpose).

(I’ve had to split the reply into several posts since I can only post two links per post)

Why? To that extend that humans should try to preserve the fish stock (that is not overfishing) it would seem that it’s a transnational problem, as fish tend to disregard borders.

Further, countries decide how to allocate quotas themselves. I understand that the UK government/Whitehall prefer to give most quotas to large firms rather than smaller firms, such as Cornelis Vrolijk which holds 23% of the quotas.

… not to mention the decrease and eventually abolishment of roaming tariffs.

In other countries unions work towards guaranteeing equal pay. I don’t know how unions work in the UK, tho.

That’s a popular simplification. The EU deals with many other issues, of which many are transnational in nature (e.g. climate changes).

I believe the UK could easily get a deal that limits free movement and grants tariff-free access to the Inner Market, like Turkey. But tariffs are not the issue for the UK economy. Being able to sell services to members of the Single Market is, however, very much an issue (the City of course enjoy this privilege). To export services the UK would need to be a member of the Single Market, which guarantee free movement of citizens.

I don’t think the EU has any desire to make an example of the UK (e.g. Merkel). But the EU will also not give a “favourable” deal to the UK; I will negotiate to get the best deal for its citizens. As such EU negotiators will, hopefully, insist on the bundling of the four freedoms of the Single Market.

Furthermore, you might have a better negotiation position if you represent the largest (World Bank estimate) or second largest (IMF estimate) market than if you represent a relatively smaller market such as an independent UK (especially if in dire need of striking new trade deals…).

More interestingly, here’s the Cameron cabinet in 2015. (I haven’t included a bunch of junior ministers.)

David Cameron: Eton, Oxford
George Osborne: independent schools; Oxford; father is a baronet
Theresa May: state schools, Oxford
Philip Hammond: state schools, Oxford
Michael Fallon: independent schools, St Andrews
Michael Gove: state and independent schools, Oxford
Chris Grayling: selective state school, Cambridge
Nicky Morgan: independent school, Oxford
Mark Harper: state schools, Oxford
Tina Stowell: state schools. Now a life peer.
Amber Rudd: Cheltenham, Edinburgh
Sajid Javid: state schools, Exeter
Priti Patel: state schools (sorta selective), Keele
Boris Johnson (not actually in the cabinet): Eton, Oxford

There are a bunch of people educated at independent schools, but not ones you’d have heard of. (And education is a good thing, right?) Schools you’ve heard of (the Eton, Harrow, Cheltenham, Winchester sort of set) have four alumni in that cabinet; Cameron, Osbourne, Rudd, and generously BoJo as Mayor of London. So the idea that the Tory government is all old Etonians with secret handshakes and nepotism doesn’t bear up under analysis; I was honestly surprised at this myself, and will remember in future.

Assuming I haven’t screwed it up, I have just raised your user level to avoid that.

I don’t really know a great deal about the fishing thing; I was taking it as read from the comment above. My point isn’t specifically “this fishing law is bad” (to which one might say “no it’s good and here is why”), it was that some EU-set rules are good for the UK and some are bad for the UK and on balance it’s a wash; our membership of the EU had some good results in that and some bad results and so it doesn’t affect my decision much. If you’re of the opinion that EU-set rules are all good or all bad then you’ll differ on this, but I think either of those would be hard cases to make.

Not as effectively as one might hope for in a socialist paradise. Some industries are heavily unionised, but not many, and many fewer than in the 1970s. Unions tend to work for equal pay for their industry, not for workers in every industry, and the sorts of jobs that were being mentioned in this topic (low-paid work, the price of which is being driven down by having immigrants do it) is not unionised. (I note that I don’t necessarily accept that this “drive down” argument is true, nor that all such jobs are being taken by immigrants, nor that that would be a problem even if it were true. But even if it’s all true, the current union landscape in the UK wouldn’t affect it much.)

Indeed. And again I think that such things in general bolster the case for the EU being a good idea, unless anyone wants to make the argument that the UK is champing at the bit to fix climate change and embrace renewable energies but is being held back by sclerotic EU bureaucracy, which I think would fail the laugh test if you tried it.

Agreed on this entirely.

Fair point, though the EU is a lot more complex and holds more responsibilities than just the tariffs and transactions of goods and services. I suspect if it remained a pure trading bloc rather than a socio-political union it would be a different conversation and in the event of leaving, a faster and cleaner break.

What is a pure trading block? Are there any existing examples? Assuming such blocks exist, how are they robust to beggar-thy-neighbor policies such as non-tariff barriers to trade?

What is a socio-politcal union?

1 Like

Yes. But the old Etonians were running the show and now they are gone. In fact I’d be surprised if we see another Etonian Prime Minister for another 80 years…Slackers the bunch of them. Old Etonians aren’t the only ones to avoid (e.g. Blair the money grabbing social climber who loved to play Mr Churchill)

I don’t have a problem with any of the people currently in charge (this week) as I think they will work hard but I’d vote against anyone I disliked or mistrusted especially when general elections time and time again give you no choice. At least referendums do…I bet Scotland is kicking themselves.

Thank goodness for the EU Referendum. Hopefully those guys still in charge won’t go through with it if they are as smart as their education says :wink:

You quote Viviane Reding, giving her the title of “Vice President of the
European Commission”. She is the former Vice President for Justice,
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, having left that office in July
2014.

I believe that she had that title when she said the quote given, so I think the attribution is accurate.

The EC’s president is elected by the European Parliament

Except they aren’t really, because in a federalist power grab, they are attempting to establish the convention that each bloc nominates a candidate for president and then it’s required to approve the candidate of the largest bloc.

And anyway, being elected by someone is not the same as being elected by us. 90% of the MEPs are elected, but not by us, which means they have no obligation to consider UK citizens when they work out what they think is best.

You note that each country nominates a Commissioner, but the commissioners take an oath of allegiance to the EU over and above the country they come from. This lack of allegiance to the home country was beautifully demonstrated by Jonathan Hill’s resignation immediately after the Brexit vote, thereby denying the UK (still a full member of the EU, and without having invoked article 50) of the powerful Commission post to which she is entitled.

It’s a tiny bit depressing that @sil equates the near-total destruction of the UK fishing industry (which doesn’t really affect him) with the minor convenience of not needing more than one mobile phone charger (which does) in order to say the whole thing is a wash.

It’s possible that the EU has some good ideas for laws; but the entire point of sovereignty is that we could adopt their good ideas and not adopt their bad ones, rather than having to take the lot.

Indeed. Equally, almost every MP is not from Birmingham and therefore they are not obliged to consider what’s good for my city when they work out what they think is best. However, I do not think that the answer to that is to build a wall around the People’s Republic of Birmingham and secede :slight_smile:

Gordon Bennett. They were examples. On the “EU rules I think are good” side also fall the climate change things (reduction in CO2 by 2020, requirement to get 20% of energy from renewables, etc), the Working Time Directive, bathing and drinking water cleanliness standards, a whole passel of rules about electrical goods and energy use, and the right to be forgotten (which I agree with, although others don’t, as per Bad Voltages passim). Equally, there are a bunch of rules on the bad side, including what I’m told is the near-total destruction of the UK fishing industry, which I freely admit not knowing a lot about. This is why I think it’s a wash; there are upsides and downsides both for me personally and in general, and attempting to equate whether I think the rights of temporary workers to be paid the same as permanent outweighs the importance of the UK government independently deciding what’s VATtable and what isn’t would tax the wisdom of Solomon. So, it’s a wash.

Separately from that, you make the argument that the UK could adopt the good laws and not the bad ones. I agree with this in principle! However, I have no confidence whatsoever in a UK government actually doing so; most of the EU regulations I agree with were campaigned against by the government in the UK. Hence why I think, on balance, that enforcement of those laws, with the deficit of getting a bunch of not-good laws, is better than not having the bad laws and hoping that the good ones get enforced. I can see how other people would make that decision differently; essentially, I think, it depends on who you trust and who you do not.

This is an awesome discussion! As a Puerto Rican who grew up in the American South, there was non-stop talk about secession from the U.S. What worries me is that the Brexit vote might give some more amno to the US political argument towards secession. Basically, in some minds, all that is wrong in the southern US is the fault of the US government being so big. Also, I see the notion of the US pulling out of the United Nations. It has been talked about by Republicans for decades and I think we will see headlines about it in the near future.