Nick wrote:
There is a basic economic psychology "law" which I have meant to mention for a long time (well, probably I have already, but time to repeat!). Anyway, this is diminishing marginal utility. It's applied normally to particular goods, and as you'll know it simply points out that more and more of the same thing, however good it is, usually becomes less "useful". It is a strong argument for equality of income and wealth because it can be widened to include consumption of goods and services as a whole: I am sure you will agree that £1 means more to a poor person than a rich one.
I understand your point (which is a valid one, which is why over 40% of national income is taken off us to spend in ways we would not do as individuals ) but it is essential to remember that if we make an economic choice, it will inevitably lead to cnsequences which might not be helpful or as intended. Rent controls make housing worse, for example, or the pursuit of equality, as in Mao's China, or more recently in Venezuela, can devastate the economy for everyone.
agreed. just as Brexit is a policy inspired by non-economic factors which is likely to spell at least some economic damage. Changing tack a bit, but logically. I have not heard your opinions of Britain's prospects for trade deals with countries outside the EU. Or is your suggested policy just one of unilateral tariff reduction? But, as you know, the consensus is that tariffs are no longer the main barrier to trade - more important are regulatory divergences. So do you suggest that we join some non-EU trading block?
Nick wrote:
A moment's thought: Mrs May say' there won't be border posts; the EU says there must be. Now, who is threatening border posts? It sure as hell aint Mrs May.
I was not suggesting it was May, so that is irrelevant. Provide me with evidence that the EU wants border posts
Nick wrote:
Brexit is a threat to the GFA because it raises all these issues for no good reason.
Let's get this straight. The concern about disruption to the GFA is the prospect of a return to violence. The fault for any such violence rests with those committing such violence. Or are you now legitimising a possible IRA murder and bombing campaign? Secondly, it is the EU which is threatening the GFA by its threat of hard borders. Why is the EU promoting a potential return to violence? For no great reason tht I can see.
so now you are going philosophical about moral responsibility? Yes, of course the primary and legal responsibility for a resumption of violence in Ireland would be with those committing this. This does not absolve statespeople from responsibility to prevent the criminals getting their opportunity, does it? So Brexit would bear a real responsibility for violence if it happens in the way the UK seems to want. Again, what is your remedy for the problem? Apart from the EU disbanding, that is!
Nick wrote:
No popular mandate, huh? Apart from 17.4 million votes in the referendum, 84% (IIRC) of electors voting for parties which agree to respect the referendum by leaving the EU, as well as an enormous thumping majority in the HoC to invoke Article 50.
oh FFS, the MPs do not want Brexit, you know that as well as I do - this goes for the vast majority of Labour MPs and a substantial majority of Tories, so please don't use this tired argument. Yes 17.4 million voted for something they barely understood, but then over 16 million voted against it, and the vote was to leave the EU, not to leave the rest of the show
Nick wrote:
Please leave southern Europe out of this, as it is quite irrelevant.
You think it is irrelevant, I think it is extremely relevant!! And will continue to raise it whenever I wish!
Ok, cannot stop you, but then please answer my repeated challenge - how will Britain, which is in fact a net contributor to the EU budget, help these countries by leaving?
Nick wrote:
The EU is not threateneing anything as far as I can see, it wants an open border, as I have said already.
No, it wants to impose its rules on people who do not want to be subject to its rules. And, in pursuit of that, is prepared to take action, destroying an open border, building a hard border, even though it knows that it increases the risk of violence.
evidence please. Where are the plans to do this? Time is running short for both sides!
Nick wrote:
And how would the EU "adjust" its rules?
If only! That's the point! It is determined to move in the wrong direction. If it had shown itself open to change, we would not be leaving. But because it is refusing to countenance such change, it is making the situation worse, not only for its people, but for the institutions themselves. Political extremism and Euroscepticism is increasing everwhere in Europe as people feel less and less in control of heir own affairs.
the old refrain! Even if you are right, this does not help avoid the coming mess which is Brexit
Nick wrote:
ISTM your only remedy for all this is that the EU disbands itself - well, it is not going to happen, and Brexit will not help the poorer nations of the EU which you care so much about.
It does need to disband, but it does need radical reform. This, I consider to be impossible in any reasonable time frame. We do not help the poorer nations of Europe by supporting the very institution which has caused them so much devastation.
very weak reply - I want to know how Brexit helps them, not that staying the EU does not help them
Nick wrote:If Britain leaves the Single Market and starts to its own tariffs (or reducing them FTM) as well departing from EU regulations, then customs checks will be inevitable, that is the problem because of the risk of smuggling - but it is Britain which is causing it.
For a start, the EU does not have a single market in all areas, especially not in services, which is where most of the economy and growth now is. Secondly, consider Ireland, with its invisible borders. It still has different currencies, different tax rates, different legislation, but an open border. Just what EU regulations are there on any EU products that we feel require special British prohibitions....? And when you consider that just about every product or service involves VAT, any increase in red tape is going to be negligible by comparison. And I think the Anglo-Saxon common law principles should be preserved, and the Napolenic codes resisted.
why mention services when we are talking about physical movement of goods? Yes, of course various countries of the EU have different tax systems, but what is the relevance of this? The point is that after Brexit customs duties and regulations may diverge - otherswise what is the purpose of Britain taking back control? Re your detailed questions about products, I do not know, but the Irish do not seem to agree with you that a border will not be a problem - nor do many other people AFAIK. So, is your position actually that Britain's leaving the CU is simply not a problem for Ireland?
Nick wrote:You are so obsessed with free trade that you forget it must be negotiated, not imposed as part of a project which is not itself concerned with free trade but which instead focuses on control: ie Brexit.
Er... an absence of rules can be "imposed"? How does that work?
I don't know, I am not suggesting this - while ISTM that you are in some sense
Nick wrote: Bullies object to others doing things they want to do, and are prepared to use force or other unreasonable means to enforce them. Consider an anaolgy (tee hee!
) We humanists think ones sexuality of no concern of anyone elses. Some legislatures think otherwise. In your example, if our gay brother comes out, it is he who is the bully, as he has provoked the conflict. Hmmm...
your analogy founders because anti-gay legislation is interference with others' rights despite the fact that exercising these rights does not interfere with the rights of others. This is emphatically not the case with Brexit. In fact, since Britain is creating the conflict, it could be claimed that Britain, albeit the weaker antagonist compared with the EU, is the bully (a kind of chickenhawk - to use a phrase from the Vietnam War), and certainly this is the case over Ireland, a weaker entity still
Nick wrote: How then can the EU be a bully, since it is Britain which has provoked a conflict after 40 or so years in which it has prospered?
Following on from the above, the UK is "coming out". It is not the UK which is responsible for the bullying. It's like a bully grabbing ones hair. It doesn't hurt if you acquiesce. You might even prosper. But if you want to do something different, there are two choices to avoid pain. To remain with ones hair grabbed, or for the bully to let go of ones hair.
I have already answered this. Look, we can spend ages arguing about emotive terms like spite and bullying (both introduced by you) but I don't think is a useful thing to do
Nick wrote: The referendum result was that Britain leave the EU - which it is indeed likely to do - not that it leave any and every arrangement connected with it, so why should we all suffer from the Hard Border/Hard Brexit that the extremists want?
I have no problem with the UK being involved with the EU, co-operating on space, science, research etc., etc. It is the EU which is saying that such such co-operation is impossible without being subjected to the whole EU project. I do not know of any "extremists" anywhere near the negotiations who are suggesting that international co-operation should cease.
the EU is not saying any such thing either, but Brexit will make cooperation more difficult in specific areas
Nick wrote:Nick wrote:
Are you seriously advocating the annexation of part of the UK against the wishes of the majority of the population?
of course not, I am not advocating anything. But this could be the end result of this silly project.
I doubt that very much. Very much indeed.
well, however much you doubt it happening, it could do
Nick wrote:
I do not know how the proposed solution which keeps Northern Ireland in the Customs Union would work,
It wouldn't...
you are so so certain this would not work, yet presumably you think that Brexit will work? Yes, there would be many problems with such a solution, which is why the EU regards it as a last resort
Nick wrote:
but anyway it would not constitute annexation,
It would!
so who would be annexing the Province? The EU, which is not a country, or the Republic?
Nick wrote:Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK - and remember that it already has its own devolved government.
I don't see how that be, if it is the EU's writ that runs, not the UK's.
in some areas yes, but not constitutionally. Look, I do not how or whether this would work - but that is true in spades of the whole silly Brexit gamble
Nick wrote:
And since you mention the consent of the Province's people, kindly remember that this part of the UK voted decisively against Brexit. Why should they, and the Republic, bear the consequences of a decision which they have rejected?
Because the Province has voted to remain part of the UK, and because the Republic voted not to. Seems fair enough to me...
it voted a long time ago to remain in the UK, long before Brexit; this was in the early 1920s and did not involve a referendum. Maybe there should and will be a referendum on this issue once Brexit's outcome is clearer, who knows? I don't know whether you heard the interview (posted by Alan) between LBC radio host James O'Brien and a clueless Brexiteer who seemed to be advocating a referendum among the Irish people AS A WHOLE on reunification? Brexit is a dangerous policy because its consequences go so far beyond the naive wishes of that famous 17 milllion voters
