The most important election this fall?
You can make a pretty good argument that the most important elections this fall are the various state referenda over pot legalization. If they pass in California and elsewhere, the momentum to legalize pot will become unstoppable. But coming up fast is the Italian referendum on constitutional reform, which will be held sometime before the end of October. Over at Econlog, I have a new post discussing how this referendum has taken on much greater importance after the Brexit vote, and could trigger a major eurozone crisis.
Some commenters made much of the fact that European stocks rallied after the “knee jerk” post-Brexit plunge. They scolded me for putting so much weight on the market’s instant analysis. What they fail to understand is that all market moves are provisional—we do the best we can with the information we have. And would I be out of line to point out that the brief rally in eurozone stocks has unraveled, and that they are back down to the levels of that supposed “knee jerk reaction”? Of course further changes will occur, and I have no idea whether we are going up or down from here. But I’m confident that the 14% decline in Italian stocks since the Brexit vote is telling us something important about both the health of the Italian banking system, and the risks of the October vote. Ditto for the global plunge in yields on safe bonds.
Given the recent fallout from Brexit, if things continue to get worse in Italy and the eurozone between now and October, it’s not hard to imagine an intense international focus on the Italian referendum, with a no vote seen as likely to lead to an unraveling of the euro. I’m not saying that will happen (the risks still seem less that 50-50 to me). But I find the timing of that momentous referendum kind of interesting, given the timing of our own election, and given the anti-EU views of one of our candidates. At the very least this is something to watch for.
PS. Note that the Italian political system appears incapable of doing anything, and thus the silver lining of a no vote is that this incompetence would continue. Incompetence is normally a bad thing, but if you are dealing with a government that wants to exit the EU, it’s actually good.
Tags:
6. July 2016 at 08:39
Sumner: “You can make a pretty good argument that the most important elections this fall are the various state referenda over pot legalization.” – you got to be kidding? Sumner never fails to surprise me. You’d think he would reference the US presidential election? But he mentions pot? Pot legalization via a referendum has btw already failed at least once in California. I love Sumner, he’s such an easy target.
6. July 2016 at 08:58
You can make a pretty good argument that the most important elections this fall are the various state referenda over pot legalization.
Most important to Margaret Trudeau and like minded sorts. Her son wants her rap sheet to grow more slowly, so he’s all for it.
but if you are dealing with a government that wants to exit the EU, it’s actually good.
The priorities of the Mercatus crew: bong hits and open borders. Libertarianism will continue to be fodder for comedy. Some things are constants.
6. July 2016 at 09:31
I hope Italy adopts more free market neoliberalism, more global trade, moves away from cushy government jobs and pensions, and builds more competitive globalized industry. I also hope they exit the EU.
Conservatives have long advocated localized governance and control and devolution of power for good reasons that make sense. The EU is the opposite. Sumner isn’t debating this, he’s just trolling the opponents.
I also hope to see an end to prohibition of drugs. And no, I don’t use or have any desire to use recreational drugs.
6. July 2016 at 09:44
I can’t imagine monetarists, who understand the importance of having ones own currency, would look negatively at nations wanting to leave the Euro, a currency without a nation. But I have been fooled before and continued to be fooled.
6. July 2016 at 09:46
My favorite quote from a sports broadcast involves things being unstoppable. Dick Stockon, early 1980s, during a Philadelphia ’76ers playoff game:
6. July 2016 at 10:39
I also hope to see an end to prohibition of drugs. And no, I don’t use or have any desire to use recreational drugs.
Ach. Cane the bloody stoners in the public square, like they do in Singapore.
How about stripped-down labor codes? The French labor code has a Table of Contents which runs to 80 pages.
6. July 2016 at 13:09
Cool blog post on Chinese urbanism you might like Scott:
http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2016/06/observations-on-chinese-cities.html
6. July 2016 at 15:13
It seems to me like even those criticizing the “knee-jerk” reaction from the markets were conveniently ignoring that the pound never recovered in that period versus the dollar or the euro, it’s two biggest trading partners. It was a very large move, more than one would typically see in a volatile month for GBP/USD let alone overnight.
Here are the first signs of consequences:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36722155
6. July 2016 at 16:25
Seems to me the Brits had it right—in the EC but not the ECB. The Italians would be better with their own currency. The Greeks, Spaniards and Portuguese too.
6. July 2016 at 16:28
Speaking of referendums that went nowhere, Greek PM Alexis Tsipras recently praised his anti-austerity referendum from last year as a “sublime act of resistance”.
6. July 2016 at 17:25
Massimo, You said:
“I hope Italy adopts more free market neoliberalism, more global trade, moves away from cushy government jobs and pensions, and builds more competitive globalized industry. I also hope they exit the EU.”
For God’s sake Massimo, make up your mind! If Italy leaves the EU it will be to adopt the sort of socialist policies that the EU does not allow.
Thanks ChargerCarl, That seems pretty accurate.
Gordon, That’s pretty funny, and it helps explain how Greece got into this predicament.
7. July 2016 at 05:25
@Ben Cole, Thai Turkey Farmer – you do realize that BrExit was not about the ECB but the EC, as the UK has the pound not the euro, and, further, they voted to leave? Alt-universe –> Ben.Cole What planet?
@Sumner – you completely misread Tsipras and Gordon. You’re a mile wide and an inch deep. Please focus more on depth, not one-liners. FYI, Tsipras sold out and the people’s “NO” to austerity became a “YES. The word on the street here in Greece is that Tsipras is being bribed by big EU banks to stay in the EU (bribery is common here, in fact I’m bribing some officials for a matter). So do you think Greece should leave the EU? Seems you do, “it helps explain”, you say. BTW, I have nothing against NGDPLT as long as it’s not an unmitigated helicopter drop. Money is neutral and even double digit inflation can be dealt with, as the US 1970s showed (real GDP was I believe greater than in the low-inflation 1980s) as well as post WWII Brazil.
7. July 2016 at 07:43
Keep in mind, Ray, that the goal of the EU is the superstate, requiring the abolition of the pound. The EU will integrate as many other things as possible, making it difficult for a nation not using the Euro to resist. I wrote about it here with a discussion about Lars Christensen who nailed it regarding being wedded to the Euro currency: http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/global-markets/currency-hegemony-gdp-growth-and-why-brexit-was-good-for-the-uk?post=98496
7. July 2016 at 08:43
SSumner, the EU-Neoliberalism thing seems similar in some respects to the United States. If Texas were allowed to leave the union it would/could likely be permitted to adopt more free-market policies then the Median [i.e. feds], allowing the blue states to move closer to their center. Whereas an independent Vermont could move farther to the left (but in so doing allow non-Vermonters to move closer to their own center etc.).
This seems to me in general to be a good thing. If political views vary considerably by geography, you 1. create pressure releases for political outliers 2. Get a better idea of what works and what doesn’t.
Britain was the sick man of Europe in the 70s, and many formerly soviet countries are now relatively nice places to live and visit. All this suggests to me that there’s little contagion or **permanent damage** to simply letting individual nations succeed/fail of their own merit/incompetence.
All of this assumes though that free trade is permitted between formerly joined territories. But honestly if a superstate closes its markets to a breakaway state out of spite or bureaucratic inaction, whose fault is it then?
7. July 2016 at 10:29
For God’s sake Massimo, make up your mind! If Italy leaves the EU it will be to adopt the sort of socialist policies that the EU does not allow.
No, if Italy departs the EU, it will be to get away from bureaucratic microbes in Brussels. What they do with more autonomy is their own business.
7. July 2016 at 13:11
Bgil, You said:
“Britain was the sick man of Europe in the 70s, and many formerly soviet countries are now relatively nice places to live and visit. All this suggests to me that there’s little contagion or **permanent damage** to simply letting individual nations succeed/fail of their own merit/incompetence.”
Aren’t these strong arguments for joining the EU? Both the UK and Poland did much better after joining.
As far as individual American states, should they each have their own currency, or do you favor an euro-type arrangement?
You said:
“All of this assumes though that free trade is permitted between formerly joined territories. But honestly if a superstate closes its markets to a breakaway state out of spite or bureaucratic inaction, whose fault is it then?”
No one is suggesting that the EU will close it’s markets, but it obviously won’t give the UK as much access as if they were in the EU. Otherwise, what would be the point of the EU? If the UK leaves, why should they have more favorable access than the US?
Art, You said:
“No”
Really? I see you know nothing about Italy. Italy has a statist mentality, and is frequently pushed by the EU to be more neoliberal.
7. July 2016 at 14:04
Really? I see you know nothing about Italy. Italy has a statist mentality, and is frequently pushed by the EU to be more neoliberal.
Whatever Italy’s ‘mentatlity’ is at a given point in time, the point of self-government is self-government. This is lost on contemporary libertarians.
7. July 2016 at 14:06
Otherwise, what would be the point of the EU?
Removing discretion from local elected officials and lodging it in Eurotrash apparatchiks and Frau Merkel.
If the UK leaves, why should they have more favorable access than the US?
A dime’s worth of difference is what it will make. Not enough to be taking orders from M. van Rompuy or the hag-chancellor.
7. July 2016 at 14:58
Too bad Scott Sumner doesn’t read Lars. Being tied to the Euro currency is a joke, a really bad joke.
7. July 2016 at 15:17
@Gary Anderson – nice site you have, though I did not register because of the awkward request for a passport despite using Google+. As for Lars Christensen’s ‘peggers’, ‘floaters’ (https://marketmonetarist.com/2015/07/14/the-euro-a-monetary-strangulation-mechanism/) observation, his conclusion that being tied to the Euro is bad goes away if you drop out of the sample Greece and Italy. So essentially his observation is data mining. Money is neutral, so being tied to the Euro or floating your own currency vs the euro is irrelevant. However, the UK’s decision to drop out of the EU will hurt their economy because of trade restrictions: London lives off of ‘free trade’ with the EU. Time will tell.
7. July 2016 at 15:57
Remember after 2008 when people started saying, after all the excitement with investment banks, that banks ought to be made boring again?
Well this year 2016 is the formal start of the kind of political instability in Europe that will have people scream in a few years “Please make politics boring again”. I’m screaming already.
The incredibly obtuse commenters here can’t see the forest for the trees, navel gazing single issue fanatics that they are.
The only thing that can still (?) save Europe is to stop apologizing for Brussels, the European Commission, and Neoliberalism. All the above are good things that in the bigger picture have helped all Europeans, by and large. Forming independent tiny countries again won’t protect anyone from megatrends like robotics, or from Russia or China for that matter.
What the EU needs is way, way more integration, a federal government, a federal defense and police, and a reorganisation of what is democratically decided and what isn’t. I note that until 15 odd years ago the EC and later EU was much less democratic and things actually got done. There needs to be better representative democracy and less rule by random plebiscite. There needs to be EU passports that are not nationally bound or issued by member states. The people must become independent from their nation states. They must become Europeans first and nationals second, in the same way that Americans are Americans first, and state residents second. The alternative is a reunification of Europe under Putin. Actually scrap that, he’ll be happy to keep the teeming but harmless mess of Europe as a buffer in front of his unified Russia, a “Superstate” if there ever was one.
7. July 2016 at 15:59
Deco,
“Ach. Cane the bloody stoners in the public square, like they do in Singapore. ”
They don’t do that in Singapore. Users get a mix of jail and rehab like in most countries. Dealers get capital punishment.
7. July 2016 at 16:30
They don’t do that in Singapore.
https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+fay+caning&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXkeW2zuLNAhUl2IMKHbyHDe4QsAQIKg&biw=1140&bih=470#imgrc=hjdt2PK6FucOsM%3A
7. July 2016 at 16:35
What the EU needs is way, way more integration, a federal government, a federal defense and police,
Whenever you state a ‘need’, you have an im.plicit purpose in mind, and that’s to fulfill mbka’s political objects. Which are not everyone’s objects. Or even most people’s objects.
The only thing that can still (?) save Europe
Europe managed to plug along before the Maastricht Treaty and nothing erected under any EU treaty is necessary or sufficient to prosperity or public order.
And the real threat to Europe is not national particularism from Messrs. Farage or Grillo or Hofer or Frau Petry. It’s the fertility deficit. What Europe needs to do to save itself is embrace life again.
7. July 2016 at 16:39
Forming independent tiny countries again
The Imperial Knights evaporated in 1806, mbka. The ‘tiny’ countries you’re referring to have a mean population of about 15 million. Britain’s is 65 million.
7. July 2016 at 17:17
I (I can’t speak of others) “scolded” you on your reaction to the market reaction not because you put too much weight on it. But rather because your analysis (and 99% of other people’s) is flawed.
You can’t get away with it by simply saying “all market reaction depends on the info available at the time and changes”. We know this. It’s the fact that you can’t look at a small time horizon window in isolation and draw conclusions from it. The British pound has been in precipitous decline for the past 2 YEARS.
There’s a whole field of finance which deals with how to price these things and how to determine the effect, through market reaction, of an event. Which of course everyone ignores.
It doesn’t mean there is no effect. The effect is there, and it is negative. But it also doesn’t mean a hell of a lot when looking at the long term trends for both the EU and UK were…S*IT…for many years before Brexit.
So the choice is to continue on an undoubted downward spiral, or change. Of course, there is…regime uncertainty…involved. That’s what you’re seeing.
The fact that other EU markets have performed even worst since Brexit is evidence that…the EU is likely to suffer more than the UK.
Whose fault is that? Doesn’t that indicate something about the EU…as a unsustainable and precipitously declining block?
Regime uncertainty in the UK aside, the move to leave a sinking ship, is the only logical thing to do.
7. July 2016 at 17:24
“No one is suggesting that the EU will close it’s markets, but it obviously won’t give the UK as much access as if they were in the EU. Otherwise, what would be the point of the EU? If the UK leaves, why should they have more favorable access than the US?”
Again you’re providing a false dichotomy that doesn’t exist. The EU has deals with numerous nations that provide them with equal “access” to EU markets…AS…EU members.
Without the restrictions that apply to EU members.
You’re again providing the false dichotomy that in order to have “free markets”, you need territorial and political integration with the EU trading block. Which is clearly not the case.
Just as you earlier provided the false dichotomy that to have access to “free markets” you needed to abide by the EU’s insane immigration policies. Which again, is clearly not the case since there are about 5 different immigration regimes even within the EU.
Who is in a better bargaining position? The UK which is suffering from…uncertainty…or the EU which is suffering from…gangrene?
As an economist…you know the difference between uncertainty and risk.
7. July 2016 at 18:19
They don’t fail to understand that, because “the information we have” is not internally consistent. Meaning, there is contradictory information at any given time. For example, there is the information Sumner has, and then there is information held by others which has fidelity with reality. Stock prices are a function not of “correct” information, but both “correct” AND “incorrect” information.
The information held during and after the Brexit vote included “I expect a fall in stock prices on the basis of Brexit because it will adversely affect (non-capital) markets” AND “I do not expect a fall in stock prices on the basis of Brexit because it will not adversely affect (non-capital) markets”, dispersely held by millions of people all around the world.
So why then did stock prices not behave according to solely the information “I do not expect a fall in stock prices on the basis of Brexit”, such that stock prices did not fall at all? Why did prices fall? This is what you “fail to understand” about information. Stock prices did take that information into account, but there was not enough individual action and money behind that information. There was more the other way. Even if myself personally acted on the information “I expect no fall in stock prices on the basis of Brexit because it will not adversely affect (non-capitslist) markets”, I could not by my actions make the entire stock market rise. I would have to wait for my fellow investors to adopt that information.
Sumner you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When stock prices fell after the vote, you were running victory laps that this indicated Brexit really was going to have adverse effects on markets. You favorably quoted writers attacking Brexit, you initially said the fall in prices was “almost purely nominal”, then not days later you were writing that it was “mostly real”. Now with the price recovery, you still claim victory because aw shucks, nobody can predict the markets anyway and everything that happened was the best anyone could have expected. And of course, those who said Brexit is not adverse against markets? They got lucky.
Now of course this is precisely why you find affinity with the neo-Rortyian idea that can be summarized as “truth is what most people, or the most influential people, believe”. Which of course is itself a claim to a truth that transcends what most people believe, but we’ll leave that contradiction for another day.
You would by your own worldview. For what you are calling “unravelling” is itself a claim that the quality of your knowledge transcends the quality of knowledge held by those who are responsible for the “rally”.
Sumner, your information and your actions are themselves a part of the market. Also, to make a claim about the recent rally is “unravelling” contradicts your professed worldview in another way. You are by this claim presuming a long and variable lag theory of stock prices. For how in the world can an event that took place two weeks ago, which your worldview apparently processes would have “almost immediate” effects only, still be having an effect today such that prices “unravel” back down?
You don’t get it of course, but your globalist socialist ideology is affecting your totally fake market is best based assessment.
7. July 2016 at 19:14
Deco,
you don’t actually read things, do you? Not my reply, not the articles you quoted. Caning in Singapore is not for drug crimes, it’s mostly for vice and other crimes deemed especially anti social. And it’s not executed “in the public square”. Michael Fay got caned for vandalism (anti social behavior) and not drugs.
But not wonder – it’s your same sleight of hand as anywhere else where you recommend wrecking entire countries based on what you think you’ve heard some time somewhere.
7. July 2016 at 19:18
Deco,
“What Europe needs to do to save itself is embrace life again.”
On that we can agree. Must be a first.
But yes, I want more than chugging along. I want maximum economic freedom, and freedom of movement, for the maximum amount of people in Europe, in the largest possible border free space. And that is what the EU project is to me. That’s why I care so much. The EU is a project of freeing people from the oppression and smallness of the nation state, by uniting the nation states into supernational federation.
7. July 2016 at 20:12
Deco,you don’t actually read things, do you? Not my reply, not the articles you quoted. Caning in Singapore is not for drug crimes,
I did not care whether it was for drug crimes or not. It’s a penalty applied in Singapore. The point is not that obscure.
7. July 2016 at 20:14
I want maximum economic freedom, and freedom of movement, for the maximum amount of people in Europe, in the largest possible border free space.
You and Tyler Cowen. It’s a foolish thing in which to invest.
7. July 2016 at 20:31
Deco,
“I want maximum economic freedom, and freedom of movement, for the maximum amount of people in Europe, in the largest possible border free space.
You and Tyler Cowen. It’s a foolish thing in which to invest.”
You’ve probably never been national of a country that:
– needs visas for 2/3 of the countries on the planet (I have)
– needs to show passports at borders for any travel more than 300-400 km, with assorted hour long border jams (I have)
– needs to recalculate shifting exchange rate prices for any travel more than 300-400 km (I have)
– needs extensive residency permit applications even to study in neighboring EU countries, with associated waiting times of a whole day, just to get a paper labelled “proof of application” (I have). Processing time to receive actual student pass: 4 years. (my experience, France, 1990s)
– has prices of otherwise standardized goods such as books jacked up an additional 15% beyond the official exchange rate (I have)
– cannot work anywhere else beyond 300, 400 km because vocationsl permits, license, etc, are not valid beyond that.
And you probably have never lived for years with a stamp in your passport that says “Not allowed to work” (that was when I studied in the US).
And because I don’t want to see any of these ignominies ever again, I want the EU, I want the EU desperately.
Most Americans have no idea how great it would be if you needed a passport to travel from Vermont to New Hampshire, needed to change currency, and needed a yearlong application process to move from one state to the other even with an existing job prospect. THAT is Europe w/o the EU, THAT is what it was. I have SEEN it. I have LIVED it. I do not want this ever again.
8. July 2016 at 05:31
If they pass in California and elsewhere, the momentum to legalize pot will become unstoppable.
No it will take a long time across the nation and so far the only states passing legalization are still Mountain and Pacific time zones. (Outside of Utah conservatives are more libertarian in nature.) I do figure Cali. legalization is important mostly to strengthen ‘Big Marijuana’ lobbyist but I would not be surprised in 10 – 20 years most states pot is still illegal. Look at all the alcohol blue laws still on the books in many states.
Although I still think HRC wins, the main thing I would like to see is a small Trump victory (5 – 7%) in Texas, a AZ/NV/CO HRC win, and one state going for Gary Johnson. I am hoping this shock will change the course of the Republican Party. If HRC wins too much of landslide they will simply blame Trump but winning Texas by a relatively small margin will concern the heck out of the Party.
8. July 2016 at 07:14
@Art Deco I pretty much agree with your views on Sovereignty. I oppose the perversion of sovereignty that we see in Donald Trump. I support the pure vision of sovereignty that was put forth by the Westfalia or Westphalia Peace. Respect for other sovereign nations is key. Trump does not respect his own people.
Also, empire is generally evil in its out workings because it concentrates too much power. It is amusing to see that the home of the new Roman empire, the UK, found itself being subjugated by the coming Euro Empire. It would be amusing if not so disturbing.
In another thread you pointed out that Texas has higher disposable income than California residents and I don’t disagree with that. However, California is far more diverse in its economy, better able to absorb economic shocks. That was my point in the beginning. Scott Sumner didn’t see that was my point.
A broad based prosperity is always preferable to being bound by one industry. Oil is a real boom and bust industry. I know this because I was raised in the oil patch, in that little California town, Coalinga, that had the earthquake. I saw what happened when 10 dollar oil hit that town, just a few years after the earthquake, in 1986.
8. July 2016 at 07:58
You’ve probably never been national of a country that:
No, I live in a country where 65% of the population lives in the state they were born in and the majority live within 100 miles of where they were born. A typical American state has a population equal to that of Flanders. In this country, we suffer from negligence in local government and the officious interference of federal officials, especially judges.
New Zealand sits out there in the Antipodes all by its lonesome. It has a population just north of 4 million and a key city with about 1.2 million. They have research universities, sophisticated medical services, a bourse, and general affluence. You don’t need that much scale to build a society which is congenial for its inhabitants.
If Luxembourg or Montenegro have special problems, these can be addressed through bilateral agreements or through modest multilateral arrangements (say, in the Balkans). No need to construct a superstate run by unaccountable cadres.
8. July 2016 at 07:59
And because I don’t want to see any of these ignominies ever again, I want the EU, I want the EU desperately.
Which? You think anyone wants a contemptuous misanthrope around?
8. July 2016 at 09:02
“New Zealand sits out there in the Antipodes all by its lonesome. It has a population just north of 4 million and a key city with about 1.2 million. They have research universities, sophisticated medical services, a bourse, and general affluence. You don’t need that much scale to build a society which is congenial for its inhabitants. ”
Surely that’s why a lot of New Zealanders moved to Australia recently.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/new-zealand-migration-to-australia-soars-40-per-cent/story-fnixwvgh-1226790754690
Then it reversed
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32822654
Hey these people seem to just want to move around freely and flexibly under an agreement that allows them to, instead of staying put in the country of their birth, as some internet commenters want them to.
Not to mention the Australians I met who moved to Singapore because they wanted their kids to grow up in a less parochial, more cosmopolitan society. Singapore is, of course, a very small country (5.5 Mio). But it is also a very open country with a 40%+ immigrant population.
8. July 2016 at 09:03
G0d the trolls are dull here. Scott, can’t you tax them somehow?
Small but important correction. The UK joined the EEC not the EU.
Lorenzo from Oz has a great post on the new-liberal critique of the EU.
http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/public-policy-discovery-and-bargaining.html
8. July 2016 at 11:03
AIG, You said:
“The British pound has been in precipitous decline for the past 2 YEARS.”
No it hasn’t. Are you incapable of being accurate? The trade weighted exchange rate was fairly flat during the two years prior to Brexit, and has since plunged.
And you seem to know nothing about the EU. Sure they’ll give the UK a free trade agreement, if they accept free immigration.
Art, You said:
“Whatever Italy’s ‘mentatlity’ is at a given point in time, the point of self-government is self-government. This is lost on contemporary libertarians.”
So I see you are backing off from your previous claim that Italy would not use its new found freedom for more socialist policies, without acknowledging that you are backing off. Typical.
mbka, Well put.
8. July 2016 at 11:35
So I see you are backing off from your previous claim that Italy would not use its new found freedom for more socialist policies, without acknowledging that you are backing off. Typical.
I never made any such claim, nor implied any. I said what they do with their autonomy is their own business. Reading comprehension optional at Bentley.
8. July 2016 at 12:01
Hey these people seem to just want to move around freely and flexibly under an agreement that allows them to, instead of staying put in the country of their birth, as some internet commenters want them to.
Not to mention the Australians I met who moved to Singapore because they wanted their kids to grow up in a less parochial, more cosmopolitan society. Singapore is, of course, a very small country (5.5 Mio). But it is also a very open country with a 40%+ immigrant population.
I’m not interested in your circle of friends or the chance acquaintances you make in bars. When you get a minute, you might ask yourself why you fancy this is at all relevant to your insistence that you must have a superstate with a population of 500 million as a political authority.
The inclination of kiwis to migrate to Australia or of others to migrate to New Zealand is a function of immigration policy in New Zealand. It is not a justification of such a policy.
8. July 2016 at 14:44
@James Alexander James, you are the ultimate troll. The EEC became the EU! There are 28 members of the EU, and the UK is still one of them pending their leadership growing some cajones:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union
8. July 2016 at 18:39
mbka – “What the EU needs is way, way more integration, a federal government, a federal defense and police, and a reorganisation of what is democratically decided and what isn’t.”
I agree. The EU should formally become a single nation, inheriting France’s permanent seat on the Security Council. The 27 remaining members should become states in the EU. They have one State Department, instead of sending 28 (now 27) Ambassadors to every country and international organization. They should merge their militaries and become the second leading member of NATO.
But the point many are missing is that Brexit helps advocates of EU integration. The UK was the leading opponent of integration in the EU. It’s better for both the EU and the UK for them to simply split up and just be friends. The EU should be magnanimous with the UK, complete Brexit quickly and convene a Constitutional Convention with the other 27.
8. July 2016 at 20:00
Negation,
“But the point many are missing is that Brexit helps advocates of EU integration. The UK was the leading opponent of integration in the EU.”
Absolutely agree in principle. The trouble is that the pro EU side is staffed by competent but boring bureaucrats facing massive procedural impediments to any action. The anti EU side is staffed by flamboyant figures who don’t have to achieve anything but provide entertainment and sow doubt. (and then retire when it gets serious) . So this hampers a drive for more integration.
I always hope(d) that in times of crisis a true leader would emerge to make the pro EU cause emotionally appealing again. People need this more than cheaper ATM fees or whatever else the EU presents as its achievements. The EU is a social and political freedom project, but it is being sold with purely economic talking points. And the most remarkable achievements of free movement and free trade have been turned into populist anti EU tools. People now fear them and don’t see what an obvious liberation they represent. It’s as if inmates preferred to return to their cells voluntarily because they feel protected by the bars.
The US was lucky that the fight for federalism was won 200 years ago with the federalist papers… in today’s climate it would also have remained the 50 bickering independent states.
8. July 2016 at 22:26
mbka
The Australian newspaper article to which you linked was interesting. Kiwis could move to Oz, but were excluded from the welfare state. Most Brexiteers would be happy with free movement if they also had that exclusion. Cameron knew that, too. He tried to win that exclusion from his EU “friends”, but led by Juncker they turned him down.
8. July 2016 at 23:33
James,
I thought Cameron had won that exact exemption in his spring negotiations? Though not an automatic exemption, more like an emergency provision in case the burden is too large. In all fairness I do not understand these kind of exemptions, just as the AU article implies. First off they’d have to be mutual. Second, migrant labour pays the same taxes as locals. Why would they be denied the same benefits? I mean, if there is such a thing as “no taxation w/o representation” there should also be “same duties, same benefits”. On the other hand, say unemployment benefits are a kind of insurance. In Europe they depend on the length of time worked, and are zero if you never worked before. So that’s a convenient way to establish a slow easing in of benefits in a new country. Before you contributed for a few years, you won’t get full benefits.
For the EU another obvious solution is a general harmonization of benefits. Then there can be no welfare tourism. I could imagine a basic set of EU wide portable benefits, equal to all member states. And then a second tier where each country can pile up on benefits just for locals (with a necessary tax break for migrants of course, to remain fair). Even better if locals could choose between two regimes – taxes + benefits, or lesser taxes, lesser benefits.
9. July 2016 at 05:30
MBKA and James, I always assumed the big flaw in the EU (other than the euro) was the tendency to issue regulations on matters best left to local authorities, such as working conditions. Am I right?
9. July 2016 at 06:32
Scott,
actually the EU works from the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. it is supposed to leave as much authority to the most local level possible. What I hear people complaining about is the EU harmonization in standards. For example, common food hygiene and preparation standards that go against local traditions. This is what gets people upset, partly because standards drive up the cost, partly because traditions are perceived to be lost.
9. July 2016 at 06:43
What’s weird in this debate is that people get upset about questions they probably never wondered about before (standard sausage sizes) and elevate these to a nationally tinged fetish. In reality of course all these standards weren’t invented by the EU. They’re just common standards replacing previous local standards to make trade more efficient. Most of them are safety, pollution, consumer protection standards. In practice, the idea is that a product licensed in any member state never has to pass licensing again in any other member state precisely because the standards have been harmonized. There’s not necessarily more rules, just now they’re EU rules specifying say, 9 mm standard pencils instead of say, the previous holy Imperial British standard of 8.75666 mm (Yes I am making this up in exasperation).
Corollary: if Brexit happens, a major worry is that if Britain wants to get rid of the sovereignty-destroying 9 mm pencil standard, they now have to rewrite all their standards. This had been previously left … to the EU, with lots of economies of scale (one standard instead of 28). Now tens of thousands of standards would have to be re-invented the British way – or do nothing and follow the EU w/o the EU. That’s why Brexit is such a farce. And the reason why the EU won’t accept free trade unless you do like Norway and Switzerland and implement the exact same EU standards, is to facilitate the whole licensing and standards thing.
9. July 2016 at 06:45
Scott, and in case you wonder: yes, THIS is the EU “oppression” and “loss of sovereignty” that people fret about. That and welfare to other Europeans who would of course also pay tax in their host country, making it a zero sum game give or take a few.
9. July 2016 at 06:50
mbka, You said:
“actually the EU works from the principle of subsidiarity, i.e. it is supposed to leave as much authority to the most local level possible.”
You missed the point I was making. The classical liberals who favored Brexit claimed that the ECB forced the UK to adopt anti-liberal policies. Maybe that’s wrong, but they are not complaining about harmonization of food hygiene. The complaints are about things like labor regulations. Does the EU force things like labor standards, which are clearly better left to the local level?
Why would the EU care about child care policies in employment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_labour_law#Working_time_and_child_care
9. July 2016 at 06:52
And work rules, timings, holidays, healthcare systems, pension systems, tax systems – none of this has been harmonized. This is precisely a problem because this is what makes welfare tourism even possible. Not to mention all the other sovereignty things – they’re all still there. Everyone has their flags and their own armies and their own police and their own traditional uniforms, languages and in the case of defense and police this is also a problem. The areas NOT harmonized are causing REAL problems. But people are getting upset because of banana rules. Some of those rules are a clear overreach but trust me – they’d exist w/o the EU too. And times 28 instead of times 1.
9. July 2016 at 06:55
There are efforts for sure to harmonize these standards to some extent, to have some kind of minimum standard and to make movement of labour easier. But it is a far cry from a done deal. I mean, even the basics such as max hours worked or overtime pay of holiday days per year, are not harmonized. Or say, those pesky German store closing hours etc. None of this is harmonized.
9. July 2016 at 06:57
BTW all of this stands and falls together. The Euro can only work if goods, capital, and labour ALL can move freely. And for this, some minimum common standards are needed or else the whole freedom thing is destroyed by the need to re-license professions, degrees, and standard procedures in every country out of 28.
9. July 2016 at 07:01
Scott,
” The classical liberals who favored Brexit claimed that the ECB forced the UK to adopt anti-liberal policies. ”
From my understanding the classical liberals find that too much is regulated, period. And I agree here. But what I see is that the EU has not created these regulations in a void. If there wasn’t an EU regulation, there would be 28 national ones instead. The alternative is not zero regulation. But yes, since these standards were EU borne for the pas decades, the EU became the lightning rod against standards.
9. July 2016 at 07:13
mbka, It only took me three minutes to find your claim to be inaccurate:
“The Framework Agreement requires that part-time workers’ employment conditions may not be less favourable than those of comparable full-time workers, unless there are objective reasons for different treatment.”
The EU has no business regulating the terms of employment. I’ll bet if given a week I could find 100 other such outrages.
Here’s another:
“A worker’s refusal to transfer from full-time to part-time work or vice versa should not in itself be a valid reason for dismissal.”
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=706&langId=en&intPageId=203
It seems to me the classical liberals who opposed Brexit are correct in claiming the EU does not follow the principle of subsidiarity.
9. July 2016 at 07:30
The US was lucky that the fight for federalism was won 200 years ago with the federalist papers… in today’s climate it would also have remained the 50 bickering independent states.
mbka, British North America was a society of migrants, 70% of whom were British subjects on arrival and north of 90% of whom spoke English at home. The total population in 1790 was about that of Wallonia-cum-Brussels today and you still had more effective decentralization than you do in any country in the world today bar Switzerland, or than you have in the EU. The central government in 1800 consisted of a (tiny) diplomatic service; a scatter of judges, constables, and solicitors; an Army, a Navy, some tax collectors, a federal property bureau, and the postal service. There were no civil regulatory agencies at all other than the customs inspectorate.
9. July 2016 at 07:35
It seems to me the classical liberals who opposed Brexit are correct in claiming the EU does not follow the principle of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity is a principle elaborated upon in Catholic social teaching and by libertarians who derive their understandings from antique conventions of positive law (e.g. Gottfried Dietze). Libertarian discourse seldom considers questions of political architecture and the Cato / Reason Foundation types just don’t care. Tyler Cowen’s a big admirer of Singapore, where everything is run by unaccountable cadres and community decision-making is non-existent.
9. July 2016 at 07:36
Well here’s the irony Scott. Yes there are broad attempts for common frameworks, as I said above. The example you cite is hardly an example of micromanagement though. So why legislate in this area at all? Again: the reason is to simplify the movement of labour and to cut down on the thicket of regulations to begin with. Not every local standard is different for a reason. The point was to create efficient common standards. I believe the IS an economic case to be made for this.
Now I’d prefer less regulation, much less regulation. But this is not what would happen in an alternative to the EU. You’d have the same amount of regulation in 28 slightly different local variants.
Subsidiarity is not observed perfectly, far from that. But the worst offenders are the national governments here. For every framework general rule (such as the one you cited) there are dozens where Berlin imposes its will on Bavaria in much more detail, and no one raises the specter of breach of sovereignty.
The example you cited is part of many EU framework agreements. Frameworks usually spell out general rules common for all, under which local rules are then generated.
In the minds of the people who vote against the EU, none of this even figures btw. Let me give you an anecdote. In 1992, Denmark opted out of the Maastricht treaty in a first referendum. The treaty was amended and in a second referendum, the Danes accepted Maastricht with exceptions in the Euro, justice, citizenship, and defense. At the time I had a Danish roommate in France. He was early 20s and quite anti Maastricht. His chief reason was the the EU violated Danish sovereignty because it imposed rules that shoe stores had to display the right shoe only. In Denmark it has always been the left, traditionally (or was it the reverse?). Note (1) it’s hard to fathom what is more ridiculous, the EU regulating shoe exhibition or the Danish making this cause into a nation anthem. (2) None of the exclusions the Dames wrought from the EU have anything to do with this kind of regulation that got the people to vote against.
So, I stand by my general assessment that the common labour standards, where they exist, are more general frameworks than micro regulation. It’s different for products and safety, here the regulations are like the US EPA. I’d guess the US OSHA is more stringent on labour conditions than anything the EU even remotely has produced. And two, these are not the issues that get people to vote against the EU. It’s shoes, bananas, and benefits nor non nationals.
9. July 2016 at 07:39
The Euro can only work if goods, capital, and labour ALL can move freely.
The EU as roach motel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKhGHxO-woc
9. July 2016 at 07:44
In Denmark it has always been the left, traditionally (or was it the reverse?). Note (1) it’s hard to fathom what is more ridiculous, the EU regulating shoe exhibition or the Danish making this cause into a nation anthem. (2) None of the exclusions the Dames wrought from the EU have anything to do with this kind of regulation that got the people to vote against.
The frog figured out it was being boiled, and that bothers you.
At this point, unloading the Euro is potentially costly for individual countries and requires a nimble banking inspectorate and central bank to pull it off. That’s regrettable, as Mediterranean Europe needs to get out of Dodge for their own good.
9. July 2016 at 07:49
Deco,
I prefer Hotel California for the reference 😉
The whole European continental understanding of the civil service is similar to your Singapore example. It’s in Hegel’s Beamtenstaat, the philosophy that civil servants ought to be unaccountable and employed for life to shield them from political wanton. No, it’s not very compatible with British style rule of law and sovereignty ideas and here is a genuine reason why the British don’t fit in so well. It’s a true culture clash. But continental Europe actually agrees on that principle. Governments usually do not appoint administrations beyond ministry level. The civil service remains untouched. This is why chaotic politics often matter less than you think for everyday life in Europe.
9. July 2016 at 08:32
Scott,
here at least some documentation for my main points
(my main points: EU regulation is weaker in social and labour areas than in product and standard areas AND local labour and social laws are much more of a burden than EU derived frameworks)
This gem here is from the abstract, the article sadly is gated:
“… much of the EU’s regulation is required if only to restrict excessive regulation and market distortions at the Member State level. Indeed, UK business leaders themselves recently called for this when asking the EU to fully implement the Services Directive. […] Plainly, without such top-down regulation across the European Economic Area, in areas like services and free movement of capital and labour, it will be difficult to establish a functioning labour market.”
This is from ‘Evaluating the EU’s Regulatory Burden and Its Discontents: The Labour Market, Free Movement and Social Europe’ , here:
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/1955/ , from 2014. And that’s from the UK, the most critical EU member state.
9. July 2016 at 08:33
We have a civil service, too, mbka. As for discretionary appointees, they amount to about 0.2% of all federal civilian employees. Problems with civil service recruitment, promotion, and tenure are another issue. The tenure of civil servants has long been a problem, as has been the refusal to conduct timely recruitment and promotional examinations (in New York, for example) and the consumption of the recruitment and promotion process by overclass racial neuroses (through the agency of judicial decrees, natch).
Singapore is run by a political machine which operates with proforma elections and toy telephone legislative bodies. That does not describe any occidental country.
9. July 2016 at 08:48
Deco,
I’ve lived in Singapore for the past 15 years. I can tell you with some authority that your characterization just doesn’t square with reality. Elections are real and popular sentiment does influence policy. In many ways, Singapore is more cognizant about societal trends and balance than Western governments who must absolutely pass their divisive pet issues at the next legislature to make their mark, w/o consideration of long term consequences.
9. July 2016 at 09:44
mbka, I think we are talking past each other:
1. I was not talking about the average (uninformed) person, I was talking about classical liberal intellectuals in the UK who strongly supported Brexit because they thought it would lead to a more libertarian country. I think they are wrong, but not totally delusional.
2. We will have to agree to disagree on labor regulations. They should be done at the national level or (preferably) not at all.
Over the years I recall reading a number of articles in The Economist (which is pro-EU) and elsewhere, criticizing statist policies that the EU was forcing on Britain. Regulations that violated the subsidiarity principle.
The reason I opposed Brexit was not that they don’t have an argument, they do, but rather because the costs of Brexit outweigh the gains. I do not expect he UK government to use their newfound freedom to create a libertarian paradise. And there will be substantial costs.
Art, Hilarious to see you try to “educate” mbka about Singapore. He lives there.
9. July 2016 at 10:47
I can tell you with some authority that your characterization just doesn’t square with reality.
The same political party has held nearly all the seats in the legislature since 1959. The political opposition gets hit with ruinous defamation suits.
9. July 2016 at 10:48
Art, Hilarious to see you try to “educate” mbka about Singapore. He lives there.
And he’s trying to pull my leg. It’s not as if the political order in Singapore is a state secret.
9. July 2016 at 12:52
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/singapore
9. July 2016 at 13:20
Scott
“The costs of Brexit outweigh the gains. I do not expect he UK government to use their newfound freedom to create a libertarian paradise. And there will be substantial costs.”
Not really sure what you mean. You (and we) have little idea about these costs. It depends on negotiations. That we do escape the EU tariff wall is a big positive. Stuff we sell into the EU will have to conform to their standards, same as US and China already do, quite successfully.
Political accountability matters too. Lorenzo from Oz blog post is excellent on this. Not sure why you think this such a small matter. Your opposition to Trump is noble, but imagine him in power without you even having a say. Read about Jean Claude Juncker and you might change your mind.
9. July 2016 at 19:04
Scott,
we may be closer than we think. My case for the EU is largely along the lines of your Econlog “efficiency” post line of thought. I believe if one has to have an unnecessary regulation, one regulation is better than 28. I’d also prefer no regulation in most cases. But I prefer the achievable good to the perfect dream.
Also, while I believe that national regulations do far more harm than EU ones in the social/labor area, I’ve also worried about talk for decades by the left to make the EU into “a social Europe” = harmonizing welfare, labour and the OSHA type laws etc. The European Commission traditionally was pro competition and business but the members states have long pushed for tax and welfare harmonization to prevent welfare and tax tourism.
And I may also be sometimes out of date on current EU law.
But I try to think in terms of global efficiency, and the likely alternatives. I see the advantages the US has simply from being one fairly homogeneous legal and economic space. It’s still light years ahead of the EU there. The sheer economies of scale you have in the US, where a business can design and deliver to 300 Mio people in a single stroke – it’s invaluable.
So it’s a balance thing, and the EU is learning too. In 2012 they apparently achieved agreement on a 25% reduction in administrative burden of social regulations on business:
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/refit/admin_burden/docs/com2012_746_swd_ap_en.pdf
And more than 10 years ago I dimly recall a ceremony where some thousands of unnecessary regulations (the banana kind) were ceremoniously scrapped. Random example of a smaller cut:
https://euobserver.com/news/24102
So the EU is actually listening. And some famous EU regulations don’t even exist. Here’s a page on Euromyths:
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/
9. July 2016 at 19:18
Deco,
re: SG, do you really think I don’t know about all of this? And yet, the proof is in the pudding, and reality is much more complex than summary reports. For starters, try this:
https://next.ft.com/content/1446f3b0-577c-11e5-a28b-50226830d644
9. July 2016 at 20:58
mbka
Methinks you do protest too much.
Last time I looked Singapore was nearly the richest nation on earth, per capita. Not bad for a teeny-tiny state whose citizens enjoy no ‘freedom of movement’. Sounds like a great role model for the UK – except for the tie to the USD.
10. July 2016 at 01:32
James,
historically Singapore felt devastated when it had to leave the Malaysian Federation in 1965. Here is one example of a country that did not plan on becoming independent. Lee Kuan Yew, later to become the chief architect of Singapore’s success, openly wept. Look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Singapore#Separation
and LKY quote “For me, it is a moment of anguish. All my life, my whole adult life, I have believed in merger and unity of the two territories.”
Singapore made very well with the challenge after 1965 but it was not a done deal. And today, many upper middle class Singaporeans do dream of moving or at least retiring abroad, usually Australia or Canada. Locally they’re known as “quitters”. A number of my friends over 15 years have “quit” this way, mostly families with school age kids. The very wealthy are full blown cosmopolitans anyway with houses and investments in 3 continents. Clearly, this picture too is more complex than just the GDP number.
Key to Singapore’s success was open trade and very high immigration numbers. There are >40% immigrants today, and between 2007 and 2014 alone the population increased from 4.5 to 5.5 Mio, that’s over 20% in 7 years, look here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore. Somehow I doubt the UK will follow in SG’s footsteps.
Side note, through patient negotiations, the Singapore passport does allow for very free world wide travel, and within ASEAN there is considerable visa free movement of people. ASEAN has / had much more integration in mind, EU style, but with the recent EU troubles of course they are getting second thoughts. Both the EU and the UK have majorly lost “face” here.
BTW no tie to the USD here. The S$ exchange rate is managed by MAS using a trade weighted basket of currencies. The ratios are not published but a good guess would be 40% USD, 30% Euro and the rest “others”.
10. July 2016 at 05:37
James, Yes, you may escape their tariff wall, only to put up your own. I agree that we don’t know the effects, but the markets are certainly hinting that growth is likely to slow.
You’ll also lose freedom to migrate.
mbka, I agree that the benefits currently outweigh the costs.
10. July 2016 at 07:36
“For God’s sake Massimo, make up your mind! If Italy leaves the EU it will be to adopt the sort of socialist policies that the EU does not allow.”
Italians are divided on that: many Italians are extremely socialist, and many Italians are very pro free market. You can see both sides in Italian American political figures, like Scalia.
Maybe EU is the lesser of the two evils. I would prefer a free market and EU independent Italy and that may not be realistic.
10. July 2016 at 08:54
You can see both sides in Italian American political figures, like Scalia.
Scalia was a judge and law professor, not an elected official, and was known for his Catholic affiliation (nine children) and his jurisprudence (originalist), not his views on markets.
Italian elected officials tend to be heavily concentrated in New York and New Jersey and tend to be deal makers who adjust to the ideological matrix they’re working within. They also tend to specialize in local politics first and state capitals 2d.
10. July 2016 at 11:03
I am not a fan of Libertarianism, the religion of Self. However, strangely, the Libertarians adopted a concept from the Almighty Himself, the concept of sovereignty of the nations as being important. Hint, the Tower of Babel was not a good thing, and the one world agreement was decimated by God assigning different languages to people throughout the world.
And yet, we now have the Tower of Basel, and an attack on sovereignty once again. And these people think they will inherit eternal life. I like that Coldplay song where Bush thinks St Peter will call his name. Yeah, right. The Coldplay song is a clear double meaning, released two months before the pathetic president left office.
10. July 2016 at 21:49
Scott
“Lose the freedom to migrate”. Really?
Over 4mn Brits are resident abroad. Only around 25% in the EU.
11. July 2016 at 09:44
James, I wouldn’t want to be one of those million who lost their freedom to move to an EU country. Also recall that this number is a point in time statistic. How many Brits will live elsewhere at some point in their life?
11. July 2016 at 11:32
The 1mn won’t be sent home. There are 3-4mn EU migrants resident in the UK. There will be a deal.
Most of that 1mn are retirees. Those sort of people moved before the EU existed and will do so after we leave.
Few Brits work in the EU, we are still culturally much closer to English-speaking countries, unsurprisingly. Also, remember labour laws are incredibly restrictive and many many jobs reserved for elite “insiders” in the EU ex-UK, so Brits find it very tough. Locals do too, that’s why they flood to flexible labour law, meritocratic Britain. It’s no great loss losing the right to work in the EU ex-UK, a right rarely exercised is not worth much.
11. July 2016 at 11:36
You sound a bit like me back in 1970s UK, misty-eyed about a Europe without borders. Reality is few Brits learn a European language well enough to get a job out there, many millions of Europeans learn English well as their second language, and certainly well enough to get a job here.
11. July 2016 at 13:47
@James Alexander said “Also, remember labour laws are incredibly restrictive and many many jobs reserved for elite “insiders” in the EU ex-UK”
Exactly. Brits aren’t lining up to move to Sweden/Denmark to pay 55% of their income in taxes, and they can’t get jobs in France or Italy because 1. There aren’t many jobs 2. those countries are crooked and you need to be an insider to get a job there. Basically Brits gave up their guaranteed right to look for work in the Netherlands and Germany. Big deal. As an American I was heavily recruited by ING for a job in Amsterdam a few years back, despite being a non EU citizen. Obviously the UK will sort something out, and if it isn’t quite a ‘good’ as before, big deal, the numbers are small. At least you have a country again.
11. July 2016 at 15:40
James,
it’s funny how the same observation can be used for pro or con UK in the EU. I see the same thing – national labour restrictions still doing the vast majority of damage, and not EU ones. The article I quote above is essentially UK business calling on the EU to overrule local labour law nonsense. And, the EU is still a far cry from the US. The this means, it ought to get there, to the point of the US, with more integration, not less.
On the “only retirees” thing, well no. Just an anecdote. In June I was in an AirBnB in beautiful Salzburg county. It was the day before the referendum. The place was run by a Scottish-English couple. They moved there 10 years ago and they’re far from the only ones. They speak German. They have a kid too, going to a German speaking (gasp!!) school.
And now they are screwed.
What will happen to them? Now, for the rest of their working lives, they’ll be living in uncertainty, depend on the vagaries of national residency applications and what not. So will all the retirees already in place. Retirees don’t care about uncertainly I suppose?
And I won’t even tell you what UK expats in Singapore are thinking now that their pound denominated salary have tanked.
But who cares, I guess, if all this means the local plumber in Sussex has “their country back”, whatever that means.
12. July 2016 at 01:03
mbka
Your are beginning to sound a bit troll-like. Do you work for the EU in Singapore?
That couple in Salzburg are certainly an interesting anecdote but no substitute for facts. Do you challenge mine. They are also not “screwed”. All the noise from the EU is about them falling over themselves to offer residency to expat Brits like that.
Your contempt for the “plumber in Sussex” about sums up your remoteness from the UK. I am no nationalist, far from it, but I do know that if you don’t want your country others will only be too happy to take it from you. Bigness is not everything. I don’t see Singapore rushing to join a Greater China.
12. July 2016 at 05:52
James,
so now it makes me a troll if I’m one of the few people left with a passion for the EU project? No, I don’t work for the EU. I just want it to succeed.
You sure don’t sound like a libertarian btw. I don’t know if you identify as one. Would be a funny libertarian whose first impulse were to decrease other people’s freedom of movement. What freedom is more fundamental than the freedom to move and settle wherever? Would be a funny libertarian who thinks that people own countries and countries own people. Yes I know this is not what you meant by “my country”. But these my/your country categories mean little to me. I just don’t see why moving from Paris to London should be any harder for anyone than moving from Paris to Bordeaux.
On facts: My British friend in SG is real. The couple in Salzburg too is a fact. You casually dismiss it. You probably never spent much time living in another country, always at the mercy of the next work visa or residency renewal. I can tell you, even if you get all your renewals – the mere risk is gut wrenching and makes life planning very hard. You can never be sure, because you don’t have a right – your life is always just an administrative decision away from oblivion. Do you buy a house, can you get a loan… all of these are made much harder by the mere threat of non renewal. This is not trivial.
So I gave you two concrete examples of real people that are worse off after the Brexit decision. Do you have any concrete examples of people made better off by it? And no I don’t mean abstract platitudes such as “getting my country back”. Sounds like “Make America great again”. That was the point of my Sussex plumber example btw. How does “getting my country back” make the Sussex plumber better off, or yourself for that matter? Not abstractly, ideologically, in a mythical future, but specifically, concretely, now. Do you have concrete examples of actual people who were made better off by this?
And your facts, I didn’t even dispute them. Local (national) labour regulations are heavy in many EU countries. The UK is on the lighter side. The British are often weak in foreign languages. All true. But for me this means, the UK will be missed in the EU as a country pushing for less regulation, freer labour etc. And it means that more EU integration was needed, not less.
13. July 2016 at 18:54
James, The whole point of Brexit was to put up barriers to immigration. It’s a bit late to claim the barriers won’t matter.
We also learned today that the new UK government intends use their newfound freedom to push Britain in a more socialist direction.
1. Protectionism
2. Barriers to foreign investment in the UK
3. Workers put on company boards (as in Germany).
I wonder what other surprises are in store?
Theresa May = Bernie Sanders