Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[T-hawk]

There are common norms and regulations, hence why completely free trade is possible. Bangladesh doesn't have the same norms in place as the EU, so can't have completely free trade with it.

Asking from genuine interest: could you elaborate more on what norms those would be? Minimum wage would be one; you don't want free trade with a polity where the wages and therefore prices will undercut yours. I'd like to hear what else this argument would cite.

[MJW (ya that one)]

UK doesn't need GFA anymore because of 9/11 crippling the IRA by delegitimizing terrorism. In order to justify the special treatment against terrorists there cannot by any exceptions. UK explicitly giving it the finger is a bit too much; but they just need a button that could be pushed to deny responsibility--the WTO loophole is that button. The real roadblock to the GFA getting nuked is that Europhile Tories and Labour is over 50% and wouldn't accept a Hard Brexit and May cannot use the clock to pressure them due to the dumb ECJ ruling. Without Hard Brexit GFA/Varadkar gets bailed out.

[Gustaran]

They've already given up that right for 26 other countries, the ones with the highest combination of proximity and wealth (and hence trade volume), and they've pretty much benefitted from the decision...why not extend it to the other 180?  There are only practical arguments, not ideological ones, why free trade is good but only if it is trade with EU members.

An interesting philosophical thought, but as AdrienIer has already pointed out: There are a lot of norms, safety standards and health standards that all countries in the wordd would have to agree on (which I feel is extremely unlikely).

In addition, keep in mind that tariffs can be used to protect parts of your economy. This is a big problem in parts of Africa, where local farmers have been pushed out of business by the subsidized European food industry, after some countries agreed on free trade deals.  Not so great, if foreign companies make a lot of profit in your country while your citizens have no way to make a living.

In addition, of course the Single Market is a political instrument as well. You can allow other countries certain access in exchange for other things. I don't think of this as necessarily good or bad. When looking at other parts of the world, in comparison the EU has at least certain democratic and human rights standards.

Asking from genuine interest: could you elaborate more on what norms those would be? Minimum wage would be one; you don't want free trade with a polity where the wages and therefore prices will undercut yours. I'd like to hear what else this argument would cite.

Oh T-Hawk, haven't you heard about the chlorine chicken?  Everybody knows the American food industry is out to poison us unsuspecting Europeans:

Categorically, the UK’s food standards are now under threat from the commercial appetites of the United States food lobby. We urge the government not to sacrifice legislation which prevents these sort of products from being sold in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/201...jay-rayner

As for norms, from the top of my hat:

1. Standardization in general: A lot of things in the EU are standardized. A simple example: Many countries in the EU have the same plugs, so if I order an electrical device in France, I will be able to use it in Germany. Now you may argue agreeing on worldwide standards should be easy, but I would like to remind you that the US still has not even adopted the metric system...

2. Food safety standards: I recently read that Chinese people like to buy/import German milk powder. Why? Because there have been food scandals in China where babies where poisened by Chinese milk powder. German milk powder is seen as high quality and safe.

3. Technical safety standards: When I buy a charger for my phone in Germany, I am reasonably sure that it won't burn down my house, while I charge my phone overnight. If I import a charger from Asia through Amazon for 1/3 of the price, I am not so sure about that.
As a matter of fact, German customs often destroys shippings from China, because the items are missing the necessary safety certification.

4. Other items safety standards: If I buy a toy for a child, I can be reasonably sure it is usually tested for damaging chemicals by the manufacturer, for example in the paint. In addition, there are independent magazines that test items on their own and if a manufacturer breaks a norm, that can have devastating consequences for sales.

5. Environmental standards: Pollution, for exampleby factories, is regulated.

6. Harmonization of laws: Working conditions, such as minimum wage, are actually very different throughout the EU, but the European court can make judgements, that are binding for all member states (for example a catholic hospital tried to fire a doctor in Germany, because he was divorced and wanted to remarry. The European court struck that down, so that is binding for all member states).
Of course this affects many other areas, which I have no knowledge about since I am no legal expert whatsoever, but right know for example there is a European copyright reform going on, which would set binding standards for all countries.

7. Harmonization of education: The Bologna process ensures comparability in the standards and quality of higher-education qualifications. Interesting, since the Single Market allows freedom of services.

There is probably a lot more, but that's just what comes to my mind right now.


Now, my main argument against a worldwide standardization is, that in order for these standards to work, you need a democratic state with a free press and independent courts. Because after all, these standards are useless if they can be broken in a totalitarian state by members of the ruling class and there are no repercussions.
Take the current discussion about Huawei for example: Some experts fear that they would have to bow to any demand by their government and could pose a security risk in case of a conflict. Would I trust them to adhere to a worldwide privacy standard? No way.

Personally I think this comes back to the bewildering idea (to an American) that a bare majority is enough to make drastic political changes.  People complain about the US system being 'dysfunctional' or 'congress not doing its job' or 'nondemocratic' or whatever as a result of our supermajority requirements (especially since they aren't always described as supermajority requirements), but it does tend to avoid this sort of issue.  If a supermajority was for 'some form of Brexit' then it would be likely that a majority would be in favor of 'this exact form of Brexit now that we've negotiated'.

I don't want to go to much off-topic, but I don't think the US system is dysfunctional. It's more that any polictical system depends on the people that are in it, who need to be ready to compromise and look for working solutions. But you are right, something like a simple Brexit vote decided by a small majority would not have been possible in the US.

But this is actually a major criticism when it comes to Theresa May: The referendum was very close, but instead of fighting for a moderate Brexit that takes into account that 48% of voters didn't want to leave in the first place, May adopted the most extreme positions of the Brexiteers in her party. Of course, she may have personal reasons for that, but I feel in such a situation the PM should have been working on a general consensus across party lines, something May most certainly did not do.

[Gavagai]

I wonder if you really understand all the implications of the EU customs union?

I don't know what background you have but I have some practical understanding of law, economics, and politics and I suspect I understand those implications better than you do. You seem to assume that if we create a legal loophole, people would immediately abuse the hell out of it. This is not the case at the level of international trade. Whether gaps in a custom border would be abused and to what extent they would be abused, is a question of politics which is decided independently of legal possibility to do certain things. I have already given an example of the border between Western and Eastern Germany which was opened for custom purposes even while Western Germany was a member of custom union with other countries in Western Europe. And there certainly was some abuse of it: Eastern Germany re-exported oil from the Soviet Union into Western Germany custom-free, even though direct export from SU to Western Europe would normally be subjected to tariffs. This is exactly the doomsday scenario you believe EU is entitled to avoid at all cost but somehow it has been happening in past for decades, and yet everyone was fine with it. Why? Because there are cases when politics trumps law and this was one of them. A hole in European custom border was tolerated on the implicit assumption that it would not be abused too much - and it was not. This is why the current legalistic position of the EU is pure BS which can only fool naive people who do not understand the nuances of international trade and politics.

[AdrienIer]

There are common norms and regulations, hence why completely free trade is possible. Bangladesh doesn't have the same norms in place as the EU, so can't have completely free trade with it.

Asking from genuine interest: could you elaborate more on what norms those would be?  Minimum wage would be one; you don't want free trade with a polity where the wages and therefore prices will undercut yours.  I'd like to hear what else this argument would cite.

Gustaran was faster than me, and gave more example than I would have

[Gustaran]

I wonder if you really understand all the implications of the EU customs union?

I don't know what background you have but I have some practical understanding of law, economics, and politics and I suspect I understand those implications better than you do.

The only example you keep repeating is some rather far-fetched inter-German trade during the cold war ~50 years ago, a situation that could not be more different from the current Brexit issue and had completely diffferent international implications.
East Germany did not decide to leave but Germany was divided, trade was seen as a "golden fishing hook" to cause dependency of Eastern Germany to faciliate favourable reunification in the future, trading goods was a possibility to demonstrate the superiority of the capitalist system, trade was an instrument to keep a connection between people in both parts of a divided Germany, etc.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interzonenhandel

None of these political reasons apply to Brexit.

But ok, while I certainly don't agree with it, at least I could follow your thought process if you had said "look, I admit there is indeed a customs loophole, but as favour to the UK and in order to improve future relations, it could be overlooked temporarily for political reasons, until an agreement has been worked out, even if it breaks WTO rules."

But calling the stance of the EU "legalistic BS", because it decides to follow legal WTO rules is just unreasonable. It's exactly the delusional attitude Brexiteers displayed throughout the Brexit process: May tried to divide the EU member states and thought she could cut special deals with individual countries, but instead the member states have stayed united and decided to play by the rules.
And now instead of admitting that the strategy was a complete failure, Brexiteers blame Brussels one last time, because the EU won't bend the rules for them.

So to summarize:

- The UK decided to leave the EU after parts of the British political class have blamed the EU for all kinds of problems for years and made evidently fake promises during the campaign
- Instead of looking for a moderate Brexit solution and common ground, the British PM tried to divide EU member states and pursued the harshest Brexit possible, even though the referendum was really close
- The British side of the Brexit process has been utterly chaotic and therefore difficult to negotiate with
- In the end, May has not even managed to organize a majority for the deal she negotiated herself

But now you feel the EU should break WTO rules to accomodate what is basically a faction of the UKs ruling party.

Yeah, I really wonder why that didn't happen...

[Krill]

I don't want to go to much off-topic, but I don't think the US system is dysfunctional. It's more that any polictical system depends on the people that are in it, who need to be ready to compromise and look for working solutions. But you are right, something like a simple Brexit vote decided by a small majority would not have been possible in the US.

Trump was elected by a popular vote minority, so I'm not so sure your assertion is even close to being accurate.

But this is actually a major criticism when it comes to Theresa May: The referendum was very close, but instead of fighting for a moderate Brexit that takes into account that 48% of voters didn't want to leave in the first place, May adopted the most extreme positions of the Brexiteers in her party. Of course, she may have personal reasons for that, but I feel in such a situation the PM should have been working on a general consensus across party lines, something May most certainly did not do.

Two points: May was, is a Remainer. I do not think there is validity to ascribing personal beliefs to her political pragmatism in how she has handled Brexit. The second point is that there are only 2 valid positions to be in: either remain in the EU with full political decision making, or be outside the EU and make free trade agreements. These arguments have been ongoing since before the referendum, but what it boils down to is that anywhere in between gives up sovereignty. The concept of a "Soft Brexit" has thankfully fallen out of use, because it doesn't exist: it means remaining within a customs union without political or sovereign authority.

Then there is the political reality of parliament: What can pass parliament is what matters. And that was No deal (as part of the Article 50 activation legislation), and what it is right now is still up in the air.

Note: FPTP is fucked, but it's all the UK has ever used and no one will even consider changing it anymore. We had a referendum on changing it. AV lost.

[T-hawk]

As for norms, from the top of my hat:

Thanks for the writeup.  The common thread is quality of some kind or another; if lower quality items or processes exist in the same zone of free trade, it's a race to the bottom where bad money drives out good.

Do Brexiters think that applies within the EU, that Britain's standards are higher than in some significant proportion of the EU?  Or that the EU is perceived to act as a gateway for trade from polities that lack those standards of oversight?  Or some of both?

[Krill]

So to summarize:

1. The UK decided to leave the EU after parts of the British political class have blamed the EU for all kinds of problems for years and made evidently fake promises during the campaign
   
2. - Instead of looking for a moderate Brexit solution and common ground, the British PM tried to divide EU member states and pursued the harshest Brexit possible, even though the referendum was really close
   
3. - The British side of the Brexit process has been utterly chaotic and therefore difficult to negotiate with
   
4. - In the end, May has not even managed to organize a majority for the deal she negotiated herself

But now you feel the EU should break WTO rules to accomodate what is basically a faction of the UKs ruling party.

Yeah, I really wonder why that didn't happen...

I've numbered your points in the quote for ease of reply, please don't be offended that I've modified a quote.

1. There was a referendum, so I don't think you can blame the political class for lying without also blaming the idiots that voted leave without understand that they were lying. ie it's not just the political party at fault, but I don't think fault or blame helps anyone. It's like you are still in the anger stage of grieving.
   
   
   
2. As I posted above, there is no middle ground: joining a customs union with no political say is a de facto worse position than staying put. British politics has always been "Hold vote first, argue what it means afterwards".
   
   
   
3. Agreed, but that's because parliament is fucked and this was never going to be any different. It helps to think that the UK government and the EU are the negotiators, but only Parliament and the EU27 can sign it off. I'd blame May less for this and more Parliament as a whole.
   
   
   
4. See above. She can't sign it off, so what she wants is essentially irrelevant.

The bit about the WTO rules is actually a separate discussion, and it's aimed at Ireland. the EU can do what it wants, but Varadkar and RoI get to choose what treaty they break. That's the decision, and as much as people can want to and continue to try to blame the UK, that is still Varadkars decision and no one elses.

[Gustaran]

I don't want to go to much off-topic, but I don't think the US system is dysfunctional. It's more that any polictical system depends on the people that are in it, who need to be ready to compromise and look for working solutions. But you are right, something like a simple Brexit vote decided by a small majority would not have been possible in the US.

Trump was elected by a popular vote minority, so I'm not so sure your assertion is even close to being accurate.

I am fairly sure our American forum members will have to say a word or two about that   , but my 2 cents are: I agree with you that it is problematic if a President can be elected with a minority of the popular vote and it would be better if the Electoral College was abolished. Still, for me that does not mean the whole political system in the US is dysfunctional.

If I am not mistaken the UK uses a "first past the post" election system for parliament where the number of seats often deviate from the popular vote as well? (EDIT: Just saw you adressed it already in the last paragraph)

Two points: May was, is a Remainer. I do not think there is validity to ascribing personal beliefs to her political pragmatism in how she has handled Brexit. The second point is that there are only 2 valid positions to be in: either remain in the EU with full political decision making, or be outside the EU and make free trade agreements. These arguments have been ongoing since before the referendum, but what it boils down to is that anywhere in between gives up sovereignty. The concept of a "Soft Brexit" has thankfully fallen out of use, because it doesn't exist: it means remaining within a customs union without political or sovereign authority.

Then there is the political reality of parliament: What can pass parliament is what matters. And that was No deal (as part of the Article 50 activation legislation), and what it is right now is still up in the air.

Note: FPTP is fucked, but it's all the UK has ever used and no one will even consider changing it anymore. We had a referendum on changing it. AV lost.

I know May used to be a remainer, but IMHO she basically acted like a Brexiteer. Of course I can't argue with you about years of British politics predating the referendum. My view from an international media perspective since Brexit:

- After the referendum, May did not want to be the bearer of the bad news that a hard Brexit would include substantial disadvantages for the UK 

- May decided to cater to the Brexit wing of her own party. According to the analysis I read, EU diplomats were shocked at first when May made her position clear, because everyone expected her to promote a more moderate solution

- I will have to respectfully disagree with your notion that there were only 2 possible alternatives. There have been discussions about a different model, such as Norway or Switzerland in this thread. You personally might find these unacceptable, but I think these are still valid alternatives that could have been negotiated with the EU and are less harsh then the current deal.
Then again, even after a Brexit there will be further negotiations and we will have to see what future trade relations actually look like, because it's probably neither advantageous for the EU nor the UK to keep trading according to WTO rules with tariffs. 

- As I have written before, I find it close to disingenious by politicians to work for a hard brexit and 2 years later act suprised and complain about the temporary backstop, when it was immediately clear that the RoI-NI border would be a major issue. I can at least respect May for accepting the backstop in her deal.

- As I have also stated before, I still think it was a mistake not to try to form a majority across party lines and maybe also try to unite the British public more when dealing with such an important divisive issue. If I recall correctly, when May's deal failed in parliament, there were news that Brexiteers and Remainers both where celebrating, which does not seem very inspiring to me.

So at the very least May failed to convince parliament of her plan (so far). I do not know the current approval numbers for her EU deal with the public, it would be interesting to know if a majority of people in the UK currently support the May-EU deal.