EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 755
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7914 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:32 bardtown wrote: This translates to "Let terrorists have free reign in your country, you horrible bigot!" Northern Ireland is not a financial asset. It is one of the poorest parts of the UK and requires subsidies from the other constituent countries. We defend its people because they are our citizens. They identify as British and want to remain in the UK. Your suggestion is that we should just sit back and let terrorists murder them, or more accurately, us... "Us" vs "the terrorists". At least that keeps things simple. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1867 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:23 bardtown wrote: Nobody involved is talking about a hard border. Quite the opposite. In fact, the most positive thing about the EU's appointment of Barnier is that he is very familiar with the Irish situation and has made it clear that he considers it a priority on a personal level. Same for David Davis. It might be clear to you but it's a touchy and anxious subject right now, and nothing is really guaranteed. | ||
|
Philoctetes
Netherlands77 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:37 bardtown wrote: How is it in our 'selfish interest' to intervene, then? Our selfish interest to bring terrorism upon ourselves so that we can continue to spend money maintaining a territory that earns us nothing? There are more types of 'assets' than just 'financial assets'. Also, I myself am not so sure why it was decided that it was so important to be so harsh and repressive in Northern Ireland. But obviously it was considered to be worth it. But you believe it was an act of charity because you cannot see how the UK government was motivated by self-interest? | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:35 warding wrote: Lets consider you're a British entrepreneur who has invented a wearable device that measures the fart particles in the air - main use case being to alert pub users about unacceptable levels of indoor farting. It's got a Bluetooth module that connects to your phone. You want to commercialize it across Europe and the US. For the US you have to undergo FCC testing and spend $10k. For Europe you spend another $10k for CE marking. Because of Brexit, you now have to spend another $10k for compliance testing and certification for the UK market. If you're a larger company with greater compliance worries, those figures will go up because you will have to hire a separate law firm to make sure everything you're doing will comply with local regulations. Because of this cost, smaller companies may forego introducing their products in the UK market. Larger companies will enter and make UK consumers pay for those prices. UK entrepreneurs will incur in larger costs vs other entrepreneurs, becoming less competitive. On top of that, the UK will have to create another bureaucracy to recreate regulations and standards, which is a cost to tax payers. EU regulations aren't anti-capitalism or uncompetitive, they're actually quite sensible. Anything that meets EU regulations will almost certainly meet UK regulations, because we will be less regulated in most areas. So if your product meets EU specifications then there's going to be a very high chance that it meets UK specifications. And then there will be many products that do not meet EU specs that will meet UK specs - ergo, more competition, lower prices, etc. Also, the vast majority of the UK economy is internal. They are all forced to follow EU specifications that we don't like. Their costs will be reduced by more moderate UK regulation. On April 05 2017 23:43 Philoctetes wrote: There are more types of 'assets' than just 'financial assets'. Also, I myself am not so sure why it was decided that it was so important to be so harsh and repressive in Northern Ireland. But obviously it was considered to be worth it. But you believe it was an act of charity because you cannot see how the UK government was motivated by self-interest? It was self interest in the sense that we were protecting British citizens. That is all there is to it. | ||
|
Passion
Netherlands1486 Posts
The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU. If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive. I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps. That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:47 Passion wrote: Ah, people, people. The UK has long been an obstruction to positive further development of the EU. If they are happy to go, I am happy to see them leave, even though it's obviously a sad victory for populist leaders through the manipulation of the naive. I think the shift in the balance of power might finally give the EU the chance to make the necessary next steps. That said, I see no reason to not let them feel the price of their decision. I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
Price doesn't necessarily make you competitive. You buy cheap once, you buy at least twice. | ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On April 05 2017 12:42 LegalLord wrote: Word on the grapevine says Melenchon won the debate. Is that accurate? won would an overstatement and i don't know how you can measure it, but he's the most well spoken of all of the candidate he's a good orator, hard to deny that | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:55 Makro wrote: won would an overstatement and i don't know how you can measure it, but he's the most well spoken of all of the candidate he's a good orator, hard to deny that Hamon on the other hand, from what I saw and heard, seems like an annoying distraction no one really likes. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12302 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:48 bardtown wrote: I do recommend people here to look up some of the more sophisticated debates about the EU. The majority of people who voted for it are not supporters of populism but moderate Conservative/Labour voters. I can direct you to videos if you're interested. Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
St. Petersburg bombing investigation basically seems to have gotten the main result. One bomber, two bombs, one bomb didn't go off and the current belief is that it was a phone-triggered bomb that was rendered useless because the phone in question was disabled by the govt before it went off. Other bomb was a suicide bomb. Likely ISIS and Caucasus mix of motives. Telegraph has a pretty good coverage here. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote: Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. Overall there seem to be two possible 'survival' strategies for the EU: - To make the cost of leaving so high that everyone stays out of sheer fear (current default strategy). Following this, it would be in the EU's self interest to punish the UK and take advantage of the stronger bargaining chip in the negotiations to the limit. - The 'a la carte' model where member countries can pick and choose which EU bits they want. On one hand, it makes the populist case for leaving the EU harder - since there are aspects of the EU that everyone likes, if there's unhappiness with the EU then why not just pick the parts people don't like. Then that forces a debate on actual specific standards/programmes/policies until everyone comes to the conclusion that the vast majority of a country's participation in the EU is a very obvious net positive. A couple of issues ago The Economist made a strong case for option number 2. I'm just not sure how easy it would be to adapt to it from the current model. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:12 LegalLord wrote: Hamon on the other hand, from what I saw and heard, seems like an annoying distraction no one really likes. Imo Hamon made the game-ending mistake of not going forward with a clear and ballsy universal income plan. Trying to transform the election into a referendum for or against universal income was probably his only chance at getting past 10 or 11%. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
On April 05 2017 23:44 bardtown wrote: Anything that meets EU regulations will almost certainly meet UK regulations, because we will be less regulated in most areas. So if your product meets EU specifications then there's going to be a very high chance that it meets UK specifications. And then there will be many products that do not meet EU specs that will meet UK specs - ergo, more competition, lower prices, etc. Also, the vast majority of the UK economy is internal. They are all forced to follow EU specifications that we don't like. Their costs will be reduced by more moderate UK regulation. It's not just about the cost of making changes to a product, it's the cost of hiring lawyers and certification companies to do the testing and the paperwork. Unless you adopt the policy that CE marking is accepted in UK territory, you'll have those costs. it's also a weird notion for me that the UK would be more liberal than the rest of Europe on regulation - the land of health and safety paranoia. I did my masters in England and have the opposite notion. More important than liberal vs strict regulating is the avoidance of regulatory capture, and I feel there's a strong case to make that larger institutions that have to represent a greater plurality of interests are more insulated from that than governments of individual countries. Ie. special corporate interests in the UK are more likely to influence local and national regulations in their favor than they are to influence EU regulations. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:39 Big J wrote: Not sure about the people, but from the discussions I remember the political supporters seem to be mainly liberterians who gamble on access to the European market out of European self-interest. Precisely for that reason the EU should play a harsh punishment trade war strategy until the UK returns to a sensible position, in which they don't try to abuse a common market as an even greater tax haven than what they are already. I don't think many of them would call themselves libertarians, but that's a pretty central economic point to the Leave argument, yes. The EU has a large trade surplus with the UK, so it is in their interest to maintain tariff free trade. The argument then goes that if the EU would hurt its own citizens to harm the UK in order to scare EU citizens into remaining in a political union then it's not a union but a protection racket. In which case, nobody with a backbone would want to stay anyway. Also, in the 'trade war' scenario you're proposing the EU loses calamitously, because, even putting the surplus to one side, there is hardly a bank in the EU that isn't reliant on capital/services from London. The idea that the EU is in a position to put banks at risk to prove a political point is pretty naive. The EU is grappling with multiple crises already. On April 06 2017 01:09 warding wrote: It's not just about the cost of making changes to a product, it's the cost of hiring lawyers and certification companies to do the testing and the paperwork. Unless you adopt the policy that CE marking is accepted in UK territory, you'll have those costs. it's also a weird notion for me that the UK would be more liberal than the rest of Europe on regulation - the land of health and safety paranoia. I did my masters in England and have the opposite notion. More important than liberal vs strict regulating is the avoidance of regulatory capture, and I feel there's a strong case to make that larger institutions that have to represent a greater plurality of interests are more insulated from that than governments of individual countries. Ie. special corporate interests in the UK are more likely to influence local and national regulations in their favor than they are to influence EU regulations. That might be true if anybody in the EU cared about the opinions of individual nation states. The regulation pours through whether people like it or not. If it didn't - and it was a lowest common denominator system like you're implying - then the UK wouldn't have anything to complain about. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10788 Posts
Sounds extremly risky but well, there you go cheerleading it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:02 warding wrote: Overall there seem to be two possible 'survival' strategies for the EU: - To make the cost of leaving so high that everyone stays out of sheer fear (current default strategy). Following this, it would be in the EU's self interest to punish the UK and take advantage of the stronger bargaining chip in the negotiations to the limit. - The 'a la carte' model where member countries can pick and choose which EU bits they want. On one hand, it makes the populist case for leaving the EU harder - since there are aspects of the EU that everyone likes, if there's unhappiness with the EU then why not just pick the parts people don't like. Then that forces a debate on actual specific standards/programmes/policies until everyone comes to the conclusion that the vast majority of a country's participation in the EU is a very obvious net positive. A couple of issues ago The Economist made a strong case for option number 2. I'm just not sure how easy it would be to adapt to it from the current model. First one should work if you're willing to abandon pretenses and just tell people they don't really have a choice about the EU. Next time someone bitches they should order in the troops. Second one kind of undermines the entire purpose of having a union. That could all be accomplished with little more than a few trade agreements that not all countries are willing to sign onto. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On April 06 2017 01:22 Velr wrote: Probably much less naive as the UK's decision to brexit/end free trade/movement. Sounds extremly risky but well, there you go cheerleading it. By 'end free trade' I assume you mean extend free trade and end subjecting the UK to EU protectionism. It shows the extent to which our identity has been diluted by EU membership that people don't realise the UK is and always has been the foremost proponent of free trade in Europe if not the world. | ||
| ||
