Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

I don't know how else I can explain myself, you ignored 90% of what I wrote.

Because most of what you're writing is waffling platitude, and the one specific example of industry improvement you gave is farcical.

As already noted, the two pieces of regulatory regime you mention are pieces that the UK could block from within, but cannot from without, and will still have to abide by them to access the market at all.

 

[accel]

"I'll give one example - fishing."

You're right to get mocked for this, because a) fishing is less than a tenth of one percent of the UK's economy, and b) as I've cited above, is unlikely to change substantially anyway.

It's not "unlikely to change substantially anyway", there's no grounds for "unlikely". The piece you linked is just saying that it's not like fishing will necessarily skyrocket, that it's a complex thing and expecting it to turn out great automatically and by default is a mistake.

You know what exactly the EU did to fishing in the UK? The UK could fish in a 200-mile area, and after the EU it could only fish in a 12-mile area. That's just one thing that the EU did, there are others. As a direct result of these regulations, from 1998 to 2014, fishing in the UK reduced by 19%. We are talking about nearly a billion a year, and that's if fishing *just* stayed equal while everything else around is growing.

It's not by far the only example either. There is that Clinical Trials directive, for example, which kind of hurt clinical trials and pharmaceuticals. Or there's that "deliberate release" directive that kind of affected agricultural biotech - the UK was a leader, bam, directive, not a leader anymore.

Etc.

As already noted, the two pieces of regulatory regime you mention are pieces that the UK could block from within, but cannot from without, and will still have to abide by them to access the market at all.

The EU keeps venturing things that have to be blocked and you can't block all you would like to block. If we talk about the balance of how many have to be blocked vs how many are beneficial, my opinion is in the vote - I think the UK is better off outside.

 

[klonere]

Which situation? People resigning? I'm not too bothered, except for Cameron's resignation, as he's the one with the power to actually do things. I feel we should have a general election ASAP and that the various political parties should put forward proposals on how to move forwards, see what they come up with.

As for why I voted Leave, it's simple. I think this article is pretty much on point.



The EU is stuck, unwilling to go forward into what's needed (a federal European state), but with no support for that we're left in this terrible mess where Greek misery props up the German economy. The brutality that was inflicted upon Greece and the trampling of democracy there was utterly disgusting, and I believe that showed the true face of the EU now.

I mean sure, voting Leave is definitely the best way to sit on the sidelines, having to abide by most of these rules that need to be changed without the power to do anything about them and probably induce a recession at the same time.

Not that voting remain would have led to any real change, or at least change that could be appreciable by your Average Joe reading the paper but you probably wouldn't have fucked up your economy and made stuff very complicated and perhaps dangerous for us Irish.

 

[Joni]

The damage from the EU to fishing has been huge. Heck, they even apologized:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...apologises-for-disastrous-fishing-policy.html

Her overhaul of Europe's fisheries, controlled centrally in Brussels since 1983, will replace an annual battle between national governments over catch quotas from 2013 with long term 15-year plans based on scientific advice.

It is clear that the solution to the problem was taking the responsibility completely away from countries in favor of technocrats and subsidies to bring these plans to fruition. The solution was thus more small regulations, the problem was a lack of regulations. Stepping away from the table to let the British fishing industry grow, means stepping up the overfishing.

It's not by far the only example either. There is that Clinical Trials Directive, for example, which kind of hurt clinical trials and pharmaceuticals.

That explains why the worldleader in human clinical trials is a European Union nation.

 

[accel]

Did you read the article beyond the title?

Yes, I did.

This, for example, is a good paragraph: "Pledging to scrap an EU quotas system that forces fishermen to throw away or "discard" up to 80 per cent of their catch, Mrs Damanaki apologised for a policy that has pushed Europe's fish stocks to the brink of extinction."

It is clear that the solution to the problem was taking the responsibility completely away from countries in favor of technocrats and subsidies to bring these plans to fruition. The solution was thus more small regulations, the problem was a lack of regulations.

She's talking about one EU regulation replacing another EU regulation. I linked the article to illustrate that their fishing policies were so bad, they even apologized for it.

 

[smudge]

If "the man" is each and every British citizen, sure.

It is precisely this type of response that I am talking about. You don't know that things will be worse in 5 years time because of the results of the referendum.
People who voted leave were satisfied their lives would not be any better by remaining in the EU. A vote for the unknown when you know things are going to continue being shit is an understandable position.

 

[kirblar]

Except none of this is true. I have a master's degree in economics, I can assure you that nobody talks about neoliberalism and it is not a branch of economics. Nor was it invented in America. The term first appears in Germany in 1938; where it was used to describe a political ideology and not an economic school. Nor was it a pro-free market term, originally neoliberalism was used to describe "third way" politics that melded free markets and state interventionism, because it recognised that classical liberalism didn't actually tend to lead to greater freedoms. This use of the terminology persists through to the 1960s and even early 1970s, the main neoliberal (against as a political term) theorists are Röpke and Rüstow; the latter being well-remembered for writing a series of rather scorching articles against free market failings.

After the 1970s, the phrase became subject to a backlash because leftists felt that the movement was being co-opted from trying to synthesize socialist and capitalist principles to being a disguise for free-market reforms without upsetting socialists (see Barbara Castle and Denis Healey being tarred with the label). After this point, the word becomes somewhat meaningless. By the 1980s, neoliberal encompasses everything from Thatcher to Peters (see Peters' 1983 article A Neoliberal's Manifesto, where the third part is dedicated to attacking the very corporatocracy you ascribe to neoliberalism). The term is now essentially just a generic pejorative for "any idea I don't approve of", and largely died out in academic use in the early 1990s at the latest. You will look far and wide to find anyone who self-describes as a neoliberal; the term is just hot air.

What you're trying to describe (something like laissez faire fundamentalism) doesn't apply to the European Union in the slightest. The European Union has no independent ideology because all of the constituent parts of the EU (the Council, the Commission, the Parliament, etc) are all dependent on their composition from the states that comprise the EU. The EU's ideology is therefore reflective of these states. The majority of these states are not laissez faire fundamentalists; the closest European state to being as such is the United Kingdom - so you've actually removed one constraining factor on the United Kingdom being more "neoliberal". Congratulations, you ass. I hope an unrestrained Theresa May is just what you wanted.

Finally, the Euro isn't some evil scheme to protect bankers or such nonsense. There are a number of advantages to a currency union, the main three being a reduction in transaction costs (which is an advantage to the consumer, not banks, because banks are the ones charging the transaction costs), no more intercurrency instability (again, pro-consumer, because consumers typically have less time and resources to invest into determining what exchange rates are likely to do in the future than specialized institutions like banks), and price comparison transparency (again, very much pro-consumer not pro-bank).

The downside is that you lose control of monetary policy. This is obviously not intrinsically bad. I very much doubt things would be significantly better for Cornwall if they had monetary sovereignty. However, you need a fiscal union to go with the monetary union - you need to be able to tax areas for where the currency is overvalued to spend in areas where the currency is undervalued (so, as an example, in the UK London is a net contributor and Hull is a net recipient of govt spending, reflecting relative productivity in those areas). The Euro does not have this. If you look at early sentiment regarding the Euro, governments thought you'd need a monetary union in place before you could implement a fiscal union, which is true - it's quite difficult to tax in francs and spend in lira. They also expected that once the monetary union was in place, fiscal union would follow quite shortly. This did not happen, but has nothing to do with "neoliberalism". Rather, it was prevented by us, as the electorate of these national governments, who have been rather sour on the idea, largely because nationalistic sentiment is still relatively high.

This is also the same reason that Germany didn't contribute more to Greece. It had nothing to do with "neoliberalism", and everything to do with the fact Germans (working class Germans, at that, displaying all of the political influence you don't seem to think they should have given "neoliberalism") would have voted her out of office if she tried. The Euro's main failing is that it was born too soon - European sentiment is too weak to put in place the necessary institutions. However, none of this affected us anyway, because the UK was not and never had to become a Eurozone member. So it ends up being an utterly facile reason to vote Leave.

All in all, I think you have only a very basic and limited understanding of political ideology, economics, the workings of the Eurozone, and indeed the entire spectrum of the debate over Europe.

There's actually a study on the term "Neoliberal" from 2015:http://personal.lse.ac.uk/venugopr/venugopal2014augneoliberalism.pdf

Unsuprisingly, they also found the term to be complete bollocks:

It advances a case that neoliberalism has become a deeply problematic and incoherent term that has multiple and contradictory meanings, and thus has diminished analytical value. In addition, the paper also explores the one-­sided, morally laden usage of the term by non-­economists to describe economic phenomena, and the way that this serves to signify and reproduce the divide between economics and the rest of the social sciences.

"Neoliberal" says absolutely nothing about the thing it's describing and absolutely everything about the person using it.

 

[Beefy]

So we have:

May: I hate privacy and human rights + fuck EU migrants already here.

Crabb: Homosexuality can be cured with a pill + that's treat the sick and disabled like lab rats

Leadsom: Another religious nutter + won't publish her tax returns + wants to make Britain great again.

Gove: Stabs any one in the back + is best mates with Murdoch.

Sounds amazing...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

First of all, the history of the word neoliberalism when it used to have a different meaning is completely irrelevant to the discussion, what it means and is now it's what I described. And yes that fucked up system was created by American economists, Milton Friedman was the scumbag that popularized it and his mentor whatever the fuck his name was was the one who basically created it (even though you and many other could argue otherwise since the ideas were already there). And I know what you're going to say, laissez faire is what they created not neoliberalism the way I'm using the word, yes in theory, in practice though even when Friedman was directly involved in neoliberal governments' policies it was ALWAYS used to benefit corporations and banks.

Friedman argued for monetarism and competitive market exposure. He was virulently anti-corporatocracy, and wrote several pieces denouncing monopolies and the closeness of business and the political elite. He was, if anything, closest to being a libertarian. Thatcher adopted pieces of Friedman (specifically monetarism) for a brief period in the early 1980s, but dropped them by the late 1980s. Her main economic inspiration was Minford (who was and is an ass and a terrible person and also very unlikeable if you actually meet him in person, but that's another matter).

Now, there are reasons to denounce all of those things - almost no economists are monetarists any more because it simply didn't work; unbridled competition with support for those exposed to it has severe harms which were not sufficiently considered; and for political reasons competition reforms were much more focused on the labour market than on firms. But these are real theories with their own names, principles, and assumptions. Lumping them together under "neoliberalism" is nonsense. I'm very happy to sit here and criticise monetarism. The rational expectations premise and Lucas' surprise don't accurately depict reality, and make for bad assumptions, hence monetarism failed. But if you're going to do it, do it properly. Explicitly set out which ideas you are criticizing and why. Is neoliberalism monetarism? Is it an unhealthy relationship between political elites and business? Is it pro-competition policies (which, if done properly, are arguably *anti*-business)? Tell us exactly which one you mean, and why it is bad, and we'll probably agree. Tell us "they're neoliberal!" tells us absolutely nothing.

If you think that EU doesn't stand for corporatocracy maybe you haven't read enough about how Brussels works noawadays or the army of corporate lobbyists that are basically running it. Here, read an article I found from a quick google search to start you off: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate

Of course there are lobbyists. There are lobbyists in every political system on earth. I can't stand them either; I wish as much as you we could abolish their influence. The question is not "does the EU have lobbyists", it is "relatively, is the UK more or less subject to the influence of lobbyists as an EU member or a non-EU member?".

As a comparison, in 2007 the UK lobbying industry was worth £1.9bn. By contrast, the entire EU lobbying industry in 2014 was worth €1.5 billion (£1.26bn). When you consider as well the fact that the UK is a smaller market with a smaller number of politicians to influence, lobbying is much worse at a UK-scale than an EU-scale. So you've not improved our corporatocracy at all, you've removed us from an arena where we faced relatively less of it. Well done.

As for your last paragraph, there are no words. You claim to have a masters in economics and you downplay the enormous advantage of a country having control of its economy and being able to devalue its currency in a time of need. The Euro is often compared to the gold standard because that's what it is for many countries and the reason why the European South is still being pillaged. As for the myth about the creators of Euro actually wanting a true fiscal union, it's complete bullshit. Germany, France and other powerful nations at the time would never tax their citizens to support poor nations.

I didn't downplay the value of being able to devalue a currency. It's very important to be able to devalue your currency if you don't have a fiscal union with your trading partners. What I said was: the fact the Euro has ended up in the situation it has, has nothing to do with "neoliberalism", or monetarism. You mentioned Milton Friedman? He opposed the introduction of the Euro precisely because of the lack of fiscal union (also lack of market convergence). Economists who argued for the introduction of the Euro also argued for greater fiscal integration, which they thought was a political possibility.

It wasn't, because you are quite right that Germany and France are unwilling to tax their citizens to support poorer EU nations. However, that, again, has nothing to do with "neoliberalism". The people you identified "neoliberalism" with (Friedman, for example), would have begged Germany and France to ignore the political demands of their citizens and to institute fiscal union. The reason Germany and France didn't do this is because the working class tends to have stronger nationalistic sentiment and would have voted any government that tried out of office - which goes against your idea that everything is the fault of big business (I mean, a lot of it is, but things are much more complex than that). Why do you think that the National Front, UKIP, AfD, all do better with the old industrial working class?

It basically comes down to this, the ruling class of powerful European nations created the EU free market and monetary union to sell their shit much much easier but NEVER wanted a fiscal union because that would mean actually paying for the enormous benefits of this union. Ever since they have either decimated or taken over the competition in most nations with weaker infrastructure and they continue to sell their shit to weaker european nations creating there huge deficits which much be corrected by pillaging the populations and national wealth of those nations.

If this was true, the United Kingdom would have joined so that we could have benefited. You can't say that this was a cabal of the banking industry twisting our political class and then ignore when the political class in Europe most under the leash of the banking industry does the opposite.

I also find it ridiculous how you blame The German working class for this when they have been subjected to years of racist propaganda against the European South because their systemic media wanted to divert attention from the complete and utter incompetence and greed of the German banks which afterall were the ones that were bailed out in 2009.

I'm not attaching moral blame, I'm just saying the German working class has been the biggest barrier to further European integration. Now, I agree that nationalistic sentiment has been whipped up by a corrosive media across Europe. I don't think that has much to do with wanting to divert attention from banks so much as wanting to sell papers - "Greek scroungers robbing Germany babies" sells papers, "Greek people turn out to be entirely ordinary and not really any different from you or I" tends not to.

However, at the end of the day, the question still comes back to "in which world are we more affected by political lobbying/the unhealthy relationship between big business and elites?". And the answer to that question is not "outside the EU", not when the United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in terms of all the things you've just complained about to a much bigger extent than the European Union. Maybe in some alternate universe where a revived Labour party was in a position to offer genuine socialist reforms, you'd have a case. You don't. You live in a universe where Theresa May is going to be the next Prime Minister. Well done, you played yourself.

Also, systemic isn't used like that.

 

[Dead Man]

Yes, I did.

This, for example, is a good paragraph: "Pledging to scrap an EU quotas system that forces fishermen to throw away or "discard" up to 80 per cent of their catch, Mrs Damanaki apologised for a policy that has pushed Europe's fish stocks to the brink of extinction."



She's talking about one EU regulation replacing another EU regulation. I linked the article to illustrate that their fishing policies were so bad, they even apologized for it.

Are you saying regulations forcing smaller catches have resulted in fish stocks declining?

 

[accel]

That explains why the worldleader in human clinical trials is a European Union nation.

Here're some words on clinical trials and the EU:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-scientists-would-be-better-off-out-of-the-eu-w5md8gj6s

 

[anonymous_abc]

Here're some words on clinical trials and the EU:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-scientists-would-be-better-off-out-of-the-eu-w5md8gj6s

yet Brexit Is a Disaster for Science, Researchers Warn

 

[GamerMax73]

I have to say.. I like Andrea Leadsom,,,

Got to say, hearing her speak on Andrew Marr yesterday had me swaying. Still never takes long before someone on here reminds me they are Tories and why I should hate the lot of 'em

Early doors I thought Fox vs May was the strongest pairing. But Fox can't get off the starting blocks and initial polling suggested it would be Crabb vs May. Now Leadsom it taking a rear guard action and overtaking her rivals. So it might just be Leadsom vs May after all.

A few of positives we can take out of the situation at least -

• Gove never stood a chance, thank god
• The wider Tory party historically never crowns the parliamentary favourite
• Anyone but May

Still, given it doesn't sound like any of the runners will try to call a snap election - we'll remain in a shit sorry state as a nation for years to come regardless who wins in the end. Not having a united Labour opposition really is just going to make matter worse.

I still think our best hope going forward is a united Labour joining with other parties, and hopefully some disenfranchised Tory backbenchers, to pull together a vote of no confidence.

 

[*Splinter]

So we have:

May: I hate privacy and human rights + fuck EU migrants already here.

Crabb: Homosexuality can be cured with a pill + that's treat the sick and disabled like lab rats

Leadsom: Another religious nutter + won't publish her tax returns + wants to make Britain grest again.

Gove: Stabs any one in the back + is best mates with Murdoc.

Sounds amazing...

Well we might get another GE, in which case we can also look forward to...

Labour: Somehow had a worse week than the Tories.

Lib Dem: These guys are still around, right?

SNP: Limited availability

UKIP: ...

Spoiler

No I didn't "forget" the Greens

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well we might get another GE, in which case we can also look forward to...

Labour: Somehow had a worse week than the Tories.

Lib Dem: These guys are still around, right?

SNP: Limited availability

UKIP: ...

Spoiler

No I didn't "forget" the Greens

I will write in for Nicola Sturgeon. There is no Queen but the Queen in the North.

 

[kmag]

Got to say, hearing her speak on Andrew Marr yesterday had me swaying. Still never takes long before someone on here reminds me they are Tories and why I should hate the lot of 'em

Early doors I thought Fox vs May was the strongest pairing. But Fox can't get off the starting blocks and initial polling suggested it would be Crabb vs May. Now Leadsom it taking a rear guard action and overtaking her rivals. So it might just be Leadsom vs May after all.

A few of positives we can take out of the situation at least -

• Gove never stood a chance, thank god
• The wider Tory party historically never crowns the parliamentary favourite
• Anyone but May

Still, given it doesn't sound like any of the runners will try to call a snap election - we'll remain in a shit sorry state as a nation for years to come regardless who wins in the end. Not having a united Labour opposition really is just going to make matter worse.

I still think our best hope going forward is a united Labour joining with other parties, and hopefully some disenfranchised Tory backbenchers, to pull together a vote of no confidence.

If it's May vs Leadsom, the Tory masses will go for Leadsom. She ticks too many boxes for them not to resist.

 

[*Splinter]

Got to say, hearing her speak on Andrew Marr yesterday had me swaying. Still never takes long before someone on here reminds me they are Tories and why I should hate the lot of 'em

Early doors I thought Fox vs May was the strongest pairing. But Fox can't get off the starting blocks and initial polling suggested it would be Crabb vs May. Now Leadsom it taking a rear guard action and overtaking her rivals. So it might just be Leadsom vs May after all.

A few of positives we can take out of the situation at least -

• Gove never stood a chance, thank god
• The wider Tory party historically never crowns the parliamentary favourite
• Anyone but May

Still, given it doesn't sound like any of the runners will try to call a snap election - we'll remain in a shit sorry state as a nation for years to come regardless who wins in the end. Not having a united Labour opposition really is just going to make matter worse.

I still think our best hope going forward is a united Labour joining with other parties, and hopefully some disenfranchised Tory backbenchers, to pull together a vote of no confidence.

Personally I'd take May over any of the other options (although I know nothing of Fox). She seems the least keen to tank our economy, and I don't care about privacy as much as I should.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Also, the distance between Riddick and blackcrane's arguments for why we should leave the EU, one arguing for a socialist utopia and the other a libertarian paradise, are a pretty good demonstration of how crazily contradictory most of the Leave sides' opinions are.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Here're some words on clinical trials and the EU:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-scientists-would-be-better-off-out-of-the-eu-w5md8gj6s

I guess if you actively go looking for #Leave supporter editorials then you'll find anything to justify your position

 

[accel]

Are you saying regulations forcing smaller catches have resulted in fish stocks declining?

Yes, I think it was cuts to quotas and fishing time, but I might be mistaken. The important thing is not what I think about that, the important thing is what the industry thinks about that, and it is pretty unanimous that the single thing that went wrong with fishing was the EU regulations.

yet Brexit Is a Disaster for Science, Researchers Warn

So, there's grounds to talk.

I guess if you actively go looking for #Leave supporter editorials then you'll find anything to justify your position

How are we supposed to tell what's real and what's just there to support some "obviously flawed" point of view? A show of hands? Then yes, you are right, I am wrong, the UK should have stayed, because that's what the thread thinks.

 

[KingSnake]

Yes, I did.

This, for example, is a good paragraph: "Pledging to scrap an EU quotas system that forces fishermen to throw away or "discard" up to 80 per cent of their catch, Mrs Damanaki apologised for a policy that has pushed Europe's fish stocks to the brink of extinction."



She's talking about one EU regulation replacing another EU regulation. I linked the article to illustrate that their fishing policies were so bad, they even apologized for it.

Read it again. And again. The previous policies failed because there was an yearly negotiation between governments and no measures in place to counter over-fishing except forcing throwing the fish back into the sea. Fishes that were already dead. And the over-fishing was so bad that 80% of the catch was above the quota. And that made the fishes population to be almost endangered.

So they decided to replace that bargaining with a 15 years plan that would consider the scientific analysis for the industry to be sustainable.

And this you use as an argument to give the power back to the government? The same government that was saying "80% of the catch is over the quota? Bad luck! The fish is already dead now so better to eat it than to throw it back". Lol.

 

[maquiladora]

Here're some words on clinical trials and the EU:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-scientists-would-be-better-off-out-of-the-eu-w5md8gj6s

'Some words' written by a Conservative member of the undemocratic House Of Lords, with this glorious claim to fame:

Ridley was chairman of the UK bank Northern Rock from 2004 to 2007, during which period Northern Rock experienced the first run on a British bank in 150 years. Ridley chose to resign, and the bank was bailed out by the UK government

:lol

 

[GamerMax73]

So we have:

May: I hate privacy and human rights + fuck EU migrants already here.

Crabb: Homosexuality can be cured with a pill + that's treat the sick and disabled like lab rats

Leadsom: Another religious nutter + won't publish her tax returns + wants to make Britain great again.

Gove: Stabs any one in the back + is best mates with Murdoc.

Sounds amazing...

Then we have the opposition.....{Tumbleweed}

 

[GamerMax73]

Lib Dem: These guys are still around, right?

UKIP....

Spoiler

No I didn't "forget" the Greens

Well, if we had a snap election, in the current political climate, I think some of these guys could be the real winners. Certainly enough gains across the board to see another hung parliament.

 

[inoperativ]

I imagine the tens of thousands who currently work those jobs probably would.

Which is at most a couple of percent of the population of London, and whose jobs would (at least until last Friday) quickly have been replaced by private sector jobs. Those workers would be free to move with their jobs to Manchester, Cardiff, or wherever they would end up, or take a severance package and find a new one.

I will write in for Nicola Sturgeon. There is no Queen but the Queen in the North.

*fistbump*

I think the SNP would have an actual chance of picking up some urban English seats if there was a GE in the next couple of months and they stood candidates there.

 

[Joni]

She's talking about one EU regulation replacing another EU regulation. I linked the article to illustrate that their fishing policies were so bad, they even apologized for it.

She is talking about an EU regulation that gave too much power to the national governments discussing it, which is at best what you are proposing, which she replaced with tighter regulation. She is showing how tighter regulation is better.

Yes, I think it was cuts to quotas and fishing time, but I might be mistaken. The important thing is not what I think about that, the important thing is what the industry thinks about that, and it is pretty unanimous that the single thing that went wrong with fishing was the EU regulations.

Then you should really not have used an article that poses more EU regulations vetted by technocrats as the solution to a system that was still too much reliant on national governments, even if just at a European level. It basically says the complete opposite of what you want: that more rules are better, as she needed more regulations to solve the continuining problem.

Here're some words on clinical trials and the EU:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-scientists-would-be-better-off-out-of-the-eu-w5md8gj6s

Scientists have clearly claimed the inverse, as has the current situation of failing deals through the Brexit uncertainty. A journalist sitting on the House of the Lords might not have the relevant on the job experience to get a good feel of the current situation.

 

[GamerMax73]

Personally I'd take May over any of the other options (although I know nothing of Fox). She seems the least keen to tank our economy, and I don't care about privacy as much as I should.

Yeah, I was saying that until i remembered who the Dark Lady of the Sith was. Her record on personal freedoms and privacy sends shivers up my spine.

 

[accel]

Read it again. And again. The previous policies failed because there was an yearly negotiation between governments and no measures in place to counter over-fishing except forcing throwing the fish back into the sea. Fishes that were already dead. And the over-fishing was so bad that 80% of the catch was above the quota. And that made the fishes population to be almost endangered.

So they decided to replace that bargaining with a 15 years plan that would consider the scientific analysis for the industry to be sustainable.

And this you use as an argument to give the power back to the government? The same government that was saying "80% of the catch is over the quota? Bad luck! The fish is already dead now so better to eat it than to throw it back". Lol.

The "battle between national governments" was the result of one EU regulation.

She proposed another EU regulation she thinks would be better.

I am using this to show that the EU did a bad job regulating fishing, that the UK's fishing in particular suffered, and that the UK's fishing would be better off without the EU (because it was better when the EU was not there).

She is talking about an EU regulation that gave too much power to the national governments discussing it, which is at best what you are proposing, which she replaced with tighter regulation. She is showing how tighter regulation is better.

She is not showing, she is thinking it would be better. And it might be better, but that's not a high mark to hit given how disastrous what they did before was.

Then you should really not have used an article that poses more EU regulations vetted by technocrats as the solution to a system that was still too much reliant on national governments, even if just at a European level. It basically says the complete opposite of what you want: that more rules are better, as she needed more regulations to solve the continuining problem.

I used the article to show that the policies were so bad that the EU apologized for them.

I don't care about what the EU thinks should work better, the point was that what they did was terrible.

 

[anonymous_abc]

The "battle between national governments" was the result of one EU regulation.

She proposed another EU regulation she thinks would be better.

I am using this to show that the EU did a bad job regulating fishing, that the UK's fishing in particular suffered, and that the UK's fishing would be better off without the EU (because it was better when the EU was not there).

The steam engine industry was also better when the EU was not there. So I am looking forward to its resurgence.

 

[Joni]

I am using this to show that the EU did a bad job regulating fishing, that the UK's fishing in particular suffered, and that the UK's fishing would be better off without the EU (because it was better when the EU was not there).

It was better because nobody gave a fuck about overfishing. It was the 50s. It is important to reduce the capacity. That is not something done to spite the British, that is done to stop overfishing and give populations a chance to regenerate.

I used the article to show that the policies were so bad that the EU apologized for them. I don't care about what the EU thinks should work better, the point was that what they did was terrible.

And yet it still proves the complete opposite of your point.

 

[Micael]

the only time i didn't get that reaction was they pivoted to a different argument which was much less extreme than "the EU is undemocratic" (Transparancy and accountability) at which point I agreed with them but disagreed that it was a reason to leave the EU over.

Which is still an extremely questionable position, considering that we are talking in a topic regarding a campaign where there was a literal bus with lies, with the politicians supporting those lies and preaching them, stepping down and not wanting to deal with the mess and so on, for which realistically the accountability that exists for it, comes in the form of politicians trying to out screw one another.

Fishing, eh?

It is almost as if there is a real reason to limit fishing, I mean not that there is one, as we all know much like global warming, overfishing is a fear campaign run by the ruling class to keep us peasants from rising up.

The point is that it would very likely trigger tit-for-tat responses across Europe because to do anything other would be prejudicial to any non-UK migrant in Europe.

Its a shit-storm in the making.

The larger issue however is that noone is in a position to make unilateral assurances, not the UK government or the EU. In order to do that discussions/policy would have to be set prior to the enactment of art. 50. Something that is "impossible" according to the EU, and a neccessity according to the UK govt. Ergo, its a point of leverage.

But it hasn't triggered a tit-for-tat, it has only done the opposite, it only makes the EU look better and more reasonable, as I said it's a weak bargaining chip, because following through has far far bigger negative impacts to the UK than it does for the EU, it's like threatening to shoot yourself in front of someone, sure that other person will have your blood all over them, which is unpleasant, but the brunt of the damage is still on the person that shot themselves.

 

[KingSnake]

The "battle between national governments" was the result of one EU regulation.

She proposed another EU regulation she thinks would be better.

I am using this to show that the EU did a bad job regulating fishing, that the UK's fishing in particular suffered, and that the UK's fishing would be better off without the EU (because it was better when the EU was not there).



She is not showing, she is thinking it would be better. And it might be better, but that's not a high mark to hit given how disastrous what they did before was.

With UK out of EU it will be back to battle between national governments. At least for UK.

You really quoted an article that highlights the opposite of what you thought it shows. We all make mistakes. There's no shame to admit when you're wrong, you know?

 

[accel]

The steam engine industry was also better when the EU was not there. So I am looking forward to its resurgence.

If you mean to say that the fishing industry suffered not because of the EU, sure, go ahead, but from what I read, the industry thinks otherwise and the EU themselves think they did a bad job.

With UK out of EU it will be back to battle between national governments. At least for UK.

You really quoted an article that highlights the opposite of what you thought it shows. We all make mistakes. There's no shame to admit when you're wrong, you know?

I said why I linked the article, I stand by my reason and I don't know why I have to repeat it for the third time. There was no mistake.

Yes, it will be back to battle between national governments, but the UK won't be subject to EU regulations - unless that's made part of a bigger deal.

 

[Dougald]

The steam engine industry was also better when the EU was not there. So I am looking forward to its resurgence.

British Leyland will come back too! We'll all be driving poorly-made cars with horrible imperial bolts on them before we know it. At least until the picket lines shut down production

 

[Hasney]

It was better because nobody gave a fuck about overfishing. It was the 50s.

Yeah and if they were allowed to continue, fishing would be even worse right now since there would be close to fuck all to catch.

 

[Maledict]

Yes, I think it was cuts to quotas and fishing time, but I might be mistaken. The important thing is not what I think about that, the important thing is what the industry thinks about that, and it is pretty unanimous that the single thing that went wrong with fishing was the EU regulations.



So, there's grounds to talk.



How are we supposed to tell what's real and what's just there to support some "obviously flawed" point of view? A show of hands? Then yes, you are right, I am wrong, the UK should have stayed, because that's what the thread thinks.

The fishing industry across the world has been repeatedly killing itself in the long term through massive over fishing and destruction of the fishing stocks. Im really not sure I'm going to listen one bit to an industry that deliberately dooms itself in the long term.

Gods, the fishing industry is a text book example of why you need pan-national regulations and restrictions.

 

[Micael]

If you mean to say that the fishing industry suffered not because of the EU, sure, go ahead, but from what I read, the industry thinks otherwise and the EU themselves think they did a bad job.

If the industry was free to do as it liked, we would very much have a tragedy of the commons type of situation on our hand.

 

[*Splinter]

I will write in for Nicola Sturgeon. There is no Queen but the Queen in the North.

Not a bad idea, assuming there isn't a realistic pro-Remain option. But as long as the GE isn't this year I hope to be voting for Sturgeon directly

Well, if we had a snap election, in the current political climate, I think some of these guys could be the real winners. Certainly enough gains across the board to see another hung parliament.

I agree with you, but the biggest shift I can see is from Labour to UKIP. I hope that's just me showing my ignorance and not in any way realistic.

(Also smaller shifts from Labour to Lib Dem and Tory to UKIP)

 

[D4Danger]

The steam engine industry was also better when the EU was not there. So I am looking forward to its resurgence.

you joke but I guarantee there's a good number of people that would like to go back. they think 50s Britain was an idyllic paradise not a war-torn shithole.

 

[Joni]

If only there was a reliable alternative to fishing that the United Kingdom could apply instead of blindly grasping at straws.

The three largest aquaculture producers among EU Member States were Spain, the United Kingdom and France, which together accounted for more than half (53 %) of total EU-28 aquaculture production in 2013.

From the estimated total economic value of EU-28 aquaculture production of EUR 3.85 billion, Atlantic salmon produced by far the highest economic value (almost EUR 0.9 billion) although the species is cultivated in only a few EU countries and mostly in the United Kingdom. Second most important species in terms of economic value was rainbow trout, followed by Pacific cupped oyster in third Gilthead seabream in fourth, and European seabass in fifth.

 

[Beefy]

Oh I forgot Fox:

War-mongering MP who has already been shamed into a resignation from his defence post. Broken ministerial code and parliamentary rules countless times, having freebie trips paid for by private parties and was embroiled in the expenses saga.

Also cozying right up to Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Gattsu25]

Excellent summary of the last week in UK politics

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lukebailey/the-crisis-explained-maybe?utm_term=.ewrP8qDxz#.we05wQJB8

That's pretty good. Thanks

 

[thecosmicfly]

Every piece of Brexit news just makes me imagine this as the endgame.

It can't come soon enough.

 

[Oriel]

I think you can at least say the chains of accountability are less direct for Juncker.

Here's how David Cameron is elected:

Voters vote for their local MP. MPs then give confidence to whoever can form a government.

So it is voters ---> MPs ---> Prime Minister.

Here's how Juncker is elected.

Voters vote for their local representatives. Their local representatives then form a government. That government then nominates a commissioner. All of the governments together select a candidate by qualified majority. That candidate then requires the support of the European Parliament.

So it is voters ---> representatives ---> governments ----+----> President
voters ---> European representatives ---------------------------|

Here's how Cameron is "elected". The Queen appoints him. That's it. The Commons has no say in who is PM. Since 2014 the EP now chooses who becomes Commission President and has the power written into treaties to reject any Council nominee that isn't of their choosing. The election of Juncker sets the precendence that the EP chooses the head of the European executive.

 

[accel]

The fishing industry across the world has been repeatedly killing itself in the long term through massive over fishing and destruction of the fishing stocks. Im really not sure I'm going to listen one bit to an industry that deliberately dooms itself in the long term.

Gods, the fishing industry is a text book example of why you need pan-national regulations and restrictions.

If the industry was free to do as it liked, we would very much have a tragedy of the commons type of situation on our hand.

You are talking like it's either the EU regulation or no regulation. This is not the case.

Yes, there need to be some controls. The EU's ones were terrible. That's the point.

 

[Hasney]

If only there was a reliable alternative to fishing that the United Kingdom could apply instead of blindly grasping at straws.

The only issue with that is cod is still the most popular and is a bitch to breed.

Here's Norways take:

High mortality in the larvae and early fry stage
One of the biggest challenges in intensive cod farming is high mortality in the larvae and early fry stage. In contrast to salmon, which are fed pellets from an early stage, the cod larvae are dependent on live feed after the yolk sac phase. Throughout the different larva stages, cod need prey of increasing size. Today, most cod fry are produced indoors where environmental factors such as temperature, light and water chemistry can be controlled. The living prey of the cod larva is also produced indoors and is added to the water together with algae or algae concentrate. This so-called “green water” improves the survival of the larva. The growth of cod larvae can be substantial, with body weight increases of up to 15% in a day. After some time, the larvae are adapted to pellets. The pellets used in cod farming are considerably leaner than those used in salmon farming.

After the larvae and early fry stage, the production of cod is very similar to the production of salmon. However, there are some differences between the species. Farmed cod will usually spawn at the age of two years and a weight of approximately two kilos. This is unfortunate, as the spawning leads to bad appetite and therefore slower growth. Furthermore, school behaviour is not so well developed in cod populations and the cod tend to swim along the net walls and bottom. When moved to sea, the chance of escapes is greater in cod farming as the cod seem more tempted by the outside world and tend to bite on the nets.

http://www.fisheries.no/aquaculture/aquaculture_species/Farmed-cod/#.V3pb-vkrKM9

 

[CyclopsRock]

Which is at most a couple of percent of the population of London, and whose jobs would (at least until last Friday) quickly have been replaced by private sector jobs. Those workers would be free to move with their jobs to Manchester, Cardiff, or wherever they would end up, or take a severance package and find a new one.

Well, they'd leave a roughly equal sized void in London as they'd generate in the other cities combined. I wasn't really offering it as a reason not to do it (I don't care), but to say "No one in London would care" when you're talking about tens of thousands of well paid, highly skilled jobs is obviously not true.

 

[shinra-bansho]

but the UK won't be subject to EU regulations - unless that's made part of a bigger deal.

Except it will. I'm not sure why you ignore this simple reality. It is borne out in example. It is not controversial. Retaining access for a particular industry into the common market will hinge on compliance with EU regulation for that given industry.

 

[Riddick]

Friedman argued for monetarism and competitive market exposure. He was virulently anti-corporatocracy, and wrote several pieces denouncing monopolies and the closeness of business and the political elite. He was, if anything, closest to being a libertarian. Thatcher adopted pieces of Friedman (specifically monetarism) for a brief period in the early 1980s, but dropped them by the late 1980s. Her main economic inspiration was Minford (who was and is an ass and a terrible person and also very unlikeable if you actually meet him in person, but that's another matter).

Now, there are reasons to denounce all of those things - almost no economists are monetarists any more because it simply didn't work; unbridled competition with support for those exposed to it has severe harms which were not sufficiently considered; and for political reasons competition reforms were much more focused on the labour market than on firms. But these are real theories with their own names, principles, and assumptions. Lumping them together under "neoliberalism" is nonsense. I'm very happy to sit here and criticise monetarism. The rational expectations premise and Lucas' surprise don't accurately depict reality, and make for bad assumptions, hence monetarism failed. But if you're going to do it, do it properly. Explicitly set out which ideas you are criticizing and why. Is neoliberalism monetarism? Is it an unhealthy relationship between political elites and business? Is it pro-competition policies (which, if done properly, are arguably *anti*-business)? Tell us exactly which one you mean, and why it is bad, and we'll probably agree. Tell us "they're neoliberal!" tells us absolutely nothing.

Both dipshits end up supporting Thatcher despite minor complaints: http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/la...ship_with_friedrich_hayek_and_milton_friedman . Not to mention Friedman basically being a close ally and advisor of the butcher Pinochet who also ignored basic principles of laizez faire when it wasn't convenient for multinational corporations and banks. Tell us more about how laizez faire isn't neoliberalism in practice, NOT theory...

Of course there are lobbyists. There are lobbyists in every political system on earth. I can't stand them either; I wish as much as you we could abolish their influence. The question is not "does the EU have lobbyists", it is "relatively, is the UK more or less subject to the influence of lobbyists as an EU member or a non-EU member?".

As a comparison, in 2007 the UK lobbying industry was worth £1.9bn. By contrast, the entire EU lobbying industry in 2014 was worth €1.5 billion (£1.26bn). When you consider as well the fact that the UK is a smaller market with a smaller number of politicians to influence, lobbying is much worse at a UK-scale than an EU-scale. So you've not improved our corporatocracy at all, you've removed us from an arena where we faced relatively less of it. Well done.

Do you have a source on these numbers? If they're real and don't exclude a shitload of EU organizations you do make a good point but there is still the matter of accountability I mentioned before which makes lobbyists far more effective.

However, at the end of the day, the question still comes back to "in which world are we more affected by political lobbying/the unhealthy relationship between big business and elites?". And the answer to that question is not "outside the EU", not when the United Kingdom is one of the world leaders in terms of all the things you've just complained about to a much bigger extent than the European Union. Maybe in some alternate universe where a revived Labour party was in a position to offer genuine socialist reforms, you'd have a case. You don't. You live in a universe where Theresa May is going to be the next Prime Minister. Well done, you played yourself.

I have already talked about that. The current administration is exactly like you're describing but things could change with politicians like Corbyn. On the other hand things have stayed the same and will continue being the same in the EU since it neither has an actual government the European people can vote for plus it offers precious lack of accountability for politicians so that they can pass whatever the fuck they want and blame it on EU.

As for the rest of your post we basically agree that Euro without the fiscal union is a disaster but you refuse to acknowledge the role media and the ones who control said media play in that or who really benefits from such a fucked up system.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Here's how Cameron is "elected". The Queen appoints him. That's it. The Commons has no say in who is PM. Since 2014 the EP now chooses who becomes Commission President and has the power written into treaties to reject any Council nominee that isn't of their choosing. The election of Juncker sets the precendence that the EP chooses the head of the European executive.

I mean, in practical terms, the Queen hasn't refused to appoint the leader of the largest party in the largest coalition since Sir William Harcourt was passed over for Earl Rosenberry in 1894. It might not be constitutionally explicit, but since the UK is largely governed by convention, the Prime Minister is de facto decided by the dual process of elections in the House of Commons and internal party proceedings.

The EP may have veto power over the President, but they don't have right of nomination, which they should - that shouldn't be a matter for the Council. The head of the European executive should also be drawn from the European Parliament itself (as is standard for parliamentary models), rather than the Commission.