Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[crazy canuck]

£27 to £55 million a year, depending on which sources you believe. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that huge, but like I said it's not being re-invested in the UK economy and the amount is based on UK living costs. I couldn't imagine moving to, say, France, and claiming benefit for a child I've left the father looking after in the UK, and that's without much difference in living costs.

I don't understand why that is an issue.  What is the amount of money Brits spend on vacationing outside the country?  Are the leavers going to start shaming people into vacationing within their country too?  What about purchasing foreign made goods, investing in foreign companies, etc etc.  If virtue is measured by ensuring money stays within the country you might as well go back to subsistence farming.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it's the opposite - the problem is "not enough integration", not "too much integration". Having a unified social welfare system across the EU and a common immigration policy for non-EU migrants and refugees would solve this problem.

I can see this sentiment coming from the garbage bin of Europe--the countries that without the EU have always been trash countries and always would have been, but Britain has a long history as a powerful and successful country entirely on its own. Germany and France have a spottier history, and Germany had to abandon any pretense of being a traditional great power after WWII, and both see the EU as a way to leverage their importance/power so it's obvious why those countries would be in favor of the EU.

I think now that they're in, leaving the EU would be bad for Britain, but I think long run the EU and especially the euro will be proven a poor system. Schengen was really enough to realize much of the benefits possible without introducing various economic and political perils.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Why would the EU agree to that? Mutual recognition of national standards would mean that Britain can set whatever regulatory framework even when the core of the single market is that there is just one single harmonized regulatory framework. Mutual recognition works for a few commodities in international FTAs and is usually much more limited than the comprehensive set of EU single market regulations. An example is the recent FTA with Korea. But even with international FTAs in place, it is often a nightmare to actually follow for global companies that want to sell their products in various markets as you have to check all parts etc. whether they qualify for the mutual recognition.

Eh, because some degree of good and eased trade relations make sense for the EU even if Britain leaves. The counterargument is you'd just want to be punitive toward Britain to spite them for leaving, but I just don't see the stomach for "spite" in such a relationship. I don't believe Britain will leave but I don't think it'd turn into Venezuela if it left, either. The United States isn't in any kind of union like the EU and we have a robust trade economy.

[Valmy]

I think now that they're in, leaving the EU would be bad for Britain, but I think long run the EU and especially the euro will be proven a poor system. Schengen was really enough to realize much of the benefits possible without introducing various economic and political perils.

Well I basically agree. Confederations are bad and never work. Europe itself has proven this multiple times. But Britain needs to remain inside it regardless.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right--I don't  believe Britian should leave the EU. If I was British the biggest thing I'd want would be a clear standard that just because Italy accepts 100,000 screaming Muslims, that doesn't mean they have any right to enter Britain as refugees, so national control of refugee policy must be 100% guaranteed, and I would also insist the Britain be permanently promised that it not be required to enter "ever closer union" with the rest of the EU, while maintaining all privileges and benefits it currently has. Because that will be the club that is used to dismantle state sovereignty in an "ever closer union" scheme, the countries that buy into it will start saying "you need to implement x y and z to bring yourself closer in with us, or you lose x y and z benefits of EU membership."

I think right now Britain has a good legal relationship with the EU, but I think there is legitimate concern the EU could further erode British state sovereignty. If I was British I would want inviolate treaty guarantees laying out that that cannot be forced on Britain, and Britain's refusal to join in to further losses of state sovereignty will never be used to deny them their existing privileges as EU members.

[Brazen]

I don't understand why that is an issue.  What is the amount of money Brits spend on vacationing outside the country?  Are the leavers going to start shaming people into vacationing within their country too?  What about purchasing foreign made goods, investing in foreign companies, etc etc.  If virtue is measured by ensuring money stays within the country you might as well go back to subsistence farming.

I don't think it's the total so much as the the relative value. Someone doing a very modest job over here gets a government dictated amount but when they send it home it is worth four times as much in the local economy and they return to a much-improved lifestyle.

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand why that is an issue.  What is the amount of money Brits spend on vacationing outside the country?  Are the leavers going to start shaming people into vacationing within their country too?  What about purchasing foreign made goods, investing in foreign companies, etc etc.  If virtue is measured by ensuring money stays within the country you might as well go back to subsistence farming.

I don't think it's the total so much as the the relative value. Someone doing a very modest job over here gets a government dictated amount but when they send it home it is worth four times as much in the local economy and they return to a much-improved lifestyle.

Sure.  But why would anyone be concerned about that.  What is the difference between that and all the other ways people don't spend their money in the local economy?  What is the difference between that and finding the most inexpensive place in the sun for a vacation?

[Valmy]

You mean like all those pensioners moving the Spain? Taking all that British money to enrich lazy continental scum? 

[garbon]

Like when I eventually go back to the US?

[celedhring]

Like when I eventually go back to the US?

You're an anglosaxon übermensch though, despite your ancestors. 

[Eddie Teach]

Like when I eventually go back to the US?

You're an anglosaxon übermensch though, despite your ancestors. 

Perhaps because of some of them.

[crazy canuck]

You mean like all those pensioners moving to Spain? Taking all that British money to enrich lazy continental scum? 

Yep, the hypocrisy is a bit much.

[Zanza]

Why would the EU agree to that? Mutual recognition of national standards would mean that Britain can set whatever regulatory framework even when the core of the single market is that there is just one single harmonized regulatory framework. Mutual recognition works for a few commodities in international FTAs and is usually much more limited than the comprehensive set of EU single market regulations. An example is the recent FTA with Korea. But even with international FTAs in place, it is often a nightmare to actually follow for global companies that want to sell their products in various markets as you have to check all parts etc. whether they qualify for the mutual recognition.

Eh, because some degree of good and eased trade relations make sense for the EU even if Britain leaves. The counterargument is you'd just want to be punitive toward Britain to spite them for leaving, but I just don't see the stomach for "spite" in such a relationship. I don't believe Britain will leave but I don't think it'd turn into Venezuela if it left, either. The United States isn't in any kind of union like the EU and we have a robust trade economy.

Of course there would be a deal. Britain is a friend and partner even if they leave the EU. But they would be more like the USA then as you say yourself. TTIP, while comprehensive, is nowhere near as comprehensive as the single market. So a Britain-EU FTA that is based on the mutual recognition of national standards would likely also be much less comprehensive than the single market we have now. Otherwise the single market does not work anymore, which is something that the EU cannot compromise on, no matter how friendly the Brits are. Norway and Switzerland pretty much got the single market with a bunch of asterisks in some areas they cared about (farming, fisheries etc.), but have to swallow most EU regulation via EEA and bilaterals. I can see a deal like that for the Brits or one that is similar to the proposed TTIP, but I can't see one that is both as comprehensive as the single market AND is based on mutual recognition of standards. It's either or.

[Zanza]

I think now that they're in, leaving the EU would be bad for Britain, but I think long run the EU and especially the euro will be proven a poor system. Schengen was really enough to realize much of the benefits possible without introducing various economic and political perils.

Schengen is a very visible part of the EU as normal citizens can take advantage of it, but it is pretty irrelevant compared to the single market. The EU could work without Schengen, but it couldn't work without the single market. The benefits of Schengen are very limited and Britain only participates in part of it anyway (the police cooperation). Economically it only reduces cross-border transportation costs slightly.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Schengen is even less of a benefit to an island country anyway. To get to or leave here you have all the fuss of a ferry crossing or airport security in any event; whereas if you live in Luxembourg crossing a frontier is an everyday event.