I am aware, of course, that for some in the UK school holidays ended some time ago. But where I am today feels like the last day of the summer holiday. One weekend to go and next week will very definitely be in return to school / college mode.
I can't say that I am sorry. I like summer, and I like holidays. I also like 'normal time'. That's when change happens, and change for the better is what interests me.
That is also why I have a greater than normal sense of foreboding as this summer ends. When my best hope for the UK at present is that overall things may get no worse there is little cause for optimism.
Brexit is, of course, the cause for this. Even the most hardened enthusiast must now be wondering what all this is about when it is now so obvious that the only way to make Brexit work is to replicate EU membership outside the EU. So much human endeavour will be expended for so little advance in human well-being. One has to ask why.
And it is then beholden upon us to wonder at what opprtunity to really make this country a better place to live has been lost in the process.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Well, I may sound cynical to you, but I think the best that has come from a (so far only “initiated”!) Brexit is actually the fact that the EU27 had to reconsider their inter-EU relationships – and have decided to even INTENSIFY their cooperation in various fields.
But then, I’m “on the other side”, one of EU27 states – where many British like(d!) to spend their holidays.
That too may change in YOUR next holiday season. You may thank Brits like Farage, Boris and the likes for this …
Quote: “Even the most hardened enthusiast must now be wondering what all this is about when it is now so obvious that the only way to make Brexit work is to replicate EU membership outside the EU.”
Really? Is that the destiny of all countries outside the EU? That they can only survive if they submit to EU law? There may be a transition, but if that is the conclusion then that does harden my resolve to both exit and assist others.
Quote: “So much human endeavour will be expended for so little advance in human well-being. One has to ask why.”
I am a massive supporter of people like yourself. However, for every step you take forward there are 100 corporate lawyers shuffling to out-flank you. Super massive political systems enhance their power because ultimately the complexity of the system requires their expertise… Hence lobbying and revolving door corruption.
The world is changing faster than the ability to plug the holes. Hence, Brexit, Trump, Macron/Le Pen, 5 Star.
Even if you see the EU as benevolent (and I do), what happens when it suddenly isn’t. To say it has checks an balances is easily dismissed. We were told that when the benevolent Obama was in power. Nobody thought the US was a threat. Then suddenly every does.
The world is not adult enough to have super-massive political systems. Period.
So let’s reform it
What practical steps do you suggest could be taken and by whom to initiate the process of reform?
Another time …. not Friday evening…
“Really? Is that the destiny of all countries outside the EU? That they can only survive if they submit to EU law?… if that is the conclusion then that does harden my resolve to both exit and assist others.”
And there we have the absolute essence of what has gone wrong here: in order to have international trade, we need to make mutual agreements including around the governance of law. Talking about ‘submitting’ is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what’s going on: again (to use a terminally-abused phrase) ‘loss of sovereignty’ is the only currency with which you can make international agreements. The trick is to frame it in a constructive way which confers benefits to both participants, and the EU is, whilst far from perfect, one of the best examples out there – one over which we exercised an degree of influence disproportionate to our size. Trying to go it alone, we will find that every agreement we make inhibits our ability to make further ones: we will find we have humongously less ‘sovereignty’ by the time this all plays out. And at the heart of it is this child-like frustration at not being able to do what we want, and the failure to understand the fundamental currency of international trade…
You are right Ian
It’s like any relationship: to gain the advantages you have to give something up. If you don’t you can guarantee one party is abusing the other
Maybe this comment will not get posted because you check each comment and you are busy. I appreciate that.
But the statements you and Ian Gibson made did not follow from the point I made. Your original implication was that we must follow “EU” law to trade with the EU. I questioned that and you and Ian state the generic “of course there is give and take”. But that is my point. It is not incumbent upon a smaller nation to always submit to the wishes of the larger nation and follow their laws. In practice it doesn’t happen (Asian producers do no follow EU Health and safety or Employment laws etc) and secondly each country should meet somewhere in the middle or accept different standards.
I wish for the different standards in most cases. The reason we have clone town Britain is because of excessive standardisation which makes mass production possible which supports the corporations killing off small and family owned businesses.
Sorry. That is just the start so I will stop there. But making trading laws perfect for Corporations and then trying to control the Corporations IS the problem.
I wonder how many deals you have done? Contracts nominate a law that will apply. Usually it is the law of the dominant partner for good reason. That is exactly why EU law is always likely to apply
I am sorry but we are saying the same thing. Smaller Political/Economic entities must follow larger ones. Therefore larger ones destroy the autonomy of smaller units. That becomes homogenised Superstates and Corporations. You want to lay they groundwork for their dominance and then try to control them. Perhaps you need to rethink your strategy.
“Clone town Britain”? The drive to European standardisation has been a huge boon to smaller businesses, opening up huge markets that they otherwise simply wouldn’t have had the resources to service with ‘special editions’ for each country. As someone who has been involved in international partnerships for most of my career, I can tell you that things have been made far easier by the trend towards standardisation.
(Richard, I know you check each comment – this is my last. To save time I can assure you there are no ad-hominems etc)
Again Ian, you and I are saying the same thing. You think the outcome is positive, I see it as negative.
Perhaps because your statement is logically inconsistent. I am saying standardisation kills local communities and specialities and forces people to expand or close. In closure, they must seek employment with the “winners” or move (free migration).
You say “European standardisation has been a huge boon to smaller businesses, opening up huge markets”… at which point they cease to be small businesses and must become larger to compete. So your logic doesn’t hold. With simple survivour bias we lionise their success and little data is available on the closures.
Standardisation kills culture. You cannot have a local cheese fermented in Bobs milk shed in Yorkshire because it doesn’t agree with standards of Nestle in Campangia. George Moinbot covers this quite well: http://www.monbiot.com/2016/12/10/the-golden-arches-theory-of-decline/ . Therefore, Bob must compete with Nestle by producing the same but perhaps with “local” packaging to try and survive another decade. It is the transfer of trust from the producer to the government (you don’t need to trust the person, the government tells you it is safe or he would be shut down). That is how local communities are destroyed. If you can trust Bob the same as you can trust Roberto a thousand miles away, then cheaper is the only measure. And cheaper is created with mass production (size, corporations etc etc). Standardisation “forces” you to grow and compete with people in places you never had anything in common with.
Whether you are talking Tescos in Andalucia where you can pay in GBP killing local producers, or Siemens ex-Execs sitting on the advisory boards for Electrical safety standards, In the end, standardisation makes us all dependent on what will be a few winners (and millions of tiny strugglers who will be forced to sell through Amazon… if they are lucky).
But this is a philosophical difference. Not a right and wrong.
(And both you and Richard need to drop the “I am experienced” claims. Argue the point. I have lived more than 2 years in 7 countries and started a business from scratch in 6 of them… Only 3 of those in Europe. I love diversity and not knowing what product to trust and working with building relationships with local people – perhaps you like visiting Puglia and going to a MacDonalds in an Uber and paying with a US credit card and then on to your Airbnb to plug in your Siemens plugs – hell, you don’t even have to talk to the locals).
And you were dropping the ad hominems?
I think you need to learn some lessons in arguing
I am genuinely sorry you read any personal attacks into my comments. I did open this thread with “I am a massive supporter of people like yourself.”
You can delete this comment. It is a simple apology if you feel I haven’t contributed.
I admit it felt like you hadn’t
But maybe we just got wires crossed which can happen, I admit
So let’s leave mutual respect intact. OK?
“Again Ian, you and I are saying the same thing. You think the outcome is positive, I see it as negative.”
We really aren’t. You keep using terms like ‘forced’, ‘submit,’ incumbent upon.’I suggest the apposite phrase would be ‘choice, because of the benefits that are, on balance, on offer.’ That difference is all the difference in the world.
“Perhaps because your statement is logically inconsistent. I am saying standardisation kills local communities and specialities and forces people to expand or close. In closure, they must seek employment with the “winners” or move (free migration).”
This is all mere assertion, and, as i shall show below, contrary to the evidence of experience.
“You say “European standardisation has been a huge boon to smaller businesses, opening up huge markets”… at which point they cease to be small businesses and must become larger to compete.” Again, mere assertion, contrary to what has been the actual experience over recent decades.
“Standardisation kills culture. You cannot have a local cheese fermented in Bobs milk shed in Yorkshire because it doesn’t agree with standards of Nestle in Campangia.” (And here comes the proof of the absurdity of your assertions:) the very craft foods industry to which you refer has grown hugely over recent times, not, as you insist, into massive industrial enterprises, but cottage industries, growing organically. Where pressure does arise for them is not from European standardisation, but the concentration of market share in supermarkets
… “Therefore, Bob must compete with Nestle by producing the same but perhaps with “local” packaging to try and survive another decade. It is the transfer of trust from the producer to the government (you don’t need to trust the person, the government tells you it is safe or he would be shut down).” Again, the exact opposite of recent experience: it is exactly the trust in the craft and the personal which has underpinned the extraordinary growth of the craft industry movements. Its enemy has been supermarket culture and market dominance, not European standards.
…” In the end, standardisation makes us all dependent on what will be a few winners” Again, not standardisation – and the bit you ignore is that it opens wide the chance to be those winners massively.
“(and millions of tiny strugglers who will be forced to sell through Amazon… if they are lucky).” There you go with that ‘forced’ thing again.
“But this is a philosophical difference. Not a right and wrong.” It’s a mis-reading of history, is what it is.
“And both you and Richard need to drop the “I am experienced” claims. Argue the point.” I can only speak from my experience. It informs my understanding: why on earth should I ‘drop it’? If you think it somehow threatens your authority to proclaim on the subject, that’s your problem, I’m saying nothing about that – how could I when, up to now, you hadn’t posted on it?
“I love diversity” What? surely standardisation has stamped that out by now? “and not knowing what product to trust ” I strongly suspect you don’t actually mean that, possibly rather that you prefer to make your own judgements? If so, that may be a comment as much on your character as on the nature of standardisation. In fact, factors of trust and the personal have undergone something of a renaissance in recent years even at the scale of multi-national industries such as Siemens, people having learned the hard way that contract alone simply cannot suffice.
“perhaps you like visiting Puglia and going to a MacDonalds in an Uber and paying with a US credit card and then on to your Airbnb to plug in your Siemens plugs — hell, you don’t even have to talk to the locals).” To use your own words, argue the point, and drop the personal.
For forty years the UK seems to have negotiated opt-outs for pretty much every EU policy. Now that “we” have decided to fully opt-out we wan’t to negotiate opt-ins.
Looking at the BREXIT press conference yesterday with a certain Mr Davis involved my heart sank.
This is about the Tory party saving face and selling the country down the river in the process (well actually its more like a creek now).
When politics begins to serve politics and not the voter we are in a really dark place.
The Tory neo-lib libertarians will use anything to achieve the structural change in order to get to a USA style ‘free market’ that their idiotology (sic) works towards.
All we can do is keep chipping away at it.
That’s the job spec
“So much human endeavour will be expended for so little advance in human well-being. One has to ask why.” It’s largely because we’re collectively stupid enough to put people in charge of the rest of us who have extraordinarily little in common with the majority. Metaphorically we might be said to be atop the storm-tossed seas while they remain snug and secure on dry land. All they do in office is reinforce that happy (for them) state of affairs. Brexit will not bother the Cameron and Osbornes one whit. What’s the point in electing them when they show no sign of being able to understand us, let alone represent us?
“So much human endeavour will be expended for so little advance in human well-being. One has to ask why.”
That’s an easy one.
The sole reason that the UK is in this mess is because PM (“Because I think I’d be rather good at it!) David Cameron thought it would be a wicked wheeze to promise in the Tory manifesto to hold a referendum on EU membership in order to pinch a few UKIP votes to try to achieve a parliamentary majority at the 2015 General Election – whilst, at the same time, catastrophically misreading the public mood, failing to offer any positive reasons for remaining, in spite of wheeling out almost the entire political and media establishment, refusing to countenance any result other than the one he arrogantly assumed would be delivered, and, crucially, enabling this can of worms to be opened without any plans or policies whatsoever for what his government would do in the event of a majority Leave vote.
The silver lining is that the Tories have now lost any reputation that they (fallaciously) had for being the natural and responsible party of government.
So that’s a plus!
Yes, I think I agree, Mr Shigemitsu, about Cameron’s wizard wheeze to undermine UKIP. By holding the referendum sooner rather than later he thought it would sail through as ‘Remain’. Few people were more surprised by the brexit outcome than Nigel Farage. This ploy worked with the Scottish Independence referendum – because there were too many unanswered questions to give confidence to the large element of the Scottish electorate who were still very doubtful about about the viability of Scotland on it’s own.
In the Brexit referendum Scottish voters held their noses to support Cameron Osborne because they took the prospect of brexit seriously and wanted to remain. Not so the voters in England who (in sufficient numbers) used the referendum as a confidence vote to punish Cameron’s Tory party.
The level of discussion and debate prior to the brexit referendum was appallingly shallow and avoided any serious consideration of the issues. I believe brexit was carried on a tide of vacuous jingoism.
There will be enough silver lining to sustain the wealthy, but I expect the poor to average income sector of the population will suffer. Too many of those who have made their pile are no longer working or investing in the future they concentrate on creaming the last profits and keeping their winnings safe.
You state: “Not so the voters in England who (in sufficient numbers) used the referendum as a confidence vote to punish Cameron’s Tory party.”
I suggest that for many British leave voters the referendum represented a once in a lifetime chance to give the political class, Labour, Liberal, Conservative, notice that the current social contract is not acceptable.
Just bashing the tories misses an underlying dissatisfaction which not go away and would not have been addressed post a remain vote.
“And it is then beholden upon us to wonder at what opprtunity to really make this country a better place to live has been lost in the process.”
Had Remain won the vote, we would now have an emboldened Cameron and Osborne still in government, the erroneous impression of Corbyn’s unelectability still prevailing, a Tory parliamentary majority and Labour still languishing in the polls.
That’s something that has definitely, and thankfully, been lost.
But what we may lose on the EU membership swings, we could also gain on a left-wing Labour governmental roundabout.
So that’s another plus!
You see silver linings!
Of course it’s impossibble to predict far into the future. But it seems the UK is between a rock and a hard place. The entire ‘Bexit’ operation (pun intended) has been a fiasco from day 1. And the history books will surely endorse this. There’s only one word to describe it and that is ‘clusterfxck’. Incompetent management delivers failure – always. We’re used to that over the centuries and, as per usual, we’ll probably muddle through somehow or other. It’s just so very frustrating to watch from the sidelines, isn’t it?
The victims of political incompetence are inevitably those least able to cope with its consequences. And there’s the rub. Because the EU is not a flag-bearer for social justice, any more than is the UK. Like the UK it is driven by anti-democratic neo-liberal ideology. I’d guess most Remainers want radical change across the Channel, but there seems little chance of that happening any time soon. For that reason, if we had a progressive government I could’ve voted Leave.
The topic has been exhausted so I have little more to add. Except I did happen upon this presentation by the rapper and social activist Akala. For a different take on Brexit it’s well worth a watch. (Incidentally his many other YouTube interviews offer incisive insights into current and past UK history – and how it has literally been ‘white-washed’). “The battle of Britishness in the age of Brexit” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDmdAkvHoaQ.
The country would be better off scrapping brexit, at the moment it is shades of Jim hacker meets Brian rix.
‘Just been watching Channel 4 News.
David Davies is now in America talking about BREXIT. What a surprise! I wonder who else he and his mates have been talking to behind our backs?
And good old Liam ‘Sneaky’ Fox in Japan is telling everybody that we are now being ‘blackmailed’ by the EU. I mean……….its so predictable isn’t it? But too many willing fools will believe that unfortunately.
I would have though, as an advocate of Modern Monetary Theory, you would at least welcome the UK regaining monetary sovereignty, making an MMT system a practical possibility. ( Lisbon Article 123 )
I am aware that the MMT school regard trade deficits as a good thing, a notion I have some difficulty with. A significant portion of our trade deficit is with our major “trading partner”, the EU. Does that not give us some leverage in our Brexit negotiations?
I can’t help suspecting that the difficulty and potential catastrophe of leaving is somewhat overdone.
Meanwhile, is spite of belonging to a mighty, standardised trading block, we have no difficulty in importing shoddy white goods, manufactured in China by virtual slaves, which have been responsible for very many domestic fires. One has to wonder, what is the point of the EU.
Furthermore there is the aspect of international solidarity. Our leaving will give encouragement to the former great European social democracies to slip the yoke of the EU and re-form a trading block based on strong social democratic principles.
I am not sure how to redound to this fantasy
Much of the EU is or could be deeply social democratic, and is within the reach of reform
And we have monetary control now. Have you noticed QE?
Richard, you say “the EU … is within reach of reform”.
I believe it is reasonable to ask my question again:
What practical steps do you suggest could be taken and by whom to initiate the process of reform?
I admit I have not got a programme – but that does not mean I couldn’t think of one
There is no prospect from outside
You do realise of course that the vast majority of countries in the world exist outside the EU ? Someone once described remainers as both pompous and pathetic – ie we know best but we’re so hopeless without nanny to tell us what to do. The fact the the southern half of europes economies seem to be basket cases with large levels of unemployment especially of young people seems to have passed you by. Exactly what has the EU inflicted on Greece – a better future with wonderful opportunities? You may be passionate about staying in the eu – but then again you fail to mention your vested interest in staying in the eu as they are partly your paymasters. Others including myself see it as a bloated bureaucracy who often seem to have little concern about the ordinary concerns of it’s citizens or nation states. Nations working together for a better present is a great idea – but the EU is not the answer. Basic economic s ( you claim to be an economist) describe how in large businesses the managers of the company often work for the benefits of themselves rather than the interests of the ordinary shareholders- hence the bloated salaries of chief executives in the west. I see no difference between that and the EU. How many presidents has the EU got – can’t remember if it’s 4 or 5, plus the 10000+ bureaucrats in brussels earning £150000 per annum. The European parliament cannot even iniatiate legislation of it’s own and is just a rubber stamp organisation. You can claim that the EU is democratic but the power is so divorced from the average citizen , that it’s meaningless. Who honestly would vote for Juncker – a man with a drink problem , who was involved in dodgy tax deals whilst in charge of luxembourg setting up sweet heart deals so companies could avoid tax in other EU countries. Tax Justice ????. You often tell of your visits to brussels – a city run down in the 1980s transformed by huge office blocks built by the eu – in fact whole neighbourhoods were demolished to build some of these buildings- empire building at it’s finest. You advise reform – but thats a dead duck – it’s been tried before and ignored.
I’m sorry but if you keep up this panglossian fiction of the eu you come across as a shill – a paid one at that.
Ad hominems will get you nowhere
I have had many funders. It so happens one is the EU right now. It is unlikely to be the next. So you start with nonsense and continue in the same style thereafter
If you want to comment you have to do better than that
“change for the better is what interests me”. Me too!
I guess I am a hardened enthusiast but no I am not dis heartened I just think it’s part of a negotiation process
It is of course unhelpful that we have such a negative media, and we will undoubtedly get a better deal if we could present a united front
But then everything you look at now seems to have divisions
But regarding Brexit I am still convinced it is the right thing and that the remoaners will in a few years time be eating humble pie or more probably disown their previous views
Having been self employed most of my life I am used to making decisions, negotiating, taking calculated risks. I am confident it is the right way forward.
I wouldn’t mind betting that most self employed people voted out and still believe they made the right decision and can’t wait for all the negative chatter to stop and just get on with it. Roll on March 2019.
I still like what the CEO of Weatherspoons says and believe he is a great ambassador for Brexit, standing up against the wittering soft detractors. As ever he is speaks for and is in tune with the common man.
You know, the blokes that have been betrayed and lied to about Labour who allowed immigration at levels never before seen in this country from 2000 onwards (read Douglas Murrays excellent expose/book), that depressed wages, inflated housing and rents, took away his kids school places, his family’s ability to access the NHS, etc, etc.
I am sorry, but you really are posting nonsense, some of which I find unacceptable in tone
I think your time here is over
We all know that you can’t stand anyone who disagrees with you – any argument for brexit and dismiss as nonsense you ignore whilst you push your fantasy eu – free unicorns for everyone.
No Bob, that’s not true.
What I have no time for are time wasters and trolls
I think you are clearly in both camps