Maybe NO-BREXIT-DEAL is the best outcome.

[Lumpenproletariat]

The trading has to continue somehow. With or without an EU "deal" giving it the OK.

How does that prohibit an EU member, or company in that country, from trading with a British company?

You keep repeating that straw man. EU trade policy means that EU member states trade with non-member states under the deal the EU made.

That doesn't answer the above.

Those EU members, or companies in them, can still send shipments to Britain, despite any "deal" made by the EU. They have the physical capacity to do it. The EU did not create the products or build the ships or other means of shipment.

So, if and when they do ship something, or just resume/continue the same trade they are doing now, how will the EU stop them? You can't answer this without stating precisely WHAT THE EU WILL DO to stop them.

It is ONLY BRITAIN which could stop them. But Britain needs those imports. "It's gotten too big!" Its economy is dependent on them. What motive would the British government have to stop those ships from coming into Britain, when it wants to continue receiving them?

Despite the EU and its rules, both Britain and those EU nations need the trading to continue. Why wouldn't they do whatever is necessary to make it keep happening, even if there is no Brexit deal to allow it?

It's not true that armed EU officers in Britain will shoot British agents or British dockworkers etc. engaging in the work of moving the products along just as they have done before. Just because there is some disruption, or some change of procedures, does not mean that all that trade has to be stopped. Stopping it would do much greater harm than breaking some rules, or maneuvering around the rules, improvising the needed changes to allow the trade to continue.

You have to answer who is going to do what to try to stop this trade from continuing when everyone involved wants it to continue. You don't answer this by just saying there's a "deal" that allows the trading, or that trading takes place according to the terms of that "deal."

Individual member states of the EU do not make separate deals with non-members. That means that EU member states might trade with Britain, but only under the terms of any EU deal.

States don't trade. It's the companies which trade, and they want to continue the trade, and the state wants them to continue doing it. So, who's going to stop it? The EU member state could, but it does not want to stop the trade. Those ships, i.e., some (not all) of them, will go anyway, when no one orders them not to, in order to continue delivering the same products as before.

So, how will they be stopped? Britain wants to receive those imports, so it will not stop them. If there are inspections or other procedures, they will improvise whatever is necessary to make the deliveries take place, like before, with as little disruption as possible. How can you say it's impossible to improvise something to accommodate the changed situation? Just because it's not exactly the same as before does not mean all the trading has to come to a total stop. Why does it have to?

Yes, they trade "only under the terms of any EU deal" right now while those terms allow the current needed trade which Britain and those EU nations want. But if something changes so that the current trade is not covered by the EU "deal," why does it have to stop, considering that EVERYONE wants it to continue?

Those companies will not be ordered by Britain to stop, or by the EU nations in question. Just because the trade is currently done under EU terms does not mean the companies cannot continue doing the same business after Brexit, even if someone somewhere is saying they cannot. The trading is not made impossible by a change in some rules. Any rules saying they cannot trade have to be enforced somehow in order for the trading to stop. But who is going to enforce this ban on someone trading?

The purpose of a trade agreement, or trading bloc, is not to restrict trade, but to make nations reduce their trade barriers. They enforce the barriers agreed to, but all those are REDUCED barriers, i.e., barriers lower than if there were no trade rules. The effect of the trade rules is LESS impediment to trade, not more.

The EU only enforces the limits on the barriers to trade, and the uniform tariffs agreed to. So there could be some problem of an EU nation receiving British imports, which means at first that the duties would be imposed on those imports. So Britain will have difficulty exporting to the EU members, at first. So that's a complication which will require some time to resolve. Eventually Britain will have to find a way to get reciprocal low tariffs from the EU members and other nations.

But in the meantime it has to find a way to keep the current trading in place, with minimum disruption. And this may happen without any new trade deal for now. But the trading has to be resumed/continued one way or another, with or without a Brexit deal, or even without a new British law, as they cannot yet agree on anything. Even so, even with nothing agreed to by the politicians, there is no reason why the current trading has to stop, because there's no law to stop it.

If there is no EU deal, the EU might set a trade policy with Britain that is, at best, consistent with WTO rules.

There is no WTO rule which says any two nations may not trade with each other. There is no WTO rule telling an EU nation, or any other nation, that it may not ship something to Britain. An EU state shipping something to Britain would not be violating any WTO rule. If you think there is such a WTO rule, name it.

WTO rules state how high the tariffs may be, or other barriers. It has no rules imposing any barriers or tariffs, except to put limits on these.

If Britain should choose to accept imports duty-free, this does not violate any WTO rule. Maybe a too-high tariff would violate a WTO rule, but not too-low.

The EU has no incentive to make a free trade deal with Britain.

After Brexit, Britain needs no "deal" at all with the EU in order to be able to receive imports it wants, under any terms the importers agree to. It will want to keep receiving shipments from some EU nations, and will make the terms easy enough to ensure that those imports keep coming.

You're not saying how the EU will stop that trade from happening. Reflections on what rules it might violate doesn't answer what would be done to stop the imports from being shipped.

The deal that was rejected did not include free trade, and Britain is already unwilling to add to any potential deal that might induce free trade with the EU.

Britain will do what it has to in order to continue receiving the imports. This could include reducing the tariffs to zero, or making them lower. It might be difficult to decide this if the Parliament cannot agree on any new terms. But such non-decision does not mean the imports would have to stop. The fact is that everyone wants the imports to continue, with virtually no one wanting them to stop coming. So somehow they will continue -- i.e., some or most of them.

Some disruption or delays etc. are likely, but it makes no sense for the trading to all just stop. How can that happen when virtually everyone wants it to continue? Those who have the most to lose if it stops will do whatever they have to in order to keep it going, and the British government has no motive to stop the imports.

Until you explain who is going to do something to stop it, you're not addressing the basic question.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Britain and the world would benefit from a test-case of unilateral free trade.

Lesson to be learned: Only uncompetitive crybabies benefit from protectionism. 98% of citizens are made worse off.

Because there is no reason for the traders to stop. What would be their reason? The trade is profitable.

Trade that is profitable in the absence of tariffs may not be profitable when WTO rates are imposed, . . .

They won't be because WTO does not impose tariffs, other than to enforce limits (MAXIMUMS) which have been agreed to. Any WTO nation can reduce its tariffs without violating WTO rules.

. . . or may not be sufficiently profitable to justify keeping production in the UK rather than moving it to the continent.

Some production in the UK could move, as a result of new EU tariffs on UK products into those countries.

The worst possibility is that the EU bosses are really stupid and will want to punish Britain with high tariffs. This could backfire, because some EU members will not be stupid but will realize the harm to their consumers and might resist such intolerant action by the EU. There's no reason to assume that all Europeans are protectionist fool dogmatists like Trump and Bernie Sanders.

The likelihood will be low tariffs on British imports to EU, especially over time. Unless everyone in the EU nations is an idiot. Because the high tariffs punish the receiving nation just as much as the sending nation.

But if the EU is brain-dead and imposes high tariffs on Britain, and if Brits still want separation from the EU, then there's a good chance Britain will become a test case of unilateral free trade. If so, it will perform a service to the world, proving that unilateral free trade does work, by making an economy more competitive, and thus better, so over time it will become a better performer and more prosperous as a result.

Such high tariffs by the EU do not mean Britain would have to stop trading and turn inward and protectionist and isolationist. It probably would not make that decision, but instead would continue squabbling over trade law, as it's doing currently; and if it cannot decide on anything, the result will be to go in the direction of more trade, with fewer barriers, because protectionism requires action by the government more than free trade does.

The more Britain cannot decide on any new trade law, the more it will continue in the direction of freer trade. Which would be a good result, making Britain better off, more competitive, more open, more flexible, more productive.

Like Singapore has become better off, more competitive, more open, more flexible, more productive.

 

[bilby]

So in summary, thinking is hard, so let's pretend that a hugely complex situation is in fact really simple, because when you do, it looks like everything will not only fail to collapse in a huge clusterfuck, but will actually be all rainbows, unicorns and fluffy bunnies.

So that's alright then.

Next week - 'Every American should make a nuclear bomb in their garage - all you need is a couple pieces of pitchblende to bang togather, so it should be really easy, and nobody will be able to stop us'.

Everything is so easy, as long as you ensure that you never expose yourself to reality.

 

[laughing dog]

That doesn't answer the above.

To anyone anchored in reality, it does. Exports to Britain have to leave their home origin. European states highly monitor their exports. You are basically arguing that European companies will engage in illegal activities (smuggling) and EU members may abet in that smuggling. First, it is clear that most EU members do try to live up to their agreements, so the odds of this happening on a large scale basis. Second, to the extent that companies inside the EU try to evade the trade restrictions and that EU members will abet in those evasions, the EU has the authority to impose sanctions on the companies and states. That is the reality based answer.

However, since you prefer to discussion imaginary states, the EU has the capacity, authority and will to immediately detect and to vaporize the offending goods, company and member states.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I haven't followed all the twists and turns of Brexit.

What I think is most significant is that the U.K. is a net importer wrt to the EU. Won't the EU desire to keep selling to the U.K.?

Also, it seems to me that EU politics often intrude on regulation. Who is taking Germany to task for violating their budget surplus limits as opposed to Southern European deficits.

So the EU will be in the position of wanting to retain Britain's markets while punishing UK exports. Not much leverage there.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The trade cannot be shut down sadistically, for no reason or purpose served.

It's not sufficient to say the rules abstractly require Britain to be punished sadistically for no reason. There has to be a practical purpose served by enforcing such rules.

It won't "reward" anyone with any free trade deal. That's undisputed.

Apparently not, since your OP is based on Britain engaging in free trade with the EU under a Brexit.

I'm saying a form of free trade would happen. But not necessarily a free trade deal "with the EU." Rather, the free trade will result by default, as there is no agreement with the EU, and as Brits continue to squabble and not decide on a new trade law to replace the current EU system.

My hypothesis (OP) is that Brexit happens, plus there is no Brexit deal with the EU, plus the Brits continue to disagree on what to do and nothing is passed by Parliament; so therefore there is nothing -- no deal, no policy saying this or that is to happen. Given all that (which is the case so far), what will happen? And the answer is that some trading will still emerge anyway, or continue to happen, despite no agreement or deal, and this will be either zero or low tariff trade, until eventually something is finally agreed to which sets some new terms.

So free trade could be the end result of all this.

So if there's no deal, no new trade law, what happens? It's unthinkable that all the current trade with Britain simply stops cold. There's no reason for that to happen. Nothing would force it to happen, if Britain and nations trading with it just continue this trade. Britain would do nothing to stop the imports, i.e., let its market stay open to imports from those EU nations, and these (or some of them) would continue shipping to Britain.

This probably would mean some kind of low or zero tariffs by Britain on those imports. Though there's no new trade law agreed to, still the imports could be taken in, because stopping them requires more intervention by government than allowing them to continue as at present.

So the free trade would evolve, without any free trade deal or law imposing it.

The path of least resistance is for the current trading to just continue, probably with some disruption, some adjustment, some improvising of new procedures. But to end all that trade would be a disaster, and there is no reason for Britain to choose to impose an unnecessary disaster onto itself. Nor can the EU or anyone else impose such a disaster, nor would they do it even if they could.

And there is nothing the EU could do to force Britain to stop trading. The worst it could do would be to impose high EU tariffs onto British products to EU nations. But there are limits to how far it could go in that direction. So there'd be disruption of Britain exporting to the EU, so the trade would be unilateral, or mostly one-way, and Britain's trade deficit would rise.

Which is interesting in that no one has ever shown how a trade deficit is bad for a country, despite all the babble about this. The popular view of the vulgar masses is that it's a disaster, and some politicians pander to this misconception.

If Brexit happens with no deal with the EU, then unilateral free trade could happen, with Britain's trade deficit increasing, without anyone choosing this as a policy. It would just happen. Many Brits would panic, but the truth is that no real damage would happen, except that a few uncompetitive workers would lose their jobs, and even this would probably only be a temporary effect. All the paranoia about trade deficits would be debunked, as it has already been debunked many times, and the British economy would recover -- after a temporary setback -- under the new conditions of tougher competition. Just like the U.S. economy has run a high trade deficit with no verifiable damage done to the economy.

Not that idiots would stop running at the mouth about the horrors of trade deficits. They would continue the nonsense as always, after the loss of some factories, which are worshiped as sacred objects, and the protectionists will probably never stop their delusions about the need for factories, no matter how much they are refuted by logic and by the facts.

But what might happen, if there's NO DEAL after BREXIT, is that the current trade (or some of it) between Britain and EU members might continue.

It might but it will not be free trade.

It would be freer than it is now. And it could become unilateral free trade with Britain's market open and EU markets mostly closed. However, the EU members would find ways to reciprocate, at least partly, because it would be in their interest. It makes no sense to say that they would want to only sell to Britain and not buy anything from Britain, or that they would impose high tariffs. They aren't that stupid, though something like that might happen at first. But somehow they would find a way to lower their tariffs, for the sake of their consumers.

They really know that serving consumers comes first, and that total one-way trade and extreme trade surpluses make no sense.

It's not true that Europeans think it's OK to screw consumers and reduce the general living standard because of wacko Birdbrain Economics theories preached by labor union dogmatists and Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and other Protectionist retards. Even if you think Europeans have an average I.Q. of less than 50, even so, they aren't so stupid as to believe in the old worn-out mercantilist theories that screwing the consumers somehow makes the economy stronger, with wall-to-wall factories and makework jobs, and with corporate welfare subsidizing companies so they don't have to compete against foreign producers, and promoting makework with their "economic stimulus" and "job creation" babble nonsense.

Demonizing foreign producers, like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump do, and condemning companies for wanting to save on labor cost, and other such demagoguery, does win in popularity polls, up to a point, but everyone of any intelligence and basic education really knows that protectionist xenophobia only makes the economy worse, while more competition makes it better.

So those EU nations exporting to Britain would find ways to reduce the barriers and partly open their market, one way or another, despite the slogans that they have to trade within EU rules. Either those rules would change to allow them to do what's in their interest rather than screwing all the consumers, or they would find ways to circumvent those rules. Or they'd reinterpret the rules or claim to be really in compliance with them.

But it would not be balanced trade. Britain would experience higher trade deficits, which would turn out to do no harm to Britain after all, despite the paranoia of the Protectionist boneheads.

For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge or understand that EU members trade under EU policy - they do not make separate deals.

They will trade without making "separate deals," rather than suffering the negative consequences of cutting off the trade for no reason.

They will do what's in their interest. It will not be in their interest to stop trading with Britain, so they will continue doing it one way or another. You cannot claim that they would act against their interest. If the "policy" demands something which is against their interest, they will find ways to circumvent it. It is normal for bad "policy" to be circumvented by one means or another.

It's clearly in the interest of those EU members to continue exporting to Britain. And they are not so subhuman, as you're implying, as to be unable to see that total one-way trade-surplus economics is bad for their economy, because of the obvious damage to consumers. They will recognize this, at least over time, and find some way to reduce their barriers to British imports, whatever it takes.

In the final analysis a nation will do what's in its interest, as its top priority, rather than enslaving itself to a meaningless "policy" forcing them to screw their consumers; and especially to a "policy" which really would not be enforced. It is not true that the EU would take action to prevent those nations from continuing the trade, or to punish them.

That is part of membership agreement in the EU.

No, as a practical policy it is not. The EU will have to do something to allow those nations to reduce their barriers, and also to allow them to export to Britain. Otherwise there will be some circumvention of the rules.

Bad rules are ignored in many ways, or are circumvented, as the norm. The "membership agreement" rules you refer to don't make any sense in this case. EU rules are not intended to screw people by suppressing trade and shutting down markets, as you're suggesting.

Those rules will be interpreted differently than you're interpreting them, or they will be circumvented, or they will be modified. You can't insist that Europeans are all assholes who are incapable of seeing the damage to be inflicted if all this trade is simply shut down, for no reason, for no benefit, to accomplish nothing other than punish people sadistically, which this would do.

You obviously can't give any reason why this trade would need to be shut down, and you're just insisting that it has to be because of some abstract "policy" theory, or "membership agreement" technicality, and other meaningless non-practical jargon. You cannot expect the lives of millions to be disrupted only on the basis of meaningless abstract jargon having no practical application except to suppress people and inflict pain upon them.

EU rules were never intended as something to shut down trade and inflict suffering onto millions for no reason.

Just like individual states in the US do not print their own currency because it is part of the membership agreement to be in the USA.

If there were a practical need for them to print their own currency, they would do it.

But there are practical reasons not to do it, for the benefit of the nation, because of practical consequences. It's the practical consequences which matter, not abstract rules which have no practical point to them. E.g., what you're calling the EU "membership agreement" rules, which are not really part of any practical EU trade terms, do not have a practical application as something to simply suppress trade, which has no practical purpose, but only harm as a result.

The point of the trade rules -- of EU, GATT, NAFTA, WTO etc. -- is not to shut down trade, but to remove trade barriers, by reciprocation between nations, agreeing together to reduce the barriers, because each one doing it unilaterally is very difficult. And such agreement then does lead to some rules about uniform standards, but those have a practical benefit which would not be disregarded in the trade which would still happen after Brexit. The rules are not about suppressing trade in some cases, as you imagine.

The trade "policy" or "rules" which you're saying would be violated by trading with Britain after Brexit do not have any practical point, and serve no practical purpose as producing a beneficial result. The practical needs could be addressed without shutting down the trade. Suppressing the trade as a "policy" is only abstract and is a distortion from the original purpose of promoting MORE trade through reduced barriers, which is the only purpose these trade deals were ever needed for.

The trade agreements never had any practical purpose in terms of interfering with trade, or reducing it, or closing the markets, as you're demanding they would have to do after Brexit. This rather is a distortion of what trade agreements are about. Just as many laws end up distorting their original purpose and are ignored in those cases, where they would pervert the original intended purpose; so also any EU "policy" suppressing trade with Britain after Brexit is a distortion of the original intended purpose of EU trade, which was to promote more trade by reducing barriers, not to shut down any trade, as you're falsely saying is a part of the EU's function.

When laws become distorted to a perversion of their original intended purpose, they are circumvented, or ignored (or the perverted interpretation of them is ignored), or in some way set aside so that they do not inflict damage onto the society. There are many examples of this.

It is a perversion of the law to say it requires billions of dollars/euros/pounds in damage to be inflicted onto people for no purpose. The trade happening has to continue in some way. It is not necessary to misinterpret and distort and pervert the law in such a way as to require the law to become a sledge hammer that destroys people's lives and inflicts pain onto them for no reason or purpose served, as obviously no purpose would be served by shutting down all this trade currently with Britain.

So the practical outcome, if there's no Brexit deal, will be to allow the trading to continue somehow, with only some disruption but not total shutdown of all this trade, with whatever it requires, in circumventing some technical rules, or reinterpreting them, or adjusting the process however necessary in order for millions of people not to suffer such severe punishment as would otherwise happen for no reason.

Pain happens. But to inflict widespread pain onto millions of people for no reason is not a choice the society makes. If all that is necessary is to do nothing and just let people continue doing what they've been doing, whereas the pain can only happen if a choice is made to inflict it, and without any reason, then the choice will be to find some way to do nothing and allow those buyers and sellers to continue doing what they've been doing.

All the choices so far have been to choose nothing. No deal. No agreement. This not-choosing-anything cannot then become the reason to now inflict massive pain onto millions of people who have done nothing wrong. Some of them will continue doing the business, regardless of Brexit, and no one is going to come down onto them to shoot them and punish them and suppress them, when there is no reason to, and no benefit to be gained.

In a real situation where someone is suppressed, or curtailed from doing something, it's always because there is some damage (or risk of damage) they would cause if not curtailed. You have to identify what the damage risk would be if they are not curtailed. You can't just say there's a law containing some abstract requirement that they be curtailed. There are many real examples of this in practice, and the result is to not inflict punishment onto someone, even if a law is abstractly interpreted as requiring it, unless it's clear what the practical point is of that law and its enforcement.

And trade agreement law was never intended to shut down trade or inflict damage onto people sadistically, causing pain only for the sake of the pain, with no benefit or need served from enforcing this infliction of damage. Rather, trade laws have always been intended to promote more trade by getting nations to reduce trade barriers. To apply such a law with the intention of shutting down trade and erecting new barriers is a perversion of their intended purpose.

A simple example of a law not always enforced is that of requiring everyone doing business to obtain a business license. There's no exception in the written law. Anyone doing business is required to have a business license. Yet this is not enforced in many cases of small individual operations, though technically it could be.

And there are many more such examples where a law is not enforced in situations not originally intended by the lawmakers. Nothing in the founding of the EU was intended as something to shut down all trade going on between Britain and nations on the continent. Rather, their assumption was that the trade would always continue, and that the new system would make the trading take place more smoothly, or with some improvements and more stability of the trade.

But for the EU to turn into an unforeseen monster which would crush the trading, shut it down, and devastate millions of lives, as now is being threatened if no deal is reached -- this obviously was never intended with the founding of EU, and it's unthinkable that all this injury and suffering must now be inflicted, with no purpose served by it, no point, no reason, no necessity, as obviously no one is offering any reason or any point or any explanation how this could serve any benefit -- as the enforcement of rules is always supposed to serve a purpose, such as to prevent a threat and protect lives and create a healthier society.

 

[bilby]

It's not sufficient to say the rules abstractly require Britain to be punished sadistically for no reason. There has to be a practical purpose served by enforcing such rules.



I'm saying a form of free trade would happen. But not necessarily a free trade deal "with the EU." Rather, the free trade will result by default, as there is no agreement with the EU, and as Brits continue to squabble and not decide on a new trade law to replace the current EU system.

My hypothesis (OP) is that Brexit happens, plus there is no Brexit deal with the EU, plus the Brits continue to disagree on what to do and nothing is passed by Parliament; so therefore there is nothing -- no deal, no policy saying this or that is to happen. Given all that (which is the case so far), what will happen? And the answer is that some trading will still emerge anyway, or continue to happen, despite no agreement or deal, and this will be either zero or low tariff trade, until eventually something is finally agreed to which sets some new terms.

So free trade could be the end result of all this.

So if there's no deal, no new trade law, what happens? It's unthinkable that all the current trade with Britain simply stops cold. There's no reason for that to happen. Nothing would force it to happen, if Britain and nations trading with it just continue this trade. Britain would do nothing to stop the imports, i.e., let its market stay open to imports from those EU nations, and these (or some of them) would continue shipping to Britain.

This probably would mean some kind of low or zero tariffs by Britain on those imports. Though there's no new trade law agreed to, still the imports could be taken in, because stopping them requires more intervention by government than allowing them to continue as at present.

So the free trade would evolve, without any free trade deal or law imposing it.

The path of least resistance is for the current trading to just continue, probably with some disruption, some adjustment, some improvising of new procedures. But to end all that trade would be a disaster, and there is no reason for Britain to choose to impose an unnecessary disaster onto itself. Nor can the EU or anyone else impose such a disaster, nor would they do it even if they could.

And there is nothing the EU could do to force Britain to stop trading. The worst it could do would be to impose high EU tariffs onto British products to EU nations. But there are limits to how far it could go in that direction. So there'd be disruption of Britain exporting to the EU, so the trade would be unilateral, or mostly one-way, and Britain's trade deficit would rise.

Which is interesting in that no one has ever shown how a trade deficit is bad for a country, despite all the babble about this. The popular view of the vulgar masses is that it's a disaster, and some politicians pander to this misconception.

If Brexit happens with no deal with the EU, then unilateral free trade could happen, with Britain's trade deficit increasing, without anyone choosing this as a policy. It would just happen. Many Brits would panic, but the truth is that no real damage would happen, except that a few uncompetitive workers would lose their jobs, and even this would probably only be a temporary effect. All the paranoia about trade deficits would be debunked, as it has already been debunked many times, and the British economy would recover -- after a temporary setback -- under the new conditions of tougher competition. Just like the U.S. economy has run a high trade deficit with no verifiable damage done to the economy.

Not that idiots would stop running at the mouth about the horrors of trade deficits. They would continue the nonsense as always, after the loss of some factories, which are worshiped as sacred objects, and the protectionists will probably never stop their delusions about the need for factories, no matter how much they are refuted by logic and by the facts.

But what might happen, if there's NO DEAL after BREXIT, is that the current trade (or some of it) between Britain and EU members might continue.

It might but it will not be free trade.

It would be freer than it is now. And it could become unilateral free trade with Britain's market open and EU markets mostly closed. However, the EU members would find ways to reciprocate, at least partly, because it would be in their interest. It makes no sense to say that they would want to only sell to Britain and not buy anything from Britain, or that they would impose high tariffs. They aren't that stupid, though something like that might happen at first. But somehow they would find a way to lower their tariffs, for the sake of their consumers.

They really know that serving consumers comes first, and that total one-way trade and extreme trade surpluses make no sense.

It's not true that Europeans think it's OK to screw consumers and reduce the general living standard because of wacko Birdbrain Economics theories preached by labor union dogmatists and Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and other Protectionist retards. Even if you think Europeans have an average I.Q. of less than 50, even so, they aren't so stupid as to believe in the old worn-out mercantilist theories that screwing the consumers somehow makes the economy stronger, with wall-to-wall factories and makework jobs, and with corporate welfare subsidizing companies so they don't have to compete against foreign producers, and promoting makework with their "economic stimulus" and "job creation" babble nonsense.

Demonizing foreign producers, like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump do, and condemning companies for wanting to save on labor cost, and other such demagoguery, does win in popularity polls, up to a point, but everyone of any intelligence and basic education really knows that protectionist xenophobia only makes the economy worse, while more competition makes it better.

So those EU nations exporting to Britain would find ways to reduce the barriers and partly open their market, one way or another, despite the slogans that they have to trade within EU rules. Either those rules would change to allow them to do what's in their interest rather than screwing all the consumers, or they would find ways to circumvent those rules. Or they'd reinterpret the rules or claim to be really in compliance with them.

But it would not be balanced trade. Britain would experience higher trade deficits, which would turn out to do no harm to Britain after all, despite the paranoia of the Protectionist boneheads.

For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge or understand that EU members trade under EU policy - they do not make separate deals.

They will trade without making "separate deals," rather than suffering the negative consequences of cutting off the trade for no reason.

They will do what's in their interest. It will not be in their interest to stop trading with Britain, so they will continue doing it one way or another. You cannot claim that they would act against their interest. If the "policy" demands something which is against their interest, they will find ways to circumvent it. It is normal for bad "policy" to be circumvented by one means or another.

It's clearly in the interest of those EU members to continue exporting to Britain. And they are not so subhuman, as you're implying, as to be unable to see that total one-way trade-surplus economics is bad for their economy, because of the obvious damage to consumers. They will recognize this, at least over time, and find some way to reduce their barriers to British imports, whatever it takes.

In the final analysis a nation will do what's in its interest, as its top priority, rather than enslaving itself to a meaningless "policy" forcing them to screw their consumers; and especially to a "policy" which really would not be enforced. It is not true that the EU would take action to prevent those nations from continuing the trade, or to punish them.

That is part of membership agreement in the EU.

No, as a practical policy it is not. The EU will have to do something to allow those nations to reduce their barriers, and also to allow them to export to Britain. Otherwise there will be some circumvention of the rules.

Bad rules are ignored in many ways, or are circumvented, as the norm. The "membership agreement" rules you refer to don't make any sense in this case. EU rules are not intended to screw people by suppressing trade and shutting down markets, as you're suggesting.

Those rules will be interpreted differently than you're interpreting them, or they will be circumvented, or they will be modified. You can't insist that Europeans are all assholes who are incapable of seeing the damage to be inflicted if all this trade is simply shut down, for no reason, for no benefit, to accomplish nothing other than punish people sadistically, which this would do.

You obviously can't give any reason why this trade would need to be shut down, and you're just insisting that it has to be because of some abstract "policy" theory, or "membership agreement" technicality, and other meaningless non-practical jargon. You cannot expect the lives of millions to be disrupted only on the basis of meaningless abstract jargon having no practical application except to suppress people and inflict pain upon them.

EU rules were never intended as something to shut down trade and inflict suffering onto millions for no reason.

Just like individual states in the US do not print their own currency because it is part of the membership agreement to be in the USA.

If there were a practical need for them to print their own currency, they would do it.

But there are practical reasons not to do it, for the benefit of the nation, because of practical consequences. It's the practical consequences which matter, not abstract rules which have no practical point to them. E.g., what you're calling the EU "membership agreement" rules, which are not really part of any practical EU trade terms, do not have a practical application as something to simply suppress trade, which has no practical purpose, but only harm as a result.

The point of the trade rules -- of EU, GATT, NAFTA, WTO etc. -- is not to shut down trade, but to remove trade barriers, by reciprocation between nations, agreeing together to reduce the barriers, because each one doing it unilaterally is very difficult. And such agreement then does lead to some rules about uniform standards, but those have a practical benefit which would not be disregarded in the trade which would still happen after Brexit. The rules are not about suppressing trade in some cases, as you imagine.

The trade "policy" or "rules" which you're saying would be violated by trading with Britain after Brexit do not have any practical point, and serve no practical purpose as producing a beneficial result. The practical needs could be addressed without shutting down the trade. Suppressing the trade as a "policy" is only abstract and is a distortion from the original purpose of promoting MORE trade through reduced barriers, which is the only purpose these trade deals were ever needed for.

The trade agreements never had any practical purpose in terms of interfering with trade, or reducing it, or closing the markets, as you're demanding they would have to do after Brexit. This rather is a distortion of what trade agreements are about. Just as many laws end up distorting their original purpose and are ignored in those cases, where they would pervert the original intended purpose; so also any EU "policy" suppressing trade with Britain after Brexit is a distortion of the original intended purpose of EU trade, which was to promote more trade by reducing barriers, not to shut down any trade, as you're falsely saying is a part of the EU's function.

When laws become distorted to a perversion of their original intended purpose, they are circumvented, or ignored (or the perverted interpretation of them is ignored), or in some way set aside so that they do not inflict damage onto the society. There are many examples of this.

It is a perversion of the law to say it requires billions of dollars/euros/pounds in damage to be inflicted onto people for no purpose. The trade happening has to continue in some way. It is not necessary to misinterpret and distort and pervert the law in such a way as to require the law to become a sledge hammer that destroys people's lives and inflicts pain onto them for no reason or purpose served, as obviously no purpose would be served by shutting down all this trade currently with Britain.

So the practical outcome, if there's no Brexit deal, will be to allow the trading to continue somehow, with only some disruption but not total shutdown of all this trade, with whatever it requires, in circumventing some technical rules, or reinterpreting them, or adjusting the process however necessary in order for millions of people not to suffer such severe punishment as would otherwise happen for no reason.

Pain happens. But to inflict widespread pain onto millions of people for no reason is not a choice the society makes. If all that is necessary is to do nothing and just let people continue doing what they've been doing, whereas the pain can only happen if a choice is made to inflict it, and without any reason, then the choice will be to find some way to do nothing and allow those buyers and sellers to continue doing what they've been doing.

All the choices so far have been to choose nothing. No deal. No agreement. This not-choosing-anything cannot then become the reason to now inflict massive pain onto millions of people who have done nothing wrong. Some of them will continue doing the business, regardless of Brexit, and no one is going to come down onto them to shoot them and punish them and suppress them, when there is no reason to, and no benefit to be gained.

In a real situation where someone is suppressed, or curtailed from doing something, it's always because there is some damage (or risk of damage) they would cause if not curtailed. You have to identify what the damage risk would be if they are not curtailed. You can't just say there's a law containing some abstract requirement that they be curtailed. There are many real examples of this in practice, and the result is to not inflict punishment onto someone, even if a law is abstractly interpreted as requiring it, unless it's clear what the practical point is of that law and its enforcement.

And trade agreement law was never intended to shut down trade or inflict damage onto people sadistically, causing pain only for the sake of the pain, with no benefit or need served from enforcing this infliction of damage. Rather, trade laws have always been intended to promote more trade by getting nations to reduce trade barriers. To apply such a law with the intention of shutting down trade and erecting new barriers is a perversion of their intended purpose.

A simple example of a law not always enforced is that of requiring everyone doing business to obtain a business license. There's no exception in the written law. Anyone doing business is required to have a business license. Yet this is not enforced in many cases of small individual operations, though technically it could be.

And there are many more such examples where a law is not enforced in situations not originally intended by the lawmakers. Nothing in the founding of the EU was intended as something to shut down all trade going on between Britain and nations on the continent. Rather, their assumption was that the trade would always continue, and that the new system would make the trading take place more smoothly, or with some improvements and more stability of the trade.

But for the EU to turn into an unforeseen monster which would crush the trading, shut it down, and devastate millions of lives, as now is being threatened if no deal is reached -- this obviously was never intended with the founding of EU, and it's unthinkable that all this injury and suffering must now be inflicted, with no purpose served by it, no point, no reason, no necessity, as obviously no one is offering any reason or any point or any explanation how this could serve any benefit -- as the enforcement of rules is always supposed to serve a purpose, such as to prevent a threat and protect lives and create a healthier society.

That's truly a SHITLOAD of words that amount to "I have not got the first clue about this topic".

This seems to be a speciality of yours; But these are write only documents. Nobody wants to read the opinions of someone who is completely clueless.

Suffice to say, every one of your assumptions here is deeply wrong, and to be this badly misinformed about a topic you appear to care about takes quite an impressive level of deliberate avoidance of any facts or information on the subject, which is all the evidence anyone needs to be certain that no attempt to correct your misunderstandings could possibly succeed.

I genuinely hooe that you enjoy being wrong; It's clear that you will never be in any other state.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Did the EU try to go too far?

EU can be useful to promote free trade, but not impose Absolute Authority over all. The majority of Brits think it went too far.

The EU also requires all members to meet certain specified quality standards for a whole range of goods and services. By doing so, they allow other members with whom they trade to dispense with checks of quality at the border.

There's both good and bad in this handing over of inspections to the EU. Each nation is sovereign and is basically entitled to make its own determinations of what commerce to allow into its territory across the border. It relinquishes this, at least partly, to the bloc by its entrance into it. So there are disagreements on these border checks of quality, within the individual nations, but they negotiate the details and come to general agreement, and overall it's satisfactory. But if the EU overextends its rules too far into details, there is the threat of resistance from individual members.

The union has to understand where to stop intruding and instead leave it to individual members to adopt their own standards. Just like in the U.S. states are allowed to adopt their own individual rules. Do all states have to outlaw cock-fighting? etc. What about Sunday closing laws? What about Germany banning shopping on Sunday? Should bull-fighting be banned by the EU? There are a million different beliefs, cultural disagreements among humans. Even within one state there might be conflicting rules about what is proper. Also about product standards, such as genetically-modified foods, e.g.

It's unreasonable to expect the trading union to set all the rules about everything to be allowed among the buyers and sellers. So the rules about what is allowed and what is banned cannot all be dictated by the trading bloc legislators. These are not the Absolute Authority on all matters of standards for what is allowed and what is prohibited.

So, for example, a container of pig carcasses being shipped from the UK to France today doesn't need to be inspected by a French vet;

Hot dog!

An aircraft certified as airworthy in the UK need not also be certified by Germany before being allowed to overfly German airspace; And the UK air traffic system complies with international laws, because the EU enforces rules that it has certified to the ICAO as compliant with their rules.

All these rules/standards are agreed to from convenience, to allow trade to take place and ensure safety, generally, but the unity on all the rules does not run universally throughout all the products and services. At some point it breaks down and individual nations will part company from the union and insist on their own separate rules. There are always some separate rules and separate procedures adopted by the individual nations.

Those who want to impose their rules onto everyone everywhere have to understand where to back off and respect the right of the separate sovereign nations to set their own rules.

There's no area of the economy, even food quality or air traffic safety, where the individual nation cannot make its own judgments instead of yielding to those of the international union, according to its choice. They CHOOSE to adopt the union standards, usually best overall, and compromise on individual points of difference. But they legitimately resist at some point when the union extends its authority too far, at which point the union could break down.

The individual nation could undertake to impose its own rules and enforcement in any of these areas, if it finds it necessary, and does not become dependent on the union, as if it could not take the responsibility if necessary. It could take responsibility to enforce the standards itself, but instead allows the union to do it, out of convenience and lower cost.

After Brexit, all of these agreements and assurances are legally void. They must be re-established in some way - for example, the UK could allow EU vets to inspect its slaughtering and meat handling processes, or the French could just inspect every meat shipment.

Individual nations can undertake these procedures if necessary, but as long as it's more convenient and less costly for the EU to do it, that's their choice. Nothing about this means that Britain itself could not take care of these needs if necessary.

But the former requires that the UK continues to comply with EU law (despite having no say in it, having lost their seats in the EU parliament and European Commission); And the latter implies MASSIVE delays at Dover and/or Calais, plus significant additional expenses.

Obviously Britain will still comply with most of the current standards.

Individually where there is hostility to EU rules, maybe some changes will take place, but likely many of those rules will just be replaced by new ones which will meet the same hostility as the earlier EU rules. Probably many of the Brexit crusaders will be disappointed and still complain of too many rules.

The UK will need its own Civil Aviation Authority too. But the one it has is far too small, and has far too few qualified people, to simply take over the certifications currently provided by the EU. Given a few months (or more likely years), they can restore their ICAO certification. In the meantime, how many US airlines are going to be happy to fly through (or to) UK airspace, when their insurance will be voided by so doing? Sure, it's probably safe enough; But like a driver who has the ability to drive, but no license to do so, the insurers won't accept this assertion. Insurers require lawful certifications.

There are a million other examples. We can assume that over many years Britain will assimilate back into a system largely overlapping the EU, resembling the present arrangement, with most of the same procedures back in place, as they would have been even without Brexit. But also a new internal British system will emerge alongside it and assume some of the old functions. It isn't necessary to get bogged down in all the details of what the nation internally should do on its own responsibility and what should be left to the EU.

And these are just a couple of examples. The system will collapse, unless dozens of similar issues are addressed, completely and in full, before Brexit takes effect.

Nothing is ever addressed "completely and in full" before or after Brexit. There are a million breakdowns in any system, always happening, never being totally fixed.

There's no way that could be achieved in two years; But now there are only two months left.

In 200 years it won't all be "achieved."

The rantings of idiots notwithstanding, this can't fail to be a massive clusterfuck.

What's one more clusterfuck?

What has happened is that the majority of the British population believe the EU went too far, intruding itself into too much which should have remained for individual sovereignty to determine. There's no way to scientifically identify exactly how much of this is too much.

But a good lesson to be learned, if the events continue as present with no EU deal and no new British trade law (because Brits are so divided), might be that unilateral free trade actually does work, because it might emerge spontaneously, with no one planning it. And then -- more protectionist nonsense will continue to explode and be debunked by the proven benefits of free-market and free-trade principles, as the corporate welfare goons and labor union crybabies and other special interests get pushed aside by the law of supply-and-demand.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm saying a form of free trade would happen.....

And your conclusion is based on pure delusion. Member states of the EU have agreed to have trade with non-EU members in an unified way. The member states of the EU have agreed to complex form of enforcement mechanisms. And, since Ireland is still part of the EU, the EU and its member states are not going to allow Britain (a non-member state) the same terms of trade as a member state. That is the reality.

 

[bilby]

EU can be useful to promote free trade, but not impose Absolute Authority over all. The majority of Brits think it went too far.



There's both good and bad in this handing over of inspections to the EU. Each nation is sovereign and is basically entitled to make its own determinations of what commerce to allow into its territory across the border. It relinquishes this, at least partly, to the bloc by its entrance into it. So there are disagreements on these border checks of quality, within the individual nations, but they negotiate the details and come to general agreement, and overall it's satisfactory. But if the EU overextends its rules too far into details, there is the threat of resistance from individual members.

The union has to understand where to stop intruding and instead leave it to individual members to adopt their own standards. Just like in the U.S. states are allowed to adopt their own individual rules. Do all states have to outlaw cock-fighting? etc. What about Sunday closing laws? What about Germany banning shopping on Sunday? Should bull-fighting be banned by the EU? There are a million different beliefs, cultural disagreements among humans. Even within one state there might be conflicting rules about what is proper. Also about product standards, such as genetically-modified foods, e.g.

It's unreasonable to expect the trading union to set all the rules about everything to be allowed among the buyers and sellers. So the rules about what is allowed and what is banned cannot all be dictated by the trading bloc legislators. These are not the Absolute Authority on all matters of standards for what is allowed and what is prohibited.




Hot dog!

An aircraft certified as airworthy in the UK need not also be certified by Germany before being allowed to overfly German airspace; And the UK air traffic system complies with international laws, because the EU enforces rules that it has certified to the ICAO as compliant with their rules.

All these rules/standards are agreed to from convenience, to allow trade to take place and ensure safety, generally, but the unity on all the rules does not run universally throughout all the products and services. At some point it breaks down and individual nations will part company from the union and insist on their own separate rules. There are always some separate rules and separate procedures adopted by the individual nations.

Those who want to impose their rules onto everyone everywhere have to understand where to back off and respect the right of the separate sovereign nations to set their own rules.

There's no area of the economy, even food quality or air traffic safety, where the individual nation cannot make its own judgments instead of yielding to those of the international union, according to its choice. They CHOOSE to adopt the union standards, usually best overall, and compromise on individual points of difference. But they legitimately resist at some point when the union extends its authority too far, at which point the union could break down.

The individual nation could undertake to impose its own rules and enforcement in any of these areas, if it finds it necessary, and does not become dependent on the union, as if it could not take the responsibility if necessary. It could take responsibility to enforce the standards itself, but instead allows the union to do it, out of convenience and lower cost.

After Brexit, all of these agreements and assurances are legally void. They must be re-established in some way - for example, the UK could allow EU vets to inspect its slaughtering and meat handling processes, or the French could just inspect every meat shipment.

Individual nations can undertake these procedures if necessary, but as long as it's more convenient and less costly for the EU to do it, that's their choice. Nothing about this means that Britain itself could not take care of these needs if necessary.

But the former requires that the UK continues to comply with EU law (despite having no say in it, having lost their seats in the EU parliament and European Commission); And the latter implies MASSIVE delays at Dover and/or Calais, plus significant additional expenses.

Obviously Britain will still comply with most of the current standards.

Individually where there is hostility to EU rules, maybe some changes will take place, but likely many of those rules will just be replaced by new ones which will meet the same hostility as the earlier EU rules. Probably many of the Brexit crusaders will be disappointed and still complain of too many rules.

The UK will need its own Civil Aviation Authority too. But the one it has is far too small, and has far too few qualified people, to simply take over the certifications currently provided by the EU. Given a few months (or more likely years), they can restore their ICAO certification. In the meantime, how many US airlines are going to be happy to fly through (or to) UK airspace, when their insurance will be voided by so doing? Sure, it's probably safe enough; But like a driver who has the ability to drive, but no license to do so, the insurers won't accept this assertion. Insurers require lawful certifications.

There are a million other examples. We can assume that over many years Britain will assimilate back into a system largely overlapping the EU, resembling the present arrangement, with most of the same procedures back in place, as they would have been even without Brexit. But also a new internal British system will emerge alongside it and assume some of the old functions. It isn't necessary to get bogged down in all the details of what the nation internally should do on its own responsibility and what should be left to the EU.

And these are just a couple of examples. The system will collapse, unless dozens of similar issues are addressed, completely and in full, before Brexit takes effect.

Nothing is ever addressed "completely and in full" before or after Brexit. There are a million breakdowns in any system, always happening, never being totally fixed.

There's no way that could be achieved in two years; But now there are only two months left.

In 200 years it won't all be "achieved."

The rantings of idiots notwithstanding, this can't fail to be a massive clusterfuck.

What's one more clusterfuck?

What has happened is that the majority of the British population believe the EU went too far, intruding itself into too much which should have remained for individual sovereignty to determine. There's no way to scientifically identify exactly how much of this is too much.

But a good lesson to be learned, if the events continue as present with no EU deal and no new British trade law (because Brits are so divided), might be that unilateral free trade actually does work, because it might emerge spontaneously, with no one planning it. And then -- more protectionist nonsense will continue to explode and be debunked by the proven benefits of free-market and free-trade principles, as the corporate welfare goons and labor union crybabies and other special interests get pushed aside by the law of supply-and-demand.

Selecting just one of your gross errors to correct (while recognising the futility of the attempt) - The EU is a LESS constrained environment than the US. EU member states have more autonomy and sovereignty than US Member states. The US went to war over an attempted secession by some states; While the EU provides a unilateral mechanism to secede. The UK has maintained the right to a sovereign currency and central bank. No US state issues it's own currency.

You haven't got a clue about this subject. Why the FUCK are you talking, when you can only hope to become useful by LISTENING?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Rules (EU rules) are supposed to serve a legitimate purpose to benefit people, not to punish them for no reason.

The bottom line is simple: There is currently much trade going on between Britain and EU nations, and it makes no sense to say that all this trade has to suddenly be stopped after Brexit. What is the point of stopping something beneficial to everyone and harmful to no one? Who is going to say "OK, stop it! This all has to end, even though everyone wants it to continue. Stop it or I'll shoot!"

How does that make sense? How can anyone arbitrarily step in and put a stop to something which is benefiting millions of buyers and sellers and consumers, when it would be very simple to let it continue as it is going now? What is the critical need to put a stop to all this trading? How is the world going to end if the trading continues? Who will be harmed if it continues?

Obviously the only harm comes if the trading is stopped, not if it just continues as it's going now.

No one is answering why it has to stop, or who is going to stop it.

It has to stop because it's in contravention of EU laws designed to protect . . .

No it's not in contravention, except that in a few cases Brits object to certain rules and would violate those particular rules. But the vast majority of the rules would continue to be followed. Almost all the trade would continue anyway and in compliance with the current rules.

What would be "in contravention" would be certain practices, such as the British fishermen who would reject those current restrictions on them, and so for the fishing business there would be changes, and there'd be consequences from this. But the changes in that industry do not then have to cause a total collapse of all the other industries where the British would continue following the rules and nothing about it would be "in contravention" of EU laws.

. . . laws designed to protect EU consumers and businesses from fraud, health issues, safety breaches, and a large number of other hazards.

But virtually all the existing laws would continue to be followed, so there'd be no threat whatever to those consumers and businesses from fraud, health issues, etc. There is absolutely no threat to anyone from British trade continuing as it is now, in almost all the areas, while there would be a few areas where the trading would break down, as only those particular rules would be abandoned, and in each of those cases the business interests involved would change their operations.

Nothing about those changes to take place requires that ALL the trading has to be stopped. Those changes would impact only a tiny minority of all the trade now happening.

When a business or a citizen violates a rule, there may be penalties of some kind imposed, or consequences, but it does not follow that they sacrifice ALL participation in the society, or that ALL rules are cancelled or ALL the system collapses and everything comes to a halt. No, everything continues as before, with certain limited consequences following from the very limited case where a certain rule was broken, or where the system broke down at that one point. Just because there is a breakdown in the system at one point does not mean the whole system has to be blown up.

Who is going to stop it is the customs officials of the EU.

No, if an EU nation wants to continue trading with Britain, there are no EU customs officials who will stop it. That nation will send imports to Britain, and no EU officials in Britain have any authorization to interfere with it. It is entirely up to Britain what rules would be imposed onto these imports. And Britain mostly wants these imports to continue as they are happening now.

The EU rules would impose tariffs on any British imports to those nations, so that there would be disruption of any such shipping from Britain. Each EU nation would have to decide whether to comply with the EU rules or whether to try to circumvent them. And there would almost certainly be some circumvention which would develop over time. At first they'd comply and the disruption in trade would be serious. But there is no reason for an EU nation to continue to enslave itself to harmful rules it wants to circumvent if it could find ways to do so, which it could.


Self-sacrifice by individual nations is sometimes necessary, but only if it's done for a legitimate reason, or a purpose served which is for the general good of all, or the collective good.

There's no reason to believe that all the EU nations would shoot themselves in the foot and hurt their own citizens only in order to preserve EU rules which serve no legitimate purpose. All the rules which do serve a legitimate purpose would continue to be followed anyway, so the only rules they would circumvent would be unnecessary ones. E.g., unusually high tariffs imposed onto the British imports would serve no legitimate purpose, and there are ways an EU nation could allow circumvention of those high tariffs, when it becomes obvious that they are contrary to everyone's interest.

One-way extreme trade-surplus policies make no sense to anyone, including to the protectionist nation, which in this case wants the imports but is forced to impose obnoxious tariffs against their own interest. They would lower those tariffs over time, one way or another, despite the EU rules, because those rules would serve no legitimate purpose at that point. In fact, the EU itself would finally realize the pointlessness of such rules and would probably make changes in them before the EU nation is forced to the point of violating those rules.

You really cannot just ignore the complex (but genuine) reality in favour of your simple (but foolish) dreams.

The "dreams" are the wishes of people to engage in trade because they like stuff to be produced for them. You can't concoct a system which crushes people and denies them what they want. Rather, the system has to be designed to promote their benefit, serving them by prescribing rules which facilitate the desired activity, allowing them to do what is their natural instinct while at the same time imposing some necessary rules, or some terms to make the activity happen safely and efficiently and in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

The value of the system and the rules is not served by imposing these in such a way as to blow up the whole system and shutting down everything people want, and suppressing them and punishing them and torturing them sadistically for no purpose -- which is what it would be to shut down all the trade between Britain and the EU nations -- a sadistic punishment-for-punishment's-sake needless disaster, totally unnecessary, serving no point. This shutting-down is not part of any legitimate system of rules intended to serve people and make society function more efficiently.

It just doesn't work that way. That's not how any of this works.

You're right that throughout history there have been tyrannical systems which crush people and torture them and enslave them, and that is how it sometimes has worked, to the benefit of an elitist few at the top -- or, in this case, to no one's benefit.

But it's not true that the system has to work that way. Demanding that some have to be crushed for sadistic reasons only, with no positive purpose served for the betterment of society, is not the way that "any of this works." The overall trend has been away from tyranny and suppression of people, and toward trying to make the system work better for everyone's benefit.

Some form of unilateral free trade would actually be the best system for the benefit of all, or the "greatest good for the greatest number." But this will not be chosen by the British or by the Europeans generally. Rather, it might happen by default, as they are unable to agree on anything at all.

IF Brexit happens and no new trade arrangement is agreed upon -- no "deal" to save the current trading which has to continue one way or another -- some of the EU control will likely break down so that the necessary trading will resume or continue, to serve the interests of all, and Europeans will continue to trade, with some modification in the rules so that these become less of an unnecessary intrusion and obstacle to trade and the EU assumes its legitimate role of serving the buyers and sellers rather than threatening to crush them, as you are demanding it should do.

Consolidating the system of rules as a fortress per se, just for the sake of entrenching it and enforcing respect for it as an institution of authority, has to be subservient to the higher purpose of serving the people who live under the system.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Whatever harm happens after Brexit will be caused by the EU, or EU members choosing to punish Britain against their own interest.

Assuming this is a serious question, in the event of a "no-deal" Brexit British trade with the EU (and everybody else, since Britain has no separate trade agreements with anyone) will revert to WTO rules, with a prescribed set of tariffs on pretty much everything.

It's not true that the WTO imposes any tariffs onto member nations, other than declaring some limits on how high the tariffs may be. Also, there can be no WTO ruling on any rules infraction unless some nation files a complaint against another, and there is no nation which would have a valid complaint against Britain because of Brexit. Also, WTO has no mechanism to enforce any rules, other than to rule that a nation may increase its tariffs in retaliation against another.

I remember pre-EU days. We do not want to go back to that mess.

There'd be no need to go back to it. This would happen only if the EU requires it, which is totally unnecessary. Nothing about Brexit requires a return to those days. Except that some very small amount of business would be disrupted as a result of changes, impacting only a tiny fraction of the total trading.

Extremely complicated to run a company. Since the Brits are used to EU we'll have riots when it dawns on people how complicated and bad it was.

It won't happen unless the EU imposes it unnecessarily and all the EU nations act against their interest by trying to boycott Britain and putting an end to all the trade for no purpose. Brexit does not require that all the current trading system has to stop

It's not just the tariffs, but having to keep track of everything, and pay for an extremely expensive bureaucracy, and every package being late.

Brexit does not require any of that. Only retaliation by the EU to disrupt the current trading would cause that to happen. In reality it's not likely that the EU would want to impose all this damage and injury to millions of people for no purpose served.

 

[laughing dog]

It won't happen unless the EU imposes it unnecessarily and all the EU nations act against their interest by trying to boycott Britain and putting an end to all the trade for no purpose. Brexit does not require that all the current trading system has to stop.

Since Britain will no longer have automatic access to the trading rules of an EU member that EU membership grants, and since EU members do not engage in trade policy independent from the EU, what on earth are you babbling about? Britain will not have free trade with EU members, no matter what you fantasize unless the EU agrees to free trade. It is not retaliation for the EU to treat Britain like any other non-member of the EU.

If the EU does not require your approval for its policies. The EU has no incentive to agree to free trade with any non-EU member, let alone one that just left the EU, your entire argument and rebuttals are based on delusions.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Analogy to Brexit: What is another case where nations were punished and yet no practical purpose was served?

There might be some cases, but they obviously should not have happened, as this proposed punishment of Britain after Brexit should not happen.

The bottom line is simple: There is currently much trade going on between Britain and EU nations, and it makes no sense to say that all this trade has to suddenly be stopped after Brexit. What is the point of stopping something beneficial to everyone and harmful to no one? Who is going to say "OK, stop it! This all has to end, even though everyone wants it to continue. Stop it or I'll shoot!"

Hey, how many soy beans did the US sell China last year...?

That's not analogous to Brexit.

The U.S. was angry against China and imposed much higher tariffs in order to intimidate China into changing its protectionist practices. Britain has done nothing like this. It has threatened no one with higher tariffs or demanded that any EU nation change its practices.

Then China retaliated in anger against the U.S. and imposed the higher tariffs on soybeans. No EU country trading with Britain will do anything like this. They might have to impose tariffs on British imports to them, but they have no motive to do this, such as retaliation, but only that of obedience to EU rules, unlike China which wanted to retaliate. Those EU nations know they would be better off to continue trading with Britain under the same terms as before Brexit, whereas the Chinese think they are better off retaliating against the U.S. in order to maintain their protectionist mercantilist practices.

There is no desire by EU nations to retaliate against Britain for anything. Britain is not imposing anything on them for them to retaliate against, as the U.S. imposed something on China which it then retaliated against.

So there is no reason for the trade between Britain and EU nations to end, or decrease, in the interest of either side, regardless of what they believe about trade. All parties to this trade think it's something good which should continue as it is now, without any significant change, such as any new barriers or any reduction of this trade, which ought not happen but is being threatened. Everyone agrees that any such change can result in harm only, with nothing good to be accomplished by it.

Whereas both the U.S. and China are insisting on their terms, making tough demands, in the belief that it will make the trade better. The U.S. believes the change will be something better, whereas no EU nation trading with Britain believes the threatened changes will make anything better.

So it's a totally false analogy to equate these two scenarios of Brexit and U.S.-China trade. In a trade war/conflict, such as U.S.-China, there may be a purpose served by taking a tough stand in order to force the other side to compromise and thus produce a better outcome. But there is no tough stand against Britain which can lead to any compromise and produce a better outcome. Nothing about Brexit poses any threat to the EU, like the U.S. intimidation of China posed a threat to China.

Brexit does not put forth any new demands against an EU nation on trade terms, such as the U.S. put forth against China with its higher tariffs on steel and other Chinese products. When tough demands are made, in order to get concessions, there is a view that this would improve the relation and make the trade better than it was before. Nothing like that is the case with any demands made on Britain, or with any conditions from the EU terms.

When terms are enforced or rules applied, and sometimes a sacrifice or compromise is made necessary, this is done in order to improve the conditions, the commerce, the environment, the interaction between the parties or nations. But the upcoming punishment of Britain, as a result of Brexit, serves no such need to improve anything, to make commerce better or serve any other form of a public need or public good.

So China's new barriers against U.S. soybeans, done to promote China's chosen protectionist mercantilist philosophy, is no analogy to the upcoming trade disaster facing Britain after Brexit, which will be an absolutely needless disaster imposed onto that country for no legitimate reason or purpose served, or out of any philosophical view about serving people or strengthening the nation, but out of sadistic instincts only.

No one posting here so far has indicated any purpose served, other than a sadistic instinct per se. This is obvious by the repeated demands that the punishment has to happen, only because of some vague abstract rules requiring it, while no practical explanation is ever offered for why it needs to happen and why those rules should be enforced or why anything is improved by their enforcement.

Rules are supposed to be enforced in order to make an improvement in society, to produce better results that the rules are aimed at, whereas in the case of Brexit, there is no improvement in view or any better results to come, but only punishment for the sake of punishment.

 

[laughing dog]

Brexit does not put forth any new demands against an EU nation on trade terms, such as the U.S. put forth against China with its higher tariffs on steel and other Chinese products. When tough demands are made, in order to get concessions, there is a view that this would improve the relation and make the trade better than it was before. Nothing like that is the case with any demands made on Britain, or with any conditions from the EU terms.

More babbling nonsense. No demands are being made upon Britain. Britain agreed to be in the EU and agreed to the terms of the agreement which included negotiating an exit if one was desired. Britain can, of course, say it wants no deal. And the EU is not required to agree to any deal, and the EU is not required to give Britain free trade after Britain leaves. Free trade within the EU is a big selling point of EU membership, and you have given absolutely no sane reason why the EU would offer one of the major benefits of being an EU member to a non-member. None.

When terms are enforced or rules applied, and sometimes a sacrifice or compromise is made necessary, this is done in order to improve the conditions, the commerce, the environment, the interaction between the parties or nations. But the upcoming punishment of Britain, as a result of Brexit, serves no such need to improve anything, to make commerce better or serve any other form of a public need or public good.

More babbling nonsense: there is no punishment of Britain.

No one posting here so far has indicated any purpose served, other than a sadistic instinct per se. ..

An utter falsehood.

Rules are supposed to be enforced in order to make an improvement in society, to produce better results that the rules are aimed at, whereas in the case of Brexit, there is no improvement in view or any better results to come, but only punishment for the sake of punishment.

The British chose exit, so if a no-deal Brexit is what they choose, they are "punishing" themselves.

 

[bilby]

For fuck's sake. There's no punishment. The UK is opting out of a good deal. When you turn down a good deal, you can expect to instead get a less good deal, until and unless you negotiate a better one.

It's like if you go to Costco and they are selling tins of beans at $6 for two dozen - it's a great deal, based on your choice to buy in bulk. If you say 'I don't want to buy in bulk; I will just get one tin of beans', then you are not being punished when you are told to pay $1 for the same tin that was 25c in the bulk buy.

The EU is a market of half a billion consumers. They will get seriously better deals than the UK, with a measly 50m.

 

[Trausti]

 

[bilby]

Wrong thread?

You do know that the Sunday Sport is intended as comedy; Right?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Famous Babble Blowhard Brexit-Basher has no answers.

There may be a catastrophe on the way in Britain, because of Brexit and the failure to produce a No-Brexit Deal. But what is the cause of this catastrophe?

Nevermind that the Brexit vote might have been a mistake. That's history, and not the first time voters might have made a wrong choice. So when voters choose wrong they have to be punished? You mean anyone who says "NO" to the EU must be punished, for being naughty and defiant against the Authority Establishment. Is that the point? like prisoners who broke the rules? like Al Capone was finally captured and imprisoned? like escaped slaves had to be captured and whipped? What is this coming catastrophe to be inflicted onto a nation for being insubordinate to the EU Authority?

The narrative seems to be that the Brexit vote is some kind of infraction of the rules, and those guilty of this must now be taught a lesson, in retaliation for their misbehavior of voting wrong.

The "catastrophe" on the way is said to be caused by the British who will now suffer "CONSEQUENCES" for this, which are unavoidable, because now the EU system will no longer perform some service it has provided up 'til now. But, what has the EU provided which is now being taken away? How is the "catastrophe" caused by Brexit, and not really simple and pure retaliation/punishment inflicted onto Britain for its non-submissiveness?

Why does this "catastrophe" have to happen? What will happen on March 30 which is an unavoidable result of Britain's bad behavior and which will happen to Britain for this reason, of its own making, like a smoker suffers from lung cancer which he now cannot avoid?

Here's someone supposedly explaining how it's Brexit's fault, and that the "catastrophe" on the way cannot be avoided. But after all the fancy jargon and background (sounding as if based on the historical situation and economics of the EU and why legally this "catastrophe" has to happen), no answer of substance is forthcoming here to explain why there has to be a disaster after Brexit. Other than that the EU is required to inflict this punishment onto Britain, in retaliation. No other explanation than this is given, despite the pretense that the "catastrophe" is unavoidable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvDAW5SjdaE Fintan O'toole interview/lecture, produced by "World Affairs" videos -- one of several on Brexit and other world issues (this segment begins about 44 minutes into the video):

We're facing a possible catastrophe here.

For example, the European aerospace industry, only rival Boeing has in terms of making planes, is essentially a Franco-British creation. So, the airbus planes are made in France, actually largely in Wales, in and around Cardiff -- so every day huge numbers of aircraft parts go from France to Cardiff and back, every single day. It's completely integrated supply chains. That's just one example.

Nissan builds 500,000 cars a year in Sunderland, which voted for Brexit, working-class town . . . . Its biggest employer is this Japanese car maker. Nissan brings in -- when I saw this figure I thought "that's wrong," I had to go back and check, but it's actually true, they bring in 3 million parts a day -- not a week, a day -- they are, as all these big companies are now, they're fully-integrated supply chains, and it's all just in time. Nissan has half-a-day's store's on hand. After half a day, the plant closes down. Now, if you're saying -- those 3 million parts have to be checked, every day. It's just impossible, it cannot be done.

So, the head of Nissan recently came out and said, "Look, we didn't say this during the Brexit referendum, because we didn't think it was going to pass. You know we just thought if we interfered we'd be accused of trying to frighten people, but I'm really sorry -- we would just have to close. We just cannot, you know, we just cannot do this. You know, we've invested billions in this, we don't want to do this, this is a state-of-the-art plant, deploys enormous numbers of people, it really works, it's fantastic, we're delighted with it -- but, we cannot be having tariff and non-tariff barriers for 3 million things going in and out every day -- That's nevermind . . .

Wait -- Something of substance: tariff and non-tariff barriers, 3 million things going in and out. What's this about? What does this have to do with Brexit? Where are these tariffs coming from? Why? Who's imposing them? Why are they necessary? This has nothing to do with either Britain, or the companies engaging in business, or the Brexit voters. None of these are causing these "tariff and non-tariff barriers," are they?

How does Brexit or Britain impose any new "tariff and non-tariff barriers" here? What's the cause of them? It's not any unavoidable result of Brexit, but sheer PUNISHMENT/Retaliation by the EU against Britain. No? Britain is imposing those barriers? How? What barriers? How is Britain or someone other than the EU imposing any "barriers" here?

. . . 3 million things going in and out every day -- That's nevermind the actual cars that are produced -- and, British industry is saying "We are facing a catastrophe."

If there's no deal, all this stuff comes to a halt, people are out of work, it's an enormous kind of economic hit. What are the political consequences of that? Who knows? However, what hasn't happened is that nobody, including Theresa May, has built up the political authority to say, "Come on folks, get real here."

Every revolution has, you know, fantastic utopian ideas -- you know, it's all going to be great. It was those people who were stopping us from being wonderful, and as soon as we get rid of those people, everything is going to be . . .

This is the entirety of the "example" he gives about the catastrophe on the way, i.e., how the current production will be disrupted and made impossible after Brexit.

But notice that he never says WHY the production has to be interrupted, why the catastrophe has to happen. Other than that the EU will step in and suppress that production by imposing new tariffs. How is Britain, or British or French industry doing anything to disrupt the production, from this description? in this example, about aerospace and car production? There's nothing here explaining how anything has to change, except that the EU overlords are stepping in with some new tariffs, or new standards, or new requirements which cannot be met -- but nothing saying why the production going on before has to be stopped.

Britain is not saying anything has to change. The Brexit vote does not say any new tariffs are to be imposed, or that anything new is added to what was done before, or that anything from before has to be stopped. Why can't it all just continue as before? It's not Brexit which is to blame for any new catastrophe now because of any change. Brexit changes nothing about any of this production. What does it change? It's only the EU which is imposing all this damage and catastrophe. Brexit per se says nothing about shutting down any of it, or making any new change or demand. And there would be no bad consequence if the companies just continued doing the same production as before, regardless of Brexit. Nothing about that forces anything to change. All the change is by choice only, by the EU, insisting that the production has to be stopped.

So this is PURE PUNISHMENT of Britain, out of no necessity, no need for it, no purpose served, but only some new demands, not imposed before, stopping the production until these new demands are fulfilled. This is not a necessary CONSEQUENCE of breaking from the EU, but a PUNISHMENT chosen by the EU out of spite toward Britain because of its choice to end its membership.

You can say, "Yes, but Britain was warned in advance that we would retaliate against them and punish them, out of our resentment toward them, so they have no one to blame but themselves," like Stalin or Hitler retaliated against those who chose not to submit to their authority. Or like a Mafia overlord retaliating and shutting down anyone not playing by Mafia rules. He warned them, didn't he?

The analogy to Hitler/Stalin is appropriate, based on O'toole's own words, though he picks a different tyrant than these for his example:

And then somebody has to come along at some stage, Napoleon or whatever, and say, "You can't keep doing this, you know -- some kind of rationality has to be applied here, and . . .

"somebody has to come along and say" -- Is that what Arnold Schwarzenegger meant when he said "Someone has to step in and take control"?

In some cases maybe someone does. But we need an explanation. It's not good enough to just say "someone has to . . ." step in and impose this tyranny I have in mind to punish people who voted differently than I wanted, or voted in a referendum I don't approve of.

"some kind of rationality"? Hitler and Stalin and Napoleon imposed "some kind of rationality" as they thought it necessary. Why doesn't anyone explain this "rationality" of imposing a catastrophe onto the economy, or the necessity of it? E.g., when someone has to pay a fine, or damages from a lawsuit, there's a reason for it, as deterrence to bad behavior in the future. There are practical reasons for fines and other penalties. So, what is the PRACTICAL REASON in this case?

Why does the British production and trade have to be stopped cold, and all this suffering inflicted onto people? What future harm is deterred by inflicting this punishment onto Britain at this time? Is it retaliation for holding a referendum which should not have been held? Should Californians and others also be punished for holding referendum votes on some issues? Should such referendum votes be punished and deterred from ever happening in the future? Why? Should there be an international body which steps in and thwarts any nation which presumes to hold referendum votes on something?

-- "The problem is that Brexit undermines political authority to such an extent in London that there's nobody, not the government, not the opposition, so the Labor Party, which is the alternative party, is also completely divided about Brexit, . . .

So what you have here is that there is a real need for pragmatism, and for a genuine patriotism, so that somebody says, "Look, this is self-harm, it's not in our interest to continue to try to do this stuff . . ." Someone has to . . .

Yes, that's what Napoleon did, claiming those who defied him were inflicting "self-harm" onto their people and so had to be thwarted. He thought it was "pragmatic" and necessary for the future he envisioned. Not "in our interest" because we're the Authority in charge who dictates what's in "our interest" and what's "patriotic" and required for everyone to submit to.

Such subjective mystical visions as these do not explain what is the necessity for Britain to be punished for Brexit. If the Brexit-bashers want to explain why this punishment is necessary, they have to come up with something better than this.

. . . to do this stuff . . ." Someone has to come in and say, "there's going to be all sorts of compromises, and some of them you won't like. That's what pragmatic life is like . . .

O'toole cannot articulate exactly what the problem is, other than that the EU is dictatorial, another Napoleon who demands his way, and if you don't agree, you have to be suppressed and millions must suffer, because he's the Ultimate Authority Symbol to whom everyone must bow down.

He can't give any reason why membership in the EU is necessary in order for the production to happen, as it has been happening, with the necessary procedures, including safety conditions and inspections. There is nothing to show why all this same production cannot continue, the same as before, with Britain being a non-EU-member.

Rather, because of the Authority Symbol only, the EU per se, and its integrity, or its Sovereignty which must be respected for symbolic reasons only, and nothing practical -- because we must have this Supreme Authority over us, the production must be stopped in order to make the point that this Supreme Authority must be obeyed, out of symbolism, and patriotism.

What other reason is he giving than this?

What other reason is there why all this production has to grind to a halt, after Brexit?

Why should membership or nonmembership in the fold be made a criterion for allowing production to happen or not to happen, and for millions of lives to be damaged?

Someone please use this example, in the above O'toole quotes, to show why the production here has to be brought to a halt. Why it's for any other reason than pure punishment, sadistically, to teach them a lesson for their nonsubmission to Authority, just as tyrants of the past have punished those who did not comply.

You don't answer this by just name-calling and repeating over and over "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" If this is all you can come up with, you are proving the point that the EU is to blame for the catastrophe on the way, and not the Brexit vote.

And you have to say why the production has to stop, other than just that the rules require it. Rather, you have to show that the EU membership somehow makes the production possible, such that this production cannot continue happening even if everyone just continues doing what they did before, prior to Brexit. You have to show how the EU is providing a service to the British and French companies which is necessary in order for the production to take place, and without which it cannot continue to be done, as it is being done now before Brexit.

If you can't name what service the EU is providing, which makes the production possible, and which can't continue happening after Brexit, then you are admitting that there is no reason for this production to stop, even if Brexit does happen.

O'toole in his presentation doesn't say what service or benefit the EU provides which is necessary in order for the trade to continue.

If you think it's only based on morality, i.e., that the producers Nissan and Airbus are required to cease production as a moral obligation only, because of some EU rules which they must obey, even though they could proceed with the production if they chose to -- if this is all you can come up with as a rationale for the production to be stopped, then you're admitting that EU serves no necessary function and operates only from pure tyrannical authority, offering nothing of value in the production or trade, but serving only as an obstacle put in place to inflict damage onto people who don't bow down to pay homage to it. Unlike governments which provide services like law enforcement and infrastructure and public transportation and courts.

What is EU providing which has made the production possible and without which these companies could not be engaging in this production? What infrastructure or other service has EU provided which has made the production possible and which British companies have made use of in order to be able to do this production?

All anyone can come up with is preaching and vague platitudes condemning Britain as unpatriotic or recalcitrant or morally defective because it voted against membership, and for which it must suffer some retribution to teach it a lesson. No other reason than this is being given why the trading has to be ended.

 

[bilby]

There may be a catastrophe on the way in Britain, because of Brexit and the failure to produce a No-Brexit Deal. But what is the cause of this catastrophe?

Nevermind that the Brexit vote might have been a mistake. That's history, and not the first time voters might have made a wrong choice. So when voters choose wrong they have to be punished? You mean anyone who says "NO" to the EU must be punished, for being naughty and defiant against the Authority Establishment. Is that the point? like prisoners who broke the rules? like Al Capone was finally captured and imprisoned? like escaped slaves had to be captured and whipped? What is this coming catastrophe to be inflicted onto a nation for being insubordinate to the EU Authority?

The narrative seems to be that the Brexit vote is some kind of infraction of the rules, and those guilty of this must now be taught a lesson, in retaliation for their misbehavior of voting wrong.

The "catastrophe" on the way is said to be caused by the British who will now suffer "CONSEQUENCES" for this, which are unavoidable, because now the EU system will no longer perform some service it has provided up 'til now. But, what has the EU provided which is now being taken away? How is the "catastrophe" caused by Brexit, and not really simple and pure retaliation/punishment inflicted onto Britain for its non-submissiveness?

Why does this "catastrophe" have to happen? What will happen on March 30 which is an unavoidable result of Britain's bad behavior and which will happen to Britain for this reason, of its own making, like a smoker suffers from lung cancer which he now cannot avoid?

Here's someone supposedly explaining how it's Brexit's fault, and that the "catastrophe" on the way cannot be avoided. But after all the fancy jargon and background (sounding as if based on the historical situation and economics of the EU and why legally this "catastrophe" has to happen), no answer of substance is forthcoming here to explain why there has to be a disaster after Brexit. Other than that the EU is required to inflict this punishment onto Britain, in retaliation. No other explanation than this is given, despite the pretense that the "catastrophe" is unavoidable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvDAW5SjdaE Fintan O'toole interview/lecture, produced by "World Affairs" videos -- one of several on Brexit and other world issues (this segment begins about 44 minutes into the video):



Wait -- Something of substance: tariff and non-tariff barriers, 3 million things going in and out. What's this about? What does this have to do with Brexit? Where are these tariffs coming from? Why? Who's imposing them? Why are they necessary? This has nothing to do with either Britain, or the companies engaging in business, or the Brexit voters. None of these are causing these "tariff and non-tariff barriers," are they?

How does Brexit or Britain impose any new "tariff and non-tariff barriers" here? What's the cause of them? It's not any unavoidable result of Brexit, but sheer PUNISHMENT/Retaliation by the EU against Britain. No? Britain is imposing those barriers? How? What barriers? How is Britain or someone other than the EU imposing any "barriers" here?



This is the entirety of the "example" he gives about the catastrophe on the way, i.e., how the current production will be disrupted and made impossible after Brexit.

But notice that he never says WHY the production has to be interrupted, why the catastrophe has to happen. Other than that the EU will step in and suppress that production by imposing new tariffs. How is Britain, or British or French industry doing anything to disrupt the production, from this description? in this example, about aerospace and car production? There's nothing here explaining how anything has to change, except that the EU overlords are stepping in with some new tariffs, or new standards, or new requirements which cannot be met -- but nothing saying why the production going on before has to be stopped.

Britain is not saying anything has to change. The Brexit vote does not say any new tariffs are to be imposed, or that anything new is added to what was done before, or that anything from before has to be stopped. Why can't it all just continue as before? It's not Brexit which is to blame for any new catastrophe now because of any change. Brexit changes nothing about any of this production. What does it change? It's only the EU which is imposing all this damage and catastrophe. Brexit per se says nothing about shutting down any of it, or making any new change or demand. And there would be no bad consequence if the companies just continued doing the same production as before, regardless of Brexit. Nothing about that forces anything to change. All the change is by choice only, by the EU, insisting that the production has to be stopped.

So this is PURE PUNISHMENT of Britain, out of no necessity, no need for it, no purpose served, but only some new demands, not imposed before, stopping the production until these new demands are fulfilled. This is not a necessary CONSEQUENCE of breaking from the EU, but a PUNISHMENT chosen by the EU out of spite toward Britain because of its choice to end its membership.

You can say, "Yes, but Britain was warned in advance that we would retaliate against them and punish them, out of our resentment toward them, so they have no one to blame but themselves," like Stalin or Hitler retaliated against those who chose not to submit to their authority. Or like a Mafia overlord retaliating and shutting down anyone not playing by Mafia rules. He warned them, didn't he?

The analogy to Hitler/Stalin is appropriate, based on O'toole's own words, though he picks a different tyrant than these for his example:

And then somebody has to come along at some stage, Napoleon or whatever, and say, "You can't keep doing this, you know -- some kind of rationality has to be applied here, and . . .

"somebody has to come along and say" -- Is that what Arnold Schwarzenegger meant when he said "Someone has to step in and take control"?

In some cases maybe someone does. But we need an explanation. It's not good enough to just say "someone has to . . ." step in and impose this tyranny I have in mind to punish people who voted differently than I wanted, or voted in a referendum I don't approve of.

"some kind of rationality"? Hitler and Stalin and Napoleon were "some kind of rationality" applied as they thought it necessary. Why doesn't anyone explain this "rationality" of imposing a catastrophe onto the economy, or the necessity of it? If someone has to pay a fine, or damages from a lawsuit, there's a reason for it, as deterrence to bad behavior in the future. There are practical reasons for fines and other penalties. So, what is the PRACTICAL REASON in this case?

Why does the British production and trade have to be stopped cold, and all this suffering inflicted onto people? What future harm is deterred by inflicting this punishment onto Britain at this time? Is it retaliation for holding a referendum which should not have been held? Should Californians and others also be punished for holding referendum votes on some issues? Should such referendum votes be punished and deterred from ever happening in the future? Why? Should there be an international body which steps in and thwarts any nation which presumes to hold referendum votes on something?

-- "The problem is that Brexit undermines political authority to such an extent in London that there's nobody, not the government, not the opposition, so the Labor Party, which is the alternative party, is also completey divided about Brexit, . . .

So what you have here is that there is a real need for pragmatism, and for a genuine patriotism, so that somebody says, "Look, this is self-harm, it's not in our interest to continue to try to do this stuff . . ." Someone has to . . .

Yes, that's what Napoleon did, claiming those who defied him were inflicting "self-harm" onto their people and so had to be thwarted. He thought it was "pragmatic" and necessary for the future he envisioned. Not "in our interest" because we're the Authority in charge who dictates what's in "our interest" and what's "patriotic" and required for everyone to submit to.

Such subjective mystical visions as these do not explain what is the necessity for Britain to be punished for Brexit. If the Brexit-bashers want to explain why this punishment is necessary, they have to come up with something better than this.

. . . to do this stuff . . ." Someone has to come in and say, "there's going to be all sorts of compromises, and some of them you won't like. That's what pragmatic life is like . . .

O'toole cannot articulate exactly what the problem is, other than that the EU is dictatorial, another Napoleon who demands his way, and if you don't agree, you have to be suppressed and millions must suffer, because he's the Ultimate Authority Symbol to whom everyone must bown down.

He can't give any reason why membership in the EU is necessary in order for the production to happen, as it has been happening, with the necessary procedures, including safety conditions and inspections. There is nothing to show why all this same production cannot continue, the same as before, with Britain being a non-EU-member.

Rather, because of the Authority Symbol only, the EU per se, and its integrity, or its Sovereignty which must be respected for symbolic reasons only, and nothing practical -- because we must have this Supreme Authority over us, the production must be stopped in order to make the point that this Supreme Authority must be obeyed, out of symbolism, and patriotism.

What other reason is he giving than this?

What other reason is there why all this production has to grind to a halt, after Brexit?

Why should membership or nonmembership in the fold be made an arbitrary criterion for allowing production to happen or not to happen, and for millions of lives to be damaged?

Someone please use this example, in the above O'toole quotes, to show why the production here has to be brought to a halt. Why it's for any other reason than pure punishment, sadistically, to teach them a lesson for their nonsubmission to Authority, just as tyrants of the past have punished those who did not comply.

You don't answer this by just name-calling and repeating over and over "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong!" If this is all you can come up with, you are proving the point that the EU is to blame for the catastrophe on the way, and not the Brexit vote.

And you have to say why the production has to stop, other than just that the rules require it. Rather, you have to show that the EU membership somehow makes the production possible, such that this production cannot continue happening even if everyone just continues doing what they did before, prior to Brexit. You have to show how the EU is providing a service to the British and French companies which is necessary in order fot the production to take place, and without which it cannot continue to be done, as it is being done now before Brexit.

If you can't name what service the EU is providing, which makes the production possible, and which can't continue happening after Brexit, then you are admitting that there is no reason for this production to stop, even if Brexit does happen.

O'toole in his presentation doesn't say what service or benefit the EU provides which is necessary in order for the trade to continue.

If you think it's only based on morality, i.e., that the producers Nissan and Airbus are required to cease production as a moral obligation only, because of some EU rules which they must obey, even though they could proceed with the production if they chose to -- if this is all you can come up with as a rationale for the production to be stopped, then you're admitting that EU serves no necessary function and operates only from pure tyrannical authority, offering nothing of value in the production or trade, but serving only as an obstacle put in place to inflict damage onto people who don't bow down to pay homage to it. Unlike governments which provide services like law enforcement and infrastructure and public transportation and courts.

What is EU providing which has made the production possible and without which these companies could not be engaging in this production? What infrastructure or other service has EU provided which has made the production possible and which British companies have made use of in order to be able to do this production?

All anyone can come up with is preaching and vague platitudes condemning Britain as unpatriotic or recalcitrant or morally defective because it voted against membership, and for which it must suffer some retribution to teach it a lesson. No other reason than this is being given why the trading has to be ended.

Well, no other reason apart from:

For fuck's sake. There's no punishment. The UK is opting out of a good deal. When you turn down a good deal, you can expect to instead get a less good deal, until and unless you negotiate a better one.

It's like if you go to Costco and they are selling tins of beans at $6 for two dozen - it's a great deal, based on your choice to buy in bulk. If you say 'I don't want to buy in bulk; I will just get one tin of beans', then you are not being punished when you are told to pay $1 for the same tin that was 25c in the bulk buy.

The EU is a market of half a billion consumers. They will get seriously better deals than the UK, with a measly 50m.