par13del wrote:

The citizens already made a decision on the EU based on the choice they were given to vote on via their governmental structures, they voted out so there is nothing in that to think twice. Even those who have voter regret are also saying let's get on with it, so it does appear that in their form of parliamentary democracy, they expect the result of a public vote to be honored.
So far, unlike other EU votes, no one is advocating another vote by the public on the EU to see if the first result was actually what they wanted.
However, to follow your thought, it will not cost 20 or even 40 billion to fund another vote after this period of education where so many are now saying that leave did not mean leave, so why are the politicians not pushing for another public vote?
If the future outside the EU is so bad and the majority is greater than the 17 million who did vote to leave, the result as in all other cases would be to stay and the EU would probably have some measure where Article 50 could be cancelled.

Talking about the other 26 countries, not the UK.......

Dutchy wrote:

Talking about the other 26 countries, not the UK.......

My apologies, I was focused on the UK
On the other 26 countries I do not see much of a problem with a Brexit vote by the people, it has to start with an election of a leader who is anti-EU, so far in the last few elections onle one anti-EU leader has been elected, and until they actually start implementing their government agenda, we will not know whether it was genuine or rhetoric to get elected, which is also different from the UK.
In the UK they had a government who had a few years left to run, so the implementation of a vote was not to get elected but to satisfy the demands of the public and influential individuals within and outside of the public.

The last vote by the Irish was mandated by their constitution, I don't think most other members have such provisions and I would not be shocked if the Iris make a change to ensure that such is not required again.
The EU has also been looking at framing new legislation to ensure that only votes by elected houses - local or Brussels - are required for implementation of additional EU rules / treaties etc. so in my opinion, the remaining members and any new members will be safe from a exit vote.
Brexit will be a once in a lifetime thing for the EU, regardless of whether the UK survives outside or re-enters the EU.

perhaps, I don't mind the Brexit, if people want to vote for it, fully informed, then it is up to them, even though it will hurt the remaining countries.

prebennorholm wrote:

Many EU27 politicians are looking forward to March 2019. Gone are forty years of trivial UK obstructions in Brussels, and all the bureaucracy going with it.

This is code for "We're so desperate to turn ourselves into vassal states of the EU so we can still milk the taxpayers for all our money but leave running everything to someone else in Brussels" isn't it?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Many EU27 politicians are looking forward to March 2019. Gone are forty years of trivial UK obstructions in Brussels, and all the bureaucracy going with it.

This is code for "We're so desperate to turn ourselves into vassal states of the EU so we can still milk the taxpayers for all our money but leave running everything to someone else in Brussels" isn't it?

with UK special deals and such removed, bureaucracy should decrease. The EU bureaucracy also handily beats the inefficiency of doing all of the work 27 times instead of once, even if the EU bureaucracy wasn´t actually fairly efficient. The EU commission only has 33.000 people total, which is less than the US labor and state departments alone have combined, or less than 1/3rd of the US agriculture department has alone.

And they basically run the "federal government" for half a billion people. The EU also will not become less democratic just because someone stops trowing screws into the gear. There are very few decisions that don´t require a consensus vote, and those that don´t have been agreed to in a consensus and every country remains in charge of getting out of it.

The EU is basically the US System, with the "federal government" not having armed troops, not having many other departments either, and having no power whatsoever to make "federal" law without the consent of all member nations, nor having the power to stop anyone from leaving. Basically USA with unlimited states right.

best regards
Thomas

Thank you for admitting that the goal is actually a giant European federal state.

The nation state is dead, long live the new nation state!

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

This is code for "We're so desperate to turn ourselves into vassal states of the EU so we can still milk the taxpayers for all our money but leave running everything to someone else in Brussels" isn't it?

Is it? What joy does one get from milking taxpayers when someone else gets to decide how to use it? Is that an English cultural thing?

It seems the abaurditythat characterizes Brexit is now being projected on those who want to have nothing to do with it.

Probably should focus on the home front anyway. Worth noting that one of the most prominent Brexiteers, Stephen Baker - a minister responsible for Brexit, no less - has admitted that he hasn't been reading the Government's own assessment of the impact on the UK economy. It's not clear that the PM has either, and no ones willing to release it publicly.

I suppose unsubstantiated optimism passes for strategy in England these days?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Thank you for admitting that the goal is actually a giant European federal state.

you should get a prescription for glasses, i was making an analogy about how the EU works now

best regards
Thomas

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Thank you for admitting that the goal is actually a giant European federal state.

The nation state is dead, long live the new nation state!

Quite. I'm sure even you've noticed that the world's two largest democracies -India and the US - are federal states with many nations (India has 15 official languages). It's an indisputable fact that none of those constituent nations would be as influential, powerful or successful as individual actors.

It's worth bearing in mind, too, that these two economic powers are newer nation states, and in many ways represent the (in my view, positive) shift away from ethnic-nationalism. The giant diverse federal state of nations is a logical step forward, an improvement on previous, often racially-driven, models of nationhood that include monarchies, villages, settlements ...right down to tribes.

I personally don't see any reason to stick to outdated notions of nationhood - certainly don't want to return to tribes as the basis of nationhood. Especially given that the unique cultures and characters of American or Indian states haven't disappeared because of their openness to citizens of other member nations within their federal state. Cultures may have evolved, but that's only natural. Apart from the Hon JRM, Victorian culture gave way to something entirely different long before the EU was conceived.

All of which is to say that while I understand that the fear of a potential EU federal state drives Brexiteers, I don't necessarily understand why. In a world in which econonomic giants enjoy more and more clout, would it not be rational to be a part of a grouping that can carry clout?

ElPistolero wrote:

Probably should focus on the home front anyway. Worth noting that one of the most prominent Brexiteers, Stephen Baker - a minister responsible for Brexit, no less - has admitted that he hasn't been reading the Government's own assessment of the impact on the UK economy. It's not clear that the PM has either, and no ones willing to release it publicly.

If this was leading up to a referendum vote on the EU you can be sure the government would release it since the majority in the government and pro-EU, one has to wonder why the document was not included in Project Fear prior to the referendum, everything else was.

Based on their form of government, Brexit has to be implemented, so something telling you Brexit is bad is not really too important if there is nothing you can do to change Brexit, all you can do is to work as hard as you can to implement Brexit then start the rhetoric for a re-entry vote sooner rather than later.

par13del wrote:

If this was leading up to a referendum vote on the EU you can be sure the government would release it since the majority in the government and pro-EU, one has to wonder why the document was not included in Project Fear prior to the referendum, everything else was.

Based on their form of government, Brexit has to be implemented, so something telling you Brexit is bad is not really too important if there is nothing you can do to change Brexit, all you can do is to work as hard as you can to implement Brexit then start the rhetoric for a re-entry vote sooner rather than later.

Uh no. Unless one is really grasping for straws, it's pretty clear that the reports are referring to recent U.K. Government studies. Nobody cares about whether or not Stephen Baker read documents prepared before Brexit, by definition before he became a Brexit Minister (what with Brexit not having happened yet).

Your second statement is odd. What about "their system of Government" requires that Brexit has to be implemented (beyond political expediency)? I'm curious to know, too, what you think the role of the House of Lords is in all of this?

ElPistolero wrote:

It's worth bearing in mind, too, that these two economic powers are newer nation states, and in many ways represent the (in my view, positive) shift away from ethnic-nationalism.

Oh yes, India could never be accused ethnic-nationalism. They'd never invade another country with the aim of taking territory for themselves surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_an ... _Hyderabad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Junagadh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa

How's that religious pluralism working out for India by the way? Surely a positive shift away from ethnic nationalism could only be good, no pogroms against religious groups or.........Oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_ ... s_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chri ... e_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligio ... nd_attacks

ElPistolero wrote:

I personally don't see any reason to stick to outdated notions of nationhood - certainly don't want to return to tribes as the basis of nationhood.

So you're opposed to the EU becoming a de facto state?

Oh good.

ElPistolero wrote:

Your second statement is odd. What about "their system of Government" requires that Brexit has to be implemented (beyond political expediency)? I'm curious to know, too, what you think the role of the House of Lords is in all of this?

By system of government I meant that since the parliament gave the referendum, even though there is no legal mandate they are obligated to implement the result, instances of the UK parliament giving a referendum and not honoring the outcome are rare.

As for the House of Lords, it is the upper house similar to the US Senate but in upper house name only. It is not elected, has peerage, is mandated to rubber stamp a large number of bills that are sent to it and has virtually no protections from the PM. DC was being encouraged to reform the Lords when they worked against his domestic agenda and TM has the same options. The first link below is before the last election but I include it to show that all and sundry know that the Lords on their first vote will always vote against a EU leave vote, they did so recently, but if they continue to vote against, the PM has the power to legally force the result she wants, similar to the Spanish PM having the legal authority to disband the Catalan government and impose self rule.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/gen ... 09351.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ber-change
http://uk.businessinsider.com/governmen ... xit-2017-2

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

It's worth bearing in mind, too, that these two economic powers are newer nation states, and in many ways represent the (in my view, positive) shift away from ethnic-nationalism.

Oh yes, India could never be accused ethnic-nationalism. They'd never invade another country with the aim of taking territory for themselves surely?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_an ... _Hyderabad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Junagadh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa

How's that religious pluralism working out for India by the way? Surely a positive shift away from ethnic nationalism could only be good, no pogroms against religious groups or.........Oh wait.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_ ... s_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Chri ... e_in_India
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligio ... nd_attacks

ElPistolero wrote:

I personally don't see any reason to stick to outdated notions of nationhood - certainly don't want to return to tribes as the basis of nationhood.

So you're opposed to the EU becoming a de facto state?

Oh good.

Alright, let's break this down.

Hyderabad and Junagadh were legacy pieces (landlocked and surrounded by India) from British colonial rule. You might recall it. It was this period when the likes of Gen Dyer were lauded as heroes for killing innocent civilians in a peaceful demonstration at Jallianwalla. Lauded, unsurprisingly, by what would go on to become the pro-Brexit press (and, one imagines, those who agree with them). Have you lot apologized for that yet? If yes, how long did it take? If no, why not?

Goa was a Portuguese colony under a military dictatorship. Colony. You may want to look into its history (yes, there was literally a Catholic inquisition in a region that wasn't originally catholic - gory stuff). I don't think you'll find many people in Junagadh or Hyderabad or Goa who don't want to be a part of the Indian state.

There are obviously disaffected groups and ethnic-nationalists, but it is a bit absurd to point to these incidents and state that they are indicative of a failing state. If that were the case, your PM wouldn't go running to India for a trade deal. Failing states are unstable and businesses don't like uncertainty (as Brexit Britain is slowly finding out), so why bother?

I'm very critical of the various ethnic and religious nationalist streaks that pop up on India on and off, but you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the Indian federal state is on the verge of falling apart. Or that the overwhelming majority of nations (religious, linguistic or cultural) within it don't want to be a part of it. Or that Indian religious pluralism is about to disappear.

Presumably you believe that letting India split into more homogenous states is the solution? Ask Pakistan or Bangladesh how that's worked out.

Is India perfect? Of course not. Do bad things happen there? Sure. Does that mean the benefits of a federal Indian state don't outweigh the costs. Ask our resident Indians, even the ones who don't like the current government.

But that's all a distraction. The fundamental truth is that the UK outside the EU is the equivalent of Gujarat outside India doesn't change. How would the world perceive an independent Gujarati nation?

ElPistolero wrote:

Goa was a Portuguese colony under a military dictatorship. Colony. You may want to look into its history (yes, there was literally a Catholic inquisition in a region that wasn't originally catholic - gory stuff). I don't think you'll find many people in Junagadh or Hyderabad or Goa who don't want to be a part of the Indian state.

But Goa wasn't part of India so what right did India have to invade it?

ElPistolero wrote:

Have you lot apologized for that yet? If yes, how long did it take? If no, why not?

Have they apologised for the Indian mutiny yet?

ElPistolero wrote:

Or that Indian religious pluralism is about to disappear.

You mean they had it to begin with?

ElPistolero wrote:

Ask Pakistan or Bangladesh how that's worked out.

Ask people in Bangladesh if they'd like to go back to being part of Pakistan. Would you excuse a Chinese invasion of Taiwan on the basis that in the long run it might benefit them economically even if they end up with a PLA boot on their throat?

Perhaps you would support the forcible annexation of Ireland since in the long run it must make way more sense for them to be part of a bigger English speaking union!

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

But Goa wasn't part of India so what right did India have to invade it?

Have they apologised for the Indian mutiny yet?

You mean they had it to begin with?

Ask people in Bangladesh if they'd like to go back to being part of Pakistan. Would you excuse a Chinese invasion of Taiwan on the basis that in the long run it might benefit them economically even if they end up with a PLA boot on their throat?

Perhaps you would support the forcible annexation of Ireland since in the long run it must make way more sense for them to be part of a bigger English speaking union!

Haha, you really want to go back to the 18th century, dont you?

- Goa is in India, inhabited by Indians and was governed by Indians for millennia prior to the Portugese annexing it, and you're claiming Goa isn't part of India. If that's the logic we're playing with, I'm surprised Britain still talks to America, considering they stole many cities and territories the British owned.

- The Indian mutiny didn't occur in a vacuum. It occurred in the context of blatant racism and oppression. I'm quite happy to criticize both sides conduct, including the sepoys, but I fail to see how it is comparable to a group of racist oppressors opening fire on innocent civilians protesting said oppressive and racist behaviour. And then lauding themselves for doing it. English morality at its finest. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, eh?

- Did religious pluralism ever exist in India? Let's see. Birthplace of 3-4 major religions (Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism). Home to Zoroastrian religious refugees for millennia (you may know one of them as the owner of JLR). Third largest Muslim population in the world. A separate law board to accomidste a minority religion. Complete constitutional protection for all religions. Nope, religious pluralism never existed in India.

- I think you missed the bit about India and the US being democracies with, you know, standard democratic traits like equal rights and constitutional protections against discrimination. Bangladesh seceded from a military dictatorship that discriminated against Bengalis on the basis of race after it refused to respect their democratic rights.

Your other two examples literally involve invading countries that are unanimously (ie -significantly over 52%) opposed to being invaded. If it helps, I don't support the EU launching an armed invasion of the UK either. Not sure how you think those examples are comparable or relevant here. I will say that if Ireland chose to join the EU, it would benefit more. Oh wait, it already has.

In any event, the whole English-speaking union thing was amusing. They're doing even better in a multilingual union that doesn't discriminate against any of its member nationalities or forcibly annex them. But I accept that etho-nationalist brains that are fixated on defining nations by language and race might have a hard time comprehending that.

Ah, the insight into the Brexit brain. Priceless.

ElPistolero wrote:

But that's all a distraction. The fundamental truth is that the UK outside the EU is the equivalent of Gujarat outside India doesn't change. How would the world perceive an independent Gujarati nation?

Is it though? What’s the GDP for Gujarat? I know current figures show UK inside the EU market, but would the Gujarat economy be comparable to basically what is the worlds 5th biggest economy in the current economic climate? I think it’s probably around $0.15tn. Current UK - $2.9tn
I’m curious to know - if someone has figures as to what the UK economy and size will be trading outside the EU will be, please prove me wrong by providing the figures otherwise then I’ll call this - cough BULLSHIT.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Is it though? What’s the GDP for Gujarat? I know current figures show UK inside the EU market, but would the Gujarat economy be comparable to basically what is the worlds 5th biggest economy in the current economic climate? I think it’s probably around $0.15tn. Current UK - $2.9tn
I’m curious to know - if someone has figures as to what the UK economy and size will be trading outside the EU will be, please prove me wrong by providing the figures otherwise then I’ll call this - cough BULLSHIT.

Who said anything about Gujarat's GDP being equal to the UKs? Point is: Gujarat, as business-friendly as it purportedly is, is unlikely to fare better if it left India, and certainly won't have the same negotiating power it would benefit from while in India. Sound familiar?

UK may well be the 5th (thought it fell to 6th after Brexit?) largest economy but when even the friendly folk in DC aren't willing to make concessions (there's a question mark over that promised free trade deal), it's obvious which way the wind is blowing. Want the quick good news trade deals that allow you to call Brexit a success? Sure, as long as you give us what we want and ask for nothing in return.

Or let's put it this way: if the UK were to trade with an independent Gujarat or a unified India, which one would it be able to get more trade concessions from. Especially if Gujarat was desperate for trade deals to validate its decision to operate outside the Indian union.

5th largest economy or not, the whole world knows you need new markets. And they're happy to make a deal on their own terms, or wait for however long it takes. I don't think it's lost on anyone that time isn't on Britain's side.

Respectfully, the only BS floating around these days is that the UK will get quick and desirable trade deals after its exit.

Constant pounding of the tabloid that Brittian will be better of outside the EU, leaves its mark.

I (from the USA) will be in the UK in a few days and to the end of next week. I will be interesting to speak to people there as to the Brexit hopefully from a range of the spectrum in support or against it.
To me the Brexit vote, much like the election of Donald Trump as USA President, was a protest 'FU' vote against political leaders in each country that have ignored serious issues. They include bad trade laws, not enough good paying jobs as many migrated to lower cost countries, not enough affordable housing, not dealing with immigration, too high taxes, what many see as excessive regulations by government, austerity social benefits cuts and failures to help middle class persons recover from the Crash of 2008 and instead bailed out the banks, other financial institutions and the richest. There is also in both, issues of racism, ethnic and religious divisions, classism, political corruption and terrorism that motivated votes for change. Much of the votes that tipped in favor of Trump and Brexit were in areas of their respective countries that dislike central government and 'rustbelt' declining industrial areas. Those opposing Brexit and Trump were mainly those who benefit from trade, more trusting of central government, more concerned with the 'larger picture', and less worried about immigration and terrorism.
I think in the end some deal will work out between the UK and the EU as both will hurt from the UK exiting without sound policies in place.

ltbewr wrote:

I (from the USA) will be in the UK in a few days and to the end of next week. I will be interesting to speak to people there as to the Brexit hopefully from a range of the spectrum in support or against it.
To me the Brexit vote, much like the election of Donald Trump as USA President, was a protest 'FU' vote against political leaders in each country that have ignored serious issues. They include bad trade laws, not enough good paying jobs as many migrated to lower cost countries, not enough affordable housing, not dealing with immigration, too high taxes, what many see as excessive regulations by government, austerity social benefits cuts and failures to help middle class persons recover from the Crash of 2008 and instead bailed out the banks, other financial institutions and the richest. There is also in both, issues of racism, ethnic and religious divisions, classism, political corruption and terrorism that motivated votes for change. Much of the votes that tipped in favor of Trump and Brexit were in areas of their respective countries that dislike central government and 'rustbelt' declining industrial areas. Those opposing Brexit and Trump were mainly those who benefit from trade, more trusting of central government, more concerned with the 'larger picture', and less worried about immigration and terrorism.
I think in the end some deal will work out between the UK and the EU as both will hurt from the UK exiting without sound policies in place.

I think this is 100% correct. What is is interesting is that in Germany and Sweden that has much bigger immigrations per capita then UK, special refugees that takes much more effort to handle compared to the kind of immigration that UK has seen, the working and middle classes has seen great improvements even considered the 2008-2009 crisis and even if there is some protests not close to the movements in UK and USA I feel that populations are more happy with the situation in Germany and Sweden compared to UK and US..

Well it's simple, the US and UK are more economically liberal than Sweden and Germany.

Of course many don't see the big picture and end up voting for people that will only increase the problem, like Trump removing many regulations, or Brexit that will give back power to local politicians, that won't be able to do anything with them : if they want to sell anything to the EU, UK products will have to follow EU regulations.

To be fair, Sweden was never a colonial power to the extent of the UK. The large "migrant communities" and their ties to the Commonwealth predate the German initiation of mass immigration. France and Belgium are better examples, however each have dealt with their legacy colonial past differently.
In the UK they do maintain multiple sets of immigration records, however based on the government in power and their agenda, the number can be fudged, but there is for simple terms EU and non-EU migration numbers.

Aesma wrote:

if they want to sell anything to the EU, UK products will have to follow EU regulations.

...or they initiate trade with countries outside of the EU to replace EU products that are no longer allowed to be sold in the UK.
Trade is not a one way street, not saying that is what you are saying, but the flip side is if the EU wants to sell their products in the UK they would have to meet the UK standards.
So far, very little time and effort has been spent on the UK side defining what their rules will be down the road, yes they are looking to pass laws to ensure that on day one of exit they continue to meet EU standards, but that has nothing to do with the non-EU world who have their own standards.
In June 2019 a UK trade delegation sits in Thailand reviewing their standards and requirements, what does the UK have in return, the EU regulations?
How does the UK ensure that goods that they import for UK consumption that are not eligible for EU consumption, do not get across the border, both sides have to ensure that they protect their turf, both sides already have such facilities they just need to be expanded and pointed at each other not just the rest of the world.

I was only talking about exports, but you're right, importations will also be a problem. If the UK starts wanting its own rules, many companies will not bother following them. A bit like how many cars aren't available in the UK due to the need to have the driving wheel on the wrong side of the car.

Yeah, so many people say that, but tell you what, visit the Bahamas one day for a unique experience. We drive on the left and don't care which side of the car the steering wheel is on, we have cars for the American or European market, I guess with our low speed limit it is not much of a fuss.

However, it does show the effect of geography and trade, as a colony in the 60's most of our vehicles were sourced from the UK, as we expanded trade, the bulk of our cars came from the USA, only colonial ties ensured that we did not switch to driving on the right "other" side of the road, even today, more American vehicles (including Japanese models) are on our roads versus those designed for the UK market.

One day I'll own a Lotus but unless I live in a country with sun and beaches that happens to drive on the left, it won't have the steering wheel on the right, even if that means I must pay more. I'd have trouble getting onto the campus where I work as I have to scan an ID card, then all the parkings would be problematic, then there are toll roads, etc.

par13del wrote:

Yeah, so many people say that, but tell you what, visit the Bahamas one day for a unique experience. We drive on the left and don't care which side of the car the steering wheel is on, we have cars for the American or European market, I guess with our low speed limit it is not much of a fuss.

However, it does show the effect of geography and trade, as a colony in the 60's most of our vehicles were sourced from the UK, as we expanded trade, the bulk of our cars came from the USA, only colonial ties ensured that we did not switch to driving on the right "other" side of the road, even today, more American vehicles (including Japanese models) are on our roads versus those designed for the UK market.

But don't the Japanese drive on the left? In which case they are not altered for the UK market, or yours.

par13del wrote:

Yeah, so many people say that, but tell you what, visit the Bahamas one day for a unique experience. We drive on the left and don't care which side of the car the steering wheel is on, we have cars for the American or European market, I guess with our low speed limit it is not much of a fuss.

However, it does show the effect of geography and trade, as a colony in the 60's most of our vehicles were sourced from the UK, as we expanded trade, the bulk of our cars came from the USA, only colonial ties ensured that we did not switch to driving on the right "other" side of the road, even today, more American vehicles (including Japanese models) are on our roads versus those designed for the UK market.

But don't the Japanese drive on the left? In which case they are not altered for the UK market, or yours.

LAH1 wrote:

par13del wrote:

Yeah, so many people say that, but tell you what, visit the Bahamas one day for a unique experience. We drive on the left and don't care which side of the car the steering wheel is on, we have cars for the American or European market, I guess with our low speed limit it is not much of a fuss.

However, it does show the effect of geography and trade, as a colony in the 60's most of our vehicles were sourced from the UK, as we expanded trade, the bulk of our cars came from the USA, only colonial ties ensured that we did not switch to driving on the right "other" side of the road, even today, more American vehicles (including Japanese models) are on our roads versus those designed for the UK market.

But don't the Japanese drive on the left? In which case they are not altered for the UK market, or yours.

I think he meant Nissan Toyota etc. cars made for the US market.

Aesma wrote:

I think he meant Nissan Toyota etc. cars made for the US market.

Correct, one other thing, since the majority of the cars the driver sits on the left side, guess which side our drive thru's and automated gates swipe post are, yep, on the left the opposite of the UK.

Aesma wrote:

I was only talking about exports, but you're right, importations will also be a problem. If the UK starts wanting its own rules, many companies will not bother following them. A bit like how many cars aren't available in the UK due to the need to have the driving wheel on the wrong side of the car.

The day they will realize that much of the trade imbalance they have with the continental EU is parts and components for stuff having the final assembly in the UK, that then get exported into the rest of the world, will come.
So even in that regard they may at best trade one $ less deficit with the rest of the EU with one $ more deficit towards the rest of the world...

best regards
Thomas

ElPistolero wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Point is: Gujarat, as business-friendly as it purportedly is, is unlikely to fare better if it left India, and certainly won't have the same negotiating power it would benefit from while in India. Sound familiar?

You need to give a better example that Gujarat @ElPistolero! The states in Northern India have a selfish motive behind staying united because we depend on the income generated by the prosperous South to pay our bills.

If the Southern half of India did secede, their HDI would be as good and in some cases better than some West European states. With education and other parameters being better, the South would also see much more economic growth because they wouldnt have to carry the weight of the "parasitic" northern states.

India didnt exist before the British got here. The India that was born in 1947 was a leftover of the British Indian Empire which comprised of 800 independent princely states including 6 major states in what is now Southern India(google Dravida Nadu). India came together because of the Nehruvian liberal policies that bought us together. With those inclusive & liberal Nehruvian policies under threat in the new fascist India, we can expect a resurgence of separatist sentiment from the southern half of India. The ground has changed since 1947 and that warrants a relook.

The same applies to the UK & Brexit - Is the situation in Europe similar to what existed in the 70's? If not, then why is it unjustified for British to relook at the nature of their engagement with the EU?

BawliBooch wrote:

The same applies to the UK & Brexit - Is the situation in Europe similar to what existed in the 70's? If not, then why is it unjustified for British to relook at the nature of their engagement with the EU?

It is not at all unjustified. The doors are open, and that's why there is such a thing as art. 50.

The discussion revolves around two main issues. First of all, is it really worth it? Economically, socially and diplomatically?

And a derivative of that, what were the forces that convinced the British public to think it was worth it. Was it a fair assessment of the pros and cons or a display of nativism and we're special?

I would say neither, it was a case of politics only. DC government got into a position where they had to offer the people a referendum, so the politicians on both sides ensured that in their minds it would be a win win for all, folks got a vote, and nothing would change.
They had the choice of providing many options, IN or Out of the EU, out of the EU into the EEA, % of votes needed for the vote to be binding, the vote being binding, etc etc etc. instead they chose a choice which they knew would never pass, namely in or out of the EU.
The story now is that history is being made.....
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... referendum

BawliBooch wrote:

You need to give a better example that Gujarat @ElPistolero! The states in Northern India have a selfish motive behind staying united because we depend on the income generated by the prosperous South to pay our bills.

If the Southern half of India did secede, their HDI would be as good and in some cases better than some West European states. With education and other parameters being better, the South would also see much more economic growth because they wouldnt have to carry the weight of the "parasitic" northern states.

India didnt exist before the British got here. The India that was born in 1947 was a leftover of the British Indian Empire which comprised of 800 independent princely states including 6 major states in what is now Southern India(google Dravida Nadu). India came together because of the Nehruvian liberal policies that bought us together. With those inclusive & liberal Nehruvian policies under threat in the new fascist India, we can expect a resurgence of separatist sentiment from the southern half of India. The ground has changed since 1947 and that warrants a relook.

The same applies to the UK & Brexit - Is the situation in Europe similar to what existed in the 70's? If not, then why is it unjustified for British to relook at the nature of their engagement with the EU?

Why Gujarat? Because it sees itself as a business-friendly state and it has remarkably strong global linkages through its émigrés. Nothing more.

You know my views on the current governance of India. I'll keep those on the other threads about India, and limit myself to two observations:

- Dravida Nadu was a response to the emergence of Hindi as a quasi-national language after independence, and died a quick death once it became that Dravidian languages and culture weren't going to be affected. All of that took place without ending freedom of movement within India.

- Which is just as well, because who knows what tech hubs like Bangalore would have looked like without IIT-educated folk from across India. Imagine Mumbai without its rest-of-India population. Shudder at the thought. That is genuinely what some Brexiteers of limited intellectual prowess want for Brexited Britain.

The UK is absolutely within its rights to demand out - that's why there is a formal mechanism for it. The question is: is there any reason to believe it will be better off outside the union than within it (which is where this India tangent started)?

par13del wrote:

I would say neither, it was a case of politics only. DC government got into a position where they had to offer the people a referendum, so the politicians on both sides ensured that in their minds it would be a win win for all, folks got a vote, and nothing would change.
They had the choice of providing many options, IN or Out of the EU, out of the EU into the EEA, % of votes needed for the vote to be binding, the vote being binding, etc etc etc. instead they chose a choice which they knew would never pass, namely in or out of the EU.
The story now is that history is being made.....
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... referendum

If you are looking for a credible source, I would be reluctant to use the Express News. Not the worst, but far from respectable!

The thing about the referendum is it is not binding, really gave very little in terms of options and Cameron's demise was the lack luster campaigning he did for the remain vote. The "fake news" writers were to sway the vote with promises of money for NHS, reduced immigration, countries waiting in line to negotiate trade agreements, increase in the value of the GB Pound. The list goes on and on. Any reasonably intelligent person would have questioned much of what was put out as reasons to leave. All I am sure of is I am so glad I left 5 months ago. Spain is particularly nice this time of year.

ElPistolero wrote:

The question is: is there any reason to believe it will be better off outside the union than within it (which is where this India tangent started)?

I think that would depend on who you ask, and who has the power to affect the outcome.
Brexiters in parliament will say yes, and will do all in their power to ensure that outcome.
Remainer's in parliament will say no, and as of now, are doing all in their power to ensure that they do not leave, of if they leave, they leave in name only.
EU officially could care less, but their financial demands on the divorce (exclude trade deal not yet negotiated) will ensure that the UK starts out financially crippled.

The unofficial forces (external to parliament) especially the wealthy ones who are opposed to leave, can do all manner of things to frustrate the independence, some via legal means, others via economic means. If the UK economy tanks, that would be the easiest way to get the UK back into the EU, the caveat would be getting them back in before the economy goes too far to allow membership before having to right the ship, a catch 22. If they have to right the ship first and they do so, what would be the incentive to rejoin? Wealthy persons usually have the means to much better weather the storms, interesting thing would be how much they are willing to spend to "sit things out" in the EU or elsewhere while the UK totters.

The unofficial forces who support leave will invest and will push the government to invest because they have staked reputation and now "skin" in the game. Whether they make good investment decisions and how they respond to opposition will be reflected in the success or failure of the economy.

Third countries are like the EU and the UK, looking for what they can get, which is to get the maximum benefit for the least pain, this is where negotiations can take time as trade is and can be used to implement social and political changes, the extent of influence is where heads knock. Issue here is whether folks only want to spend UK money to achieve trade with the EU, India for example demanding concessions is thrown around as a "see that is what you get".

Interesting times ahead.

mmo wrote:

If you are looking for a credible source, I would be reluctant to use the Express News. Not the worst, but far from respectable!

The thing about the referendum is it is not binding, really gave very little in terms of options and Cameron's demise was the lack luster campaigning he did for the remain vote. T.

I only used the Express News for what you just mentioned, the format of the referendum and the numbers of the politicians who voted for its passage, it was the shortest article with the result of my search for the numbers, and I did not want to selectively cut out the numbers of my interest.
Unfortunately today, most news sites seem to think their opinion is more important than just reporting the facts.....

par13del wrote:

Third countries are like the EU and the UK, looking for what they can get, which is to get the maximum benefit for the least pain, this is where negotiations can take time as trade is and can be used to implement social and political changes, the extent of influence is where heads knock. Issue here is whether folks only want to spend UK money to achieve trade with the EU, India for example demanding concessions is thrown around as a "see that is what you get".

Interesting times ahead.

legal battles will be interesting. Companies that suffer from Brexit will, if an foreign investment protection treaty is in place, sue the UK and the EU for damages, the EU has a good shot in getting out of that, since it was an unilateral UK decision and therefore the EU is not a guilty party...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arket.html

best regards
Thomas

Well if one takes the claims at face value, it does make a mockery of the EU being being the legal entity which mandates and controls actions taken by its members in their name.
The claim seems to be that the UK guaranteed access to the EU and since the UK is no longer a member of the EU they are responsible for any losses that the third country faces as a result, the so called fair and equitable access / treatment. One wonders what all the fuss is about with passporting services having to be in a EU country, such cannot be true if the UK can be held responsible for losses due to access.
So the first question would be, how did the EU allow the UK to provide such guarantees without the approval of Brussels?
How did the UK guarantee to any company that a political and economic union would always last?
I will say one thing, the powers who prospered from slavery recently got rulings that they were not obligated to provide compensation, if this new claim flies, it will be interesting to see the legal shenanigans that are used to justify this one.

We must not forget the environment that we are in, during the period leading up to the referendum, we had Project Fear, the Bus and all manner of scare tactics for either side, now that the vote is in we have the same, so for every one of these sensational news items, one has to delve a little deeper.
Unless, the EU is going to deny these third countries access to the EU via Ireland, Frankfurt etc etc to force them to put pressure on the UK not to leave, if only they had expended such effort leading up to the referendum......

par13del wrote:

Third countries are like the EU and the UK, looking for what they can get, which is to get the maximum benefit for the least pain, this is where negotiations can take time as trade is and can be used to implement social and political changes, the extent of influence is where heads knock. Issue here is whether folks only want to spend UK money to achieve trade with the EU, India for example demanding concessions is thrown around as a "see that is what you get".

Does it really depend on who you ask?

As much as we all enjoy a round of consequence-based schadenfreude, havent we moved past the point where how a Brexiter or remainer "feels" about Brexit, is inconsequential?

Consider the trends:

- India and the US, touted as two trade alternatives to the EU, don't seem any closer to agreeing free/enhanced/new trade deals than they did the day after Brexit. Quick and beneficial (to the UK) deals look unlikely in both cases.

-Politicians/bureaucrats/technocrats around the world don't like global economic instability. Any type of Brexit promises some degree of global economic instability. Foreign politicians and bureaucrats sitting across the table will bring with them a dim view of Brexit. The perceived global economic opportunity cost means reversing that view is going to require relatively more concessions than a regular trade deal negotiation would. They'll want access to the UK market, but they won't be willing to put any of their own industries at risk. Not a recipe for success.

I'm happy for Brexit to go ahead. Harder the better, in my view. Good way to remind the world about the perils of populism and the importance of democratic checks and balances.

par13del wrote:

Well if one takes the claims at face value, it does make a mockery of the EU being being the legal entity which mandates and controls actions taken by its members in their name.
The claim seems to be that the UK guaranteed access to the EU and since the UK is no longer a member of the EU they are responsible for any losses that the third country faces as a result, the so called fair and equitable access / treatment. One wonders what all the fuss is about with passporting services having to be in a EU country, such cannot be true if the UK can be held responsible for losses due to access.
So the first question would be, how did the EU allow the UK to provide such guarantees without the approval of Brussels?
How did the UK guarantee to any company that a political and economic union would always last?

I think you don´t understand the Idea behind investment protection agreements between nations. They are along the lines of this "If the government of the country i chose to invest in makes decisions that impede my profits, they have to reimburse the profits lost". If you invest in a country, with which you home country has a BIT going, you can rely on full protection and security of the relevant investment within the territory of the host state. For example when Spain decided to cut down on solar power subsidies, a UK and a Luxemburg investor successfully sued Spain.And that is even IN the EU.....

I am pretty sure unless a company was purely producing for the UK domestic market and has no exports into the EU common market, being able to ship into the common market without hassle was one of the major points in that investment decision. If the UK government gives that away, they may be on the hook.

Its along the same lines as Tobacco companies suing nation states that make selling cigarettes more difficult or impede their marketing efforts.

So this doesn´t need an explicit guarantee, you have that nations implicit guarantee for the normal investment horizon of the investment you plan. That is why nations station usually tighten screws slowly and with long notice periods, so companies can not claim their profits are impeded.

Lawyers in the US are already seeing golden times after Brexit, since BITs are usually a fairly decent mess, law firms can have their asses gold plated with those cases.

best regards
Thomas

That's one of the reasons CETA is unpopular and TAFTA is never going to happen. Handing over sovereignty to companies, and foreign ones at that, isn't exactly popular.

ElPistolero wrote:

- India and the US, touted as two trade alternatives to the EU, don't seem any closer to agreeing free/enhanced/new trade deals than they did the day after Brexit. Quick and beneficial (to the UK) deals look unlikely in both cases.

At this point, neither of those countries can enter into any meaningful negotiations with the UK until they exit the EU and are free from EU control, so all the trade trips that they are making are not really trade trips but PR. Since the UK cannot negotiate with anyone, and based on the moves of those who object to the leave - including members of the government - the wait to commence negotiations could be very long. Consider Boris for example, he has stated that the UK should be able to negotiate trade deals during the transition period, he was blasted for making his comments in public, but consider the ramifications. If they agree a two year transition period during which they cannot negotiate with non-EU countries, no real negotiations can commence until some time in 2021, so why would India, the USA or the rest of the world get excited, to some degree it is a red herring.

One thing with trade, when you are free to trade there will be traders around, the purpose of the transition period is to give time for another vote or some other means to be found to negate the vote. Two years from Article 50 for a developed nation dealing with what is supposed to be the largest and more technologically advanced trading group, which must be extended to four years beggars belief. Now if you are saying it is political, then yes, negotiations could go on for the next 100 years, but to say they cannot negotiate Brexit in two years, if the EU thought that they needed more time than that they would have placed it in Article 50. The terms in article 50 are clear and have a very strict purpose, needing the full support of the other 27 members for an extension is among the highest bars that the EU can set, and a potential leaver looking at that is supposed to give them pause, as in
DON'T DO IT.

tommy1808 wrote:

I think you don´t understand the Idea behind investment protection agreements between nations.
best regards
Thomas

Except the UK was not negotiating access between nations, but between a nation state and the EU and the bulk of those negotiations would have been done under the guise of the EU.
The UK leaving the EU will not hinder a third country profits, if the agreements were for products and services domiciled in the UK they will continue, if it was for products and services domiciled or for EU benefit it will continue from another member's facilities, unless the EU no longer wants the business. Based on what we see so far with other member states wooing financial services companies based in London, they appear to want those investments to continue.

If the people of the UK decide to throw their country into a recession, is the USA or Japan going to sue the UK for the companies and investments they have in the UK going bust?
Investment carry risk, including investing in countries, how many countries are presently lined up to sue Syria for all the loss of business that the civil war has created?
The advantage countries have with the UK leaving the EU is that they can relocate to other member states with very little change in rules and regulations, the biggest issue they may have is learning to speak the language of the EU which will see English greatly diminished. Indeed, the EU has already stated that the UK should pay for the relocation of any EU regulatory entities unto EU soil from the UK, so I would expect part of the divorce bill would also be used for "enticements"

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

I think you don´t understand the Idea behind investment protection agreements between nations.
best regards
Thomas

Except the UK was not negotiating access between nations, but between a nation state and the EU and the bulk of those negotiations would have been done under the guise of the EU.

The UK has about 80 BITs iirc. A US cigarette trader in Mexico sued Mexico successfully regarding impeded exports into the US. Legally i don´t think there is any meaningful difference between setting up tariffs, and leaving a free trade agreement. And it doesn´t matter what the UK "sold" those companies, it only matters that they alone decided to make the profit-making environment for investments in the UK worse.

If the people of the UK decide to throw their country into a recession, is the USA or Japan going to sue the UK for the companies and investments they have in the UK going bust?

Why would they care what effects that has on the UK and its people? They have shareholders and are usually legally required to only care about those.

Investment carry risk, including investing in countries, how many countries are presently lined up to sue Syria for all the loss of business that the civil war has created?

war generally falls outside of pretty much all agreements.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

it only matters that they alone decided to make the profit-making environment for investments in the UK worse.

...which for a sovereign vote is their choice and theirs only.
If I understand the EU, if those investments were made in the last couple decades they ultimately were investments in the EU with production facilities located in the UK. On a regulatory and conditions of production basis, nothing will change if relocated to another member country. The unique issue here is that the UK is leaving the EU, they are not disbanding the EU which will continue with all its benefits, indeed many members are already lining up to benefit / profit from the UK leaving and business houses relocating, obviously they and some of those business houses see benefits to be gained by continuing to do business with the EU versus staying in the UK domestic market only. If they stay, that is another investment choice they will be making, so far the UK government has already been talking about making financial guarantees, those can only be based on the domestic market only.

tommy1808 wrote:

Why would they care what effects that has on the UK and its people? They have shareholders and are usually legally required to only care about those.

Exactly, so them taking the broke UK government to court to recoup their losses is.....especially when they can sue to have the UK fund the relocation of their facilities to another EU member which based on EU rules and regulations, has basically the same operating environment.

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

it only matters that they alone decided to make the profit-making environment for investments in the UK worse.

...which for a sovereign vote is their choice and theirs only.

So was signing and ratifying those BITs giving foreign investors the power to sue the UK government over such matters.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

So was signing and ratifying those BITs giving foreign investors the power to sue the UK government over such matters.

Best regards
Thomas

Agree, but as I said earlier, one would have to see each agreement, so in my opinion, making a blanket statement or article is just another example of Project Fear.
The difference here is that it is not helpful in any way since the vote has already been taken and only another vote will change the outcome and so far no one is pushing that since the last results have yet to be implemented.
Remainer's would be more constructive if they could point the EU / UK towards some third form of membership, Full, Norway and ???????
So far all their efforts have been in the UK to delay and possible terminate the implementation, there really should be an across the board meeting of the minds by the Remainer's, unfortunately, even they like the Brexiters cannot make up their minds on a coherent strategy, so far the only thing the majority agree on is that the UK must leave as that is / was the will of the people, really, that is all they agree on, whether it is the common market, EU, ECJ, other EU mandates etc etc etc is all up in the air.

The new budget will be telling to see how much money or how much leeway they are giving themselves to "pay" for Brexit hard or soft. We should get an idea of whether they have made arrangements to make the massive 2017 xmas payment, the massive bill over the next two years with additional funds going forward, or whether they are investing in the UK in NHS, expanded trade infrastructure, incentives for companies who take a hit, incentives to attract new entrants, etc etc.