Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

Like say smoking bans...

[Sheilbh]

And gas marriage.

[Zanza]

Abortion (unless for medical reasons or after rape) is still a crime in Germany, just one that is isn't punished if committed in the first trimester.

[Sheilbh]

Yes, it is a conundrum. I can identify the problem, but can't think what a workable solution might be 

I think it's like the seventies and post-war social democracy. We've possibly gone further down this route than was wise or has political support and legitimacy. So I think parts of it will be rolled back a little bit - I'm not sure that totally free movement of capital will endure, or free movement of people or the current level of open borders.

As I understand it the AfD (which is way less well supported than similar parties in France and the UK) have got their support from people objecting to asylum seekers, not from the anti-globalisation forces.

AfD are now polling at the same sort of level as UKIP though which isn't bad for a party founded 3 years ago.

[garbon]

And gas marriage.

Gas marriage?

[Valmy]

I think it's like the seventies and post-war social democracy. We've possibly gone further down this route than was wise or has political support and legitimacy. So I think parts of it will be rolled back a little bit - I'm not sure that totally free movement of capital will endure, or free movement of people or the current level of open borders.

Yes...but will that address either the problems or the symptoms?

[Sheilbh]

I think it's like the seventies and post-war social democracy. We've possibly gone further down this route than was wise or has political support and legitimacy. So I think parts of it will be rolled back a little bit - I'm not sure that totally free movement of capital will endure, or free movement of people or the current level of open borders.

Yes...but will that address either the problems or the symptoms?

I think a bit of both. The IMF piece about free movement of capital basically said in principle it was a good idea, in practice it looks like it increases the likelihood and severity of financial crises. It was done for ideological reasons, but doesn't work.

Similarly I think free movement and open borders were great ideas but I don't know if they have the sort of support now that they had in the 90s because it's a very different world.

[Tamas]

IDK. Give me a single historical example when a closed-in country achieved a long term advantage over open ones. It has never been a good idea.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not saying that closing in is a good thing.

I think as with social democracy after the war, liberalism has gone too far. For example free movement of capital makes ideological sense but the evidence is that it helps cause and make worse financial crises. As I say I'd be astonished if we haven't seen the return of some form of capital controls in the next 10 years - though they'll be called something different, the IMF calls them 'macro-prudential measures'. So we now need to correct that over-reach a bit while keeping the best bits. Just as we've eventually kept most of the really important positive bits of the post-war era even as we've moved in a more market-driven direction.

Edit: To go all post-liberal Blairite, it's not about ideology, it's about what works - or doesn't.

[Tamas]

I think it's the other way around. Free trade works. It brings prosperity and prevents wars. There is always reactionary forces that fight this but every time they win their hinder and mess up their country.

It is not easy to blame liberalism if you are willing to forego the populist preconception of "the fault can only lie on not enough laws and regulations". For example a big problem in England is housing. Sure the demand was increased by prosperity bought by the EU membership but it is not liberalism that stands in the way of solving this: it's consetvatism, the draconian building regulations and in general the law-creating establishment being under the influence of those interested in not normalising and opening up the supply side of housing.

[Josquius]

No, without a doubt its liberalism. There's just a lot less money to be made in building low income housing vs. luxury housing.
The only way the liberal approach would work if you get rid of the stopper of there being limited land and take a Japanese approach of letting companies build anything anywhere and concreting over the countryside.

[Tamas]

The only way the liberal approach would work if you get rid of the stopper of there being limited land and take a Japanese approach of letting companies build anything anywhere and concreting over the countryside.

Exactly. That's what should be done. Maybe not a complete free for all but definitely easier than it is now. That is liberalising the market. Also, not accidentally, happens to be the solution to better the lot of the common folk.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's the other way around. Free trade works. It brings prosperity and prevents wars. There is always reactionary forces that fight this but every time they win their hinder and mess up their country.

I'm not arguing about free trade. I'm talking about free movement of capital, free movement of people and very open borders all of which are a relatively recent innovation. My view is they either don't work as expected and can be harmful (capital) or while they might have worked in the 90s between states of very similar development in a benign economic condition I'm not sure that they do in a period of terrorism, between unequal states and a constrained economy in any way that is coherent with democratic decision making.

It is not easy to blame liberalism if you are willing to forego the populist preconception of "the fault can only lie on not enough laws and regulations". For example a big problem in England is housing. Sure the demand was increased by prosperity bought by the EU membership but it is not liberalism that stands in the way of solving this: it's consetvatism, the draconian building regulations and in general the law-creating establishment being under the influence of those interested in not normalising and opening up the supply side of housing.

I don't know where you got the view that I'm anti-building

I've always thought housing was a supply side problem and we need to radically re-think the green belt. Of course it's difficult to do that because most people are home-owners, most home-owners are older, older people vote more so NIMBYs etc are a group that get catered to. But I think that's starting to change, a council leader in Kent(!) has now come out and said we need to talk about how to redesign the green belt.

Having said that I also think there are other less liberal supply issues. For example the extension of the right to buy to housing associations is going be dreadful when it comes in. I think we need to allow councils to get back into building and actually to have a stock of council housing that isn't part of right to buy.

[Sheilbh]

Also, not accidentally, happens to be the solution to better the lot of the common folk.

Not the 60% of homeowners who, as supply increased, would see their asset plateau or fall in value, or necessarily for local communities who would lose the environment/community they bought into (see every small village in England that's had a huge fight over a housing development on the edge of the village).

Obviously in my view it's the right thing to do but it's not positive for everyone.

Edit: Oh and by the by my constituency Labour Party nominated Corbyn. Last time round the nominated the most moderate candidate, Liz Kendall

[Zanza]

I'm not arguing about free trade. I'm talking about free movement of capital, free movement of people and very open borders all of which are a relatively recent innovation.

Is free movement of people and capital really a recent innovation? I was under the impression that we had that during the 19th century for example.
Free trade seems to be the recent innovation as that has never existed before in history. It was always very tightly regulated and cartelized.