Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,714
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Suppose there is NO Brexit deal, because the British cannot agree on anything. What then?
What would prevent Britain from still doing trade? It doesn't follow from no-Brexit-deal that then all imports have to be prohibited. On the contrary, the default position would be to allow whatever happens to happen. Why couldn't the trade continue, at least into Britain, with no tariffs? Doesn't trade just happen, if the government does nothing? What prevents it from happening?
Or, perhaps as an emergency measure there could be some uniform low tariff on all imports with no distinction of product types or industries or origin, low enough to not impede the needed trade -- as a default plan with there being no official policy on the new rules. This might be done by the May government in desperation, having no alternative, without Parliament agreeing to anything. And Parliament still would not oust her, with there being no unified opposition to her.
If there's no law, how can her administration be blamed for what happens? In the lack of any agreed trade arrangement, still something has to happen, and her approach could be to step aside and let the trade go on, with the very minimum of action by the government. Anything she does basically violates the law anyway, with Parliament not approving it, so it's impossible for her to obey the law -- and yet the nation cannot survive without some of the needed trade that has been going on.
So the result might then be UNILATERAL FREE TRADE of a sort, until something is finally approved by Parliament. Which might just never happen.
But meanwhile, the trade cannot be stopped, because that would essentially be a national disaster, destroying the country's economy. She would be obligated to do the MINIMUM NECESSARY to avoid an economic collapse of the whole nation. And that minimum would be to allow some form of unilateral free trade, until something official could be finally decided by Parliament.
And maybe that unilateral free trade would turn out to be the best possible outcome.
Perhaps it would also include something like OPEN BORDERS, at least for all the British Isles, and perhaps to other European countries. This too might be the best outcome.
So, what if the outcome would be unilateral free trade and open borders, not chosen as policy, but just happening because it would be the LEAST violation of the official law? While the petty politicians and special interests and labor union thugs and corporate welfare quacks and demagogues and nativist idiots are screaming at each other (over how to best screw the consumers), the country accidentally stumbles into the best economic system toward other nations.
How would this not be good for the world, as well as for Britain? What would prevent this from happening, if Parliament cannot decide on anything?
What would prevent Britain from still doing trade? It doesn't follow from no-Brexit-deal that then all imports have to be prohibited. On the contrary, the default position would be to allow whatever happens to happen. Why couldn't the trade continue, at least into Britain, with no tariffs? Doesn't trade just happen, if the government does nothing? What prevents it from happening?
Or, perhaps as an emergency measure there could be some uniform low tariff on all imports with no distinction of product types or industries or origin, low enough to not impede the needed trade -- as a default plan with there being no official policy on the new rules. This might be done by the May government in desperation, having no alternative, without Parliament agreeing to anything. And Parliament still would not oust her, with there being no unified opposition to her.
If there's no law, how can her administration be blamed for what happens? In the lack of any agreed trade arrangement, still something has to happen, and her approach could be to step aside and let the trade go on, with the very minimum of action by the government. Anything she does basically violates the law anyway, with Parliament not approving it, so it's impossible for her to obey the law -- and yet the nation cannot survive without some of the needed trade that has been going on.
So the result might then be UNILATERAL FREE TRADE of a sort, until something is finally approved by Parliament. Which might just never happen.
But meanwhile, the trade cannot be stopped, because that would essentially be a national disaster, destroying the country's economy. She would be obligated to do the MINIMUM NECESSARY to avoid an economic collapse of the whole nation. And that minimum would be to allow some form of unilateral free trade, until something official could be finally decided by Parliament.
And maybe that unilateral free trade would turn out to be the best possible outcome.
Perhaps it would also include something like OPEN BORDERS, at least for all the British Isles, and perhaps to other European countries. This too might be the best outcome.
So, what if the outcome would be unilateral free trade and open borders, not chosen as policy, but just happening because it would be the LEAST violation of the official law? While the petty politicians and special interests and labor union thugs and corporate welfare quacks and demagogues and nativist idiots are screaming at each other (over how to best screw the consumers), the country accidentally stumbles into the best economic system toward other nations.
How would this not be good for the world, as well as for Britain? What would prevent this from happening, if Parliament cannot decide on anything?
Last edited:
