Does the taxation of robotics make any sense

[Zero999]

the expansion of the EU into the former Eastern Bloc which many disapproved of

You are aware that this expansion was instigated and driven by the UK, with the other large members protesting?  (Tony Blair's government)

No, I wasn't, but that doesn't matter. As I said before, not everything the government does is supported by the people. Tony Blair's government also did a lot of bad things wit the US, in Iraq, which most of the British public deplored.

I don't care who was responsible for the problems the EU currently has. We should remain in it, to stop it from getting worse.

And yet the voters did right when they voted to remain in what would become the EU in a similar referendum in 1975 after Edward Heath's government signed on in 1973.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum

Seems they misunderstood that time too!  What if they had voted no?  Would they have had a do-over like the ROI?  Keep voting until they got it right?

No, because the Northern Ireland wasn't in the ECC back then. There was a border, a lot of guns, terrorism and on the brink of civil war. I think its likely both countries joining the EU helped to ease tensions. Later on Tony Blair did good with the Good Friday agreement, which put an end to it.

This again illustrates another issue: not every government/politician is bad or good. Many deamomnise Tony Blair over Iraq, but also praise him for helping to end the troubles in Ireland.

People vote for representatives that are supposed to represent their views.  They don't elect dictators.  It makes no sense for a majority of voters to approve something only to have their elected representatives say 'no, you can't have that even though we let you vote for it'.  Woe be the representative that says 'you're too stupid to understand what you voted for'.

What they voted for was simple and didn't require any thought on their part.  Leave the EU!  Simple as that.  Do whatever is necessary to restore the UK's sovereignty.  And get it done soon!  The details are left for their representatives to work out.  But the goal remains unchanged.

I agree in principle, but what happens when the citizens vote for something that would most likely make them worse of and by a fairly small majority?

It's not right that 48% of the population have to suffer because the rest decides to do something which will probably be bad for them. Then there were all the lies told.

I suspect enough people have changed there mind for it to be worth a second referendum. I've recently changed my mind about this. I used to think it was a bad idea and whilst it's not good, it's certainly the least worse option.

[rstofer]

Bosses who demand impossible things from their subordinates do not remain bosses for very long.

People who demand impossible things from their government are going to be very disappointed.

Who said anything about 'impossible'.  We solved 'impossible' back on July 20, 1969.  Everything else is just details.

[soldar]

It's not right that 48% of the population have to suffer because the rest decides to do something which will probably be bad for them. Then there were all the lies told.

The notion that the will of the people is whatever they want at each moment is silly. In every country there are rules. There is a Constitution , there are election rules, etc.

To guarantee stability many countries require a supermajority of 2/3 for constitutional changes and, further they may require that the change be approved by the legislature by a supermajority and by the following legislature also by supermajority following an election. That makes sense because the intervening election in a way is a referendum on the change. This guarantees that changes will not be done on passing whims or tiny majorities. It is the Schmit trigger of politics. Once that measure has passed all the process then undoing it requires a major change in public opinion. It is not good to have major decisions done with a 51% majority because that can turn the other way very easily.

[Zero999]

Bosses who demand impossible things from their subordinates do not remain bosses for very long.

People who demand impossible things from their government are going to be very disappointed.

Who said anything about 'impossible'.  We solved 'impossible' back on July 20, 1969.  Everything else is just details.

Let's put Brexit into a US perspective again.

Suppose Texas wants to leave the US, forming a sovereign state. The leave campaign promise they'll be able to keep the existing trade relationship with the rest of the US, with most things staying the same, but be no longer bound by the constitution, follow any of the rules, or have to pay any tax to Washington. The remain side tell them this is impossible. Leaving would result in a huge economic upheaval and to keep tariff free trade with the US, they'll end up having to follow most of the rules anyway, along with paying some charges. Most people vote to leave, then are pissed off when it all starts to unravel.

Fortunately the UK isn't so closely tied to the EU as Texas is to the US, but you get the general ideal.

[SilverSolder]

I love this quote, which sums up a lot of what can go wrong (has gone wrong) with referendums:

"When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.”    
Thomas Sowell, American economist and social theorist

[rstofer]

Let's put Brexit into a US perspective again.

Suppose Texas wants to leave the US, forming a sovereign state. The leave campaign promise they'll be able to keep the existing trade relationship with the rest of the US, with most things staying the same, but be no longer bound by the constitution, follow any of the rules, or have to pay any tax to Washington. The remain side tell them this is impossible. Leaving would result in a huge economic upheaval and to keep tariff free trade with the US, they'll end up having to follow most of the rules anyway, along with paying some charges. Most people vote to leave, then are pissed off when it all starts to unravel.]

Unless the other 49 states turned vindictive, I don't see why there would be any trade issues at all.  Texas would buy, Texas would sell, life would go on.  I'm not having much success finding the exact number but, AFAIK, California is the only net contributor to the US.  I believe Texas is a net recipient.  Not paying taxes to the US but not getting benefits isn't necessarily in Texas's favor but I doubt that it is a consideration in any event.

We sure as hell wouldn't have a Civil War over Texas leaving.  If they really wanted to raise hell, they would split into 5 states and gain 8 more senators.  They have the legal authority to do this as part of their admission to the Union.

Fortunately the UK isn't so closely tied to the EU as Texas is to the US, but you get the general ideal.

California talks about secession all the time.  Breaking into 6 states almost made the ballot on the last go-around but for some law creating Federal Judge invalidating the proposal.  I don't know when it will get on the ballot but I have no doubt about if it will get on a ballot.  There is simply too much dissatisfaction in the state for it to continue the way it is today.  In a way, it's a micro image of the EU thing.  Sacramento doesn't represent the views of the majority of the area of the state even though it represents the majority of the population.  Pendulums swing and this liberal sanctuary crap won't last forever.

But the process is complicated, requiring approval from the other states and such.  It would be far easier to secede and then subdivide.

[soldar]

I love this quote, which sums up a lot of what can go wrong (has gone wrong) with referendums:

"When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.”    
Thomas Sowell, American economist and social theorist

Very good!  I looked it up and found

The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run.

Which puts part of the responsibility on the public who choose to believe the lies.


I looked him up and he also said

When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.

[Zero999]

Let's put Brexit into a US perspective again.

Suppose Texas wants to leave the US, forming a sovereign state. The leave campaign promise they'll be able to keep the existing trade relationship with the rest of the US, with most things staying the same, but be no longer bound by the constitution, follow any of the rules, or have to pay any tax to Washington. The remain side tell them this is impossible. Leaving would result in a huge economic upheaval and to keep tariff free trade with the US, they'll end up having to follow most of the rules anyway, along with paying some charges. Most people vote to leave, then are pissed off when it all starts to unravel.]

Unless the other 49 states turned vindictive, I don't see why there would be any trade issues at all.  Texas would buy, Texas would sell, life would go on.  I'm not having much success finding the exact number but, AFAIK, California is the only net contributor to the US.  I believe Texas is a net recipient.  Not paying taxes to the US but not getting benefits isn't necessarily in Texas's favor but I doubt that it is a consideration in any event.

Texas would become a new country, so would need to have a trade deal with the US, to avoid tariffs. It would need to follow the US laws regarding things such as food standards and so on.

There are other things you don't seem to have considered, such as no longer being bound by the US constitution. Suppose the new government wanted to stop black people from voting? No US state can do that, because it's unconstitutional. I think the other states would be pissed off with one being able to do what they want.

For two countries to have tariff free trade, lots of laws need to be harmonised, in order for both parties to agree. For example take farming for example. One country X has higher animal welfare standards than country Y, so the cost of meat in X will be higher than Y. Country X uses pesticides on their crops, which Y doesn't think are safe. The farmers in country X don't want to have to compete with cheap imports from country Y and they don't want to lower their animal welfare standards, for ethical and cultural reasons, so they impose huge tariffs on their meat. Country Y does the same with X's crops, as they don't like the pesticides and their farmers can't compete. Both countries impose tariffs on each other in retaliation.

The trade barriers are harming both countries' economies, by making everything more expensive and there are long delays at the borders, for everything to be checked. One day the two countries' governments get together and decide to solve the problem. Eventually they come to a trade agreement. Country Y decides to adopt X's higher animal welfare standards and X abolishes the use of the pesticides which Y disapprove of. Now they both remove the tariffs and trade with each other more freely.

This is how the EU works, except it's a large collection of countries who all agree on common laws and standards, which affect them all, so they can trade freely with one another. The British public and no doubt people in other EU states bitch about some of the laws, but they have to put up with them to get the benefits of free trade. One of the EU rules states that trade with any non-EU state is governed by world trade organisation rules and no better, unless they have a specific trade agreement with them. This means if a country leaves the EU, without some kind of agreement, there will be tariffs imposed on them, border checks etc. The EU won't allow the UK to leave and still give it the same access to the single market, without having to follow all of the rules, because if they did it would defeat the whole point of agreeing common laws and standards affecting trade.

The Irish troubles are much more recent than the US civil war. Part of their resolution involved removing the border controls between the UK and Republic of Ireland, with the declaration of a legally binding treaty: The Good Friday Agreement. The RoI is in the EU and their rules state that border checks must be in place with states which are not in the customs union. The Northern Irish government want to leave the EU, under the same conditions, as the rest of the UK, who want to leave the customs union. This means there can't be a border through the Irish sea. It must run through Ireland, but that would be in breach of the Good Friday agreement and risk reignition of the troubles, so it can't go there either. The EU could make an exeption for the Northern Irish border, when the UK leaves, but that would set a precedent and all other EU states must agree. I think the EU will somehow resolve this, irrespective of whether there's a deal, since they don't want a war.

[soldar]

The EU could make an exeption for the Northern Irish border, when the UK leaves, but that would set a precedent and all other EU states must agree.

How is that supposed to work? Suppose there is no border between the EU and the UK. Then anything and anyone can just go from the EU into the UK without control. Which, if I am not mistaken, is precisely what the UK does not want. Can you explain how these two contradictory issues can be reconciled?

I think the EU will somehow resolve this, irrespective of whether there's a deal, since they don't want a war.

So the answer is "magic"? What is "somehow"? How can you "somehow" have and not have a border at the same time?

For now I think the backstop is the most probable outcome. If that is what happens we shall have to wait and see what effect that has on the "unity" of the "United Kingdom".

[Siwastaja]

How is that supposed to work? Suppose there is no border between the EU and the UK. Then anything and anyone can just go from the EU into the UK without control. Which, if I am not mistaken, is precisely what the UK does not want. Can you explain how these two contradictory issues can be reconciled?

Note that a "border" is not a binary thing. They can do whatever control they decide they want to do - for example, prevent certain people or certain goods passing, while allowing something else. Border control level is also a continuous variable from none to extremely strict. Too strict, and it can slow everything down and stop the economy, or it can be very lightweight but still existent, or something inbetween. It works, or doesn't work, based on much more complex conditions than just being part of EU or not.

All of this is fairly meaningless, because EU already has border control on inner borders. I have been in a border control and passport check between two EU countries in 2018. This is the reality, despite any ideology.

Political decisions can be made when there is a need and willingness to do it, it's not a child's simplified checkbox game. Agreements and unions are extremely complex; agreements can be changed, renegotiated, or even broken, especially in a situation where the another party (or collectively no one) isn't following the agreement either, which is actually fairly typical, we just don't talk about it when things work out.

Pro-brexit propaganda was utterly simplified and wrong in many parts, but anti-brexit propaganda was not any better. It's actually a very complex and delicate matter.

[soldar]

Note that a "border" is not a binary thing. They can do whatever control they decide they want to do - for example, prevent certain people or certain goods passing, while allowing something else.

That already implies and requires border controls which the UK has committed to not having in Northern Ireland. I really do not see how this is so difficult to understand. 

All this going around in circles is getting tiring.

The reality is (and I am repeating myself) that the available options are:

1- Remain in the EU - Britain says NO because "Brexit means Brexit".

2- The entire UK exits - Requires borders in Northern Ireland so they don't want this either.

3- Northern Ireland remains under EU rules and a "backstop" in the Irish sea.

Those are the only options now and anything else is handwaving and BS. 

Theresa May understands it, Angela Merkel understands it, the entire EU understands this, the British government understands this, even I understand this, and yet we still have people waving their hands a lot and making vague assertions that "something can be found".

Any agreement that allows border controls in NI is in breach of the Good Friday agreement. You don't have to put the controls to be in breach. But, furthermore, if you are not going to put them why fight to have the right to do so when it causes a huge problem and you won't do it. It is utterly stupid.

The UK and the RoI have an agreement where they both agree there will be totally free movement of persons and goods and no border controls between both Irelands. How can they possibly now sign another treaty that contradicts that without abrogating the first treaty? How can they possibly both be in force? It makes no sense.

[Siwastaja]

In any political question, there are always people who don't want something. In any political question, there are conflicts. It ends up being a mixture of compromises, which can even be illogical.

You can go around in loops screaming how this is illogical and everybody's stupid, and you are indeed mostly right, but this doesn't have a lot of meaning IMHO.

Also, any agreement and commitment can be changed, some easily, some painfully. Some agreements come with penalties if terminated early (the reason for the penalties are exactly to give you a way out), but fundamentally, people in a free democracy are still free to, through their democratically elected politicians, change any legally binding agreement. Only in a totalitarian system is an agreement "absolute". Not saying I'm expecting anyone to break their agreement willy-nilly, just pointing out an important principle about the democratic process. If people understood this, it would save us from a lot of useless "this isn't an option because of agreements" argumentation, which is fundamentally flawed, and we could concentrate on the more important questions of: what do we want to do? what's most optimal? what's the Right Thing to do?

Also remember that the question about being in EU is a long term one (measured in multiple decades; no one joins and exits EU regularly), while a lot of the discussion is focused on a small timescale (months, a few years) issues - what happens right after brexit and how it's handled. While these questions are important, it's easy to lose track and start comparing apples to oranges.

[rstofer]

Texas would become a new country, so would need to have a trade deal with the US, to avoid tariffs. It would need to follow the US laws regarding things such as food standards and so on.

And yet we somehow trade with the entire world!  Sure there may need to be some formality to the trade relations but it isn't like we don't have models already printed up and functioning elsewhere.  This just isn't a big deal unless the opposing forces become vindictive.  First draft in a week, final agreement in a month.  Meanwhile, unrestricted traffic.

There are other things you don't seem to have considered, such as no longer being bound by the US constitution. Suppose the new government wanted to stop black people from voting? No US state can do that, because it's unconstitutional. I think the other states would be pissed off with one being able to do what they want.

I am not aware of the voting situation in Australia or New Zealand or even Germany.  Not my circus, not my monkeys.  The point is, if Texas was an independent country they could do whatever their people wanted.  I doubt that they would go full retard.

For two countries to have tariff free trade, lots of laws need to be harmonised, in order for both parties to agree. For example take farming for example. One country X has higher animal welfare standards than country Y, so the cost of meat in X will be higher than Y. Country X uses pesticides on their crops, which Y doesn't think are safe. The farmers in country X don't want to have to compete with cheap imports from country Y and they don't want to lower their animal welfare standards, for ethical and cultural reasons, so they impose huge tariffs on their meat. Country Y does the same with X's crops, as they don't like the pesticides and their farmers can't compete. Both countries impose tariffs on each other in retaliation.

Again, the US trades with the entire world (AFAIK) and it all works out.  We have treaties and tariffs for models, creating one for a new country is no big deal.  As long as everyone cooperates.  That's been the problem with Brexit:  The EU hasn't conceded a single point.  It's been the EU's way or no-way since the beginning.  It has not been a meeting of equals.  The UK has been treated like crap from the beginning.  That the UK still talks to the EU is both amazing and disheartening.

The trade barriers are harming both countries' economies, by making everything more expensive and there are long delays at the borders, for everything to be checked. One day the two countries' governments get together and decide to solve the problem. Eventually they come to a trade agreement. Country Y decides to adopt X's higher animal welfare standards and X abolishes the use of the pesticides which Y disapprove of. Now they both remove the tariffs and trade with each other more freely.

Again, this is already worked out for hundreds of countries.  The EU is hardly unique in trading with other countries.

This is how the EU works, except it's a large collection of countries who all agree on common laws and standards, which affect them all, so they can trade freely with one another. The British public and no doubt people in other EU states bitch about some of the laws, but they have to put up with them to get the benefits of free trade. One of the EU rules states that trade with any non-EU state is governed by world trade organisation rules and no better, unless they have a specific trade agreement with them. This means if a country leaves the EU, without some kind of agreement, there will be tariffs imposed on them, border checks etc. The EU won't allow the UK to leave and still give it the same access to the single market, without having to follow all of the rules, because if they did it would defeat the whole point of agreeing common laws and standards affecting trade.

I don't think the UK is complaining about compliance with standards.  What they don't want is the attendant freedom of movement and, of course, their fishermen want their waters back.  To boil Brexit down to just one complaint item:  Freedom of movement is not welcome.  As I understand things...  Of course, nobody wants to be controlled by a foreign government or institution.  That's kind of the whole point of being a sovereign country.

The Irish troubles are much more recent than the US civil war. Part of their resolution involved removing the border controls between the UK and Republic of Ireland, with the declaration of a legally binding treaty: The Good Friday Agreement. The RoI is in the EU and their rules state that border checks must be in place with states which are not in the customs union. The Northern Irish government want to leave the EU, under the same conditions, as the rest of the UK, who want to leave the customs union. This means there can't be a border through the Irish sea. It must run through Ireland, but that would be in breach of the Good Friday agreement and risk reignition of the troubles, so it can't go there either. The EU could make an exeption for the Northern Irish border, when the UK leaves, but that would set a precedent and all other EU states must agree. I think the EU will somehow resolve this, irrespective of whether there's a deal, since they don't want a war.

So, there is no possible answer to this problem!  The UK should totally surrender to the EU forevermore because of ROI vs NI.  Seriously? 

The EU won't make an exception before Brexit but they're going to have to after Brexit because the Irish border isn't an issue for the UK.  Stuff coming north will either be destined to NI, and they aren't a very big market, or it will transit and ship out where it will be inspected on reaching the Great Britain borders.  Not a problem for the UK.

The EU is the only organization worrying about the NI border.  I don't pretend to understand the complexities of the Troubles.  When I visited Dublin for a project meeting back in '80 everybody agreed not to discuss the matter and we went out for pints after work.

So, allow passenger vehicles, foot traffic, buses and small vans unfettered access.  Side stream the large trucks for inspection inside the ROI.  Consider 'trusted trader' agreements to give nearly all large trucks unimpeded flow.     NI isn't worried about mass migration because it hasn't happened even with freedom of movement.

Come on!  This thing is solvable were it not for the EU and ROI wanting to use it as a wedge.  But first there needs to be meetings of people of good will and that hasn't happened.

This should be an interesting week!

[SilverSolder]

The UK should totally surrender to the EU forevermore

Like Texas or any of the other 49 states are all surrendering to the USA forever more?   Let's face it, this is a minority view in the USA, and also in the EU (even in the UK)!

[Zero999]

And yet we somehow trade with the entire world!  Sure there may need to be some formality to the trade relations but it isn't like we don't have models already printed up and functioning elsewhere.  This just isn't a big deal unless the opposing forces become vindictive.  First draft in a week, final agreement in a month.  Meanwhile, unrestricted traffic.

I am not aware of the voting situation in Australia or New Zealand or even Germany.  Not my circus, not my monkeys.  The point is, if Texas was an independent country they could do whatever their people wanted.  I doubt that they would go full retard

Again, the US trades with the entire world (AFAIK) and it all works out.  We have treaties and tariffs for models, creating one for a new country is no big deal.  As long as everyone cooperates.  That's been the problem with Brexit:  The EU hasn't conceded a single point.  It's been the EU's way or no-way since the beginning.  It has not been a meeting of equals.  The UK has been treated like crap from the beginning.  That the UK still talks to the EU is both amazing and disheartening.

Yes, the whole world trades and that won't stop after Brexit, nor would it stop if Texas left the US. The problem is all the upheaval and that afterwards Texas would be in a weaker position, than before, without the backup of the other states, who would be stronger together.

The EU has been so difficult to deal with, because the UK government have made unreasonable and conflicting demands. The Brexiteers want all the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. When one leaves a club, they also lose the benefits of membership, along with gaining the freedom of not having to follow the rules.

I don't think the UK is complaining about compliance with standards.  What they don't want is the attendant freedom of movement and, of course, their fishermen want their waters back.  To boil Brexit down to just one complaint item:  Freedom of movement is not welcome.  As I understand things...  Of course, nobody wants to be controlled by a foreign government or institution.  That's kind of the whole point of being a sovereign country.

The idea behind freedom of movement is it helps companies to hire people from different countries, without having to worry about visas. It worked well for the UK, when the rest of the EU had similar levels of wealth. I imagine a similar thing could work between US and Canada or New Zealand and Australia, with most people being happy with it. It only became a problem, when poorer parts of Europe joined the UK. Of course you could blame the UK government at the time for not stopping it, but that doesn't help the current situation.

The trouble is, if the UK wants to preserve the current level of tariff free trade and access to the single market, they're stuck with it now. The EU has made it clear that two are inseparable. The EU can't allow each state to do what it wants because that would defeat the purpose of having a group of states which agree. If the EU allow the UK to leave, not pay any tax or have freedom of movement, then what's to stop other countries from doing the same? Then there may be other countries who are happy with freedom of movement, but disagree with some other EU rules, perhaps they should be able to leave and keep all the benefits too? That would result in the dissolution of the EU which would not be welcome by most of the EU states.

The EU could make an exeption for the Northern Irish border, when the UK leaves, but that would set a precedent and all other EU states must agree.

How is that supposed to work? Suppose there is no border between the EU and the UK. Then anything and anyone can just go from the EU into the UK without control. Which, if I am not mistaken, is precisely what the UK does not want. Can you explain how these two contradictory issues can be reconciled?

Because it's not that simple.  Remember the UK and EU are not single bodies, each with uniform ideas and desires.

Not all of the UK wants Brexit and even some of those who do, would be happy with a border across the Irish sea but the DUP doesn't want that. The problem with the backstop is the DUP want to leave the EU, under the same terms as the rest of the UK. If the UK leave the customs union, they must also leave it too.

The EU wants border controls with states, who are not in the customs union. Remember they don't want to give anyone the benefits of membership, without the responsibilities.

No doubt the RoI would be happy to have a more open border with NI after Brexit, irrespective or whether they're in the customs union or not. All they're bothered about is keeping the peace.

Irrespective of who is to blame for Brexit. It doesn't mean the EU shouldn't strive to achieve some sort of a compromise. Allow the UK, along with Northern Ireland to leave the EU and customs union, whist keeping the border open. Number plate recognition technology could be used to keep track of vehicles crossing the border and have passport checks, only when the authorities have reasonable grounds to suspect someone might be a criminal.

[dzseki]

Switzerland is not part of the trade union either, still for example one can go with car from Geneve to France without basically any control, so I don't see much problem in this, yet taxation of foreign goods are in effect, and AFAIK it actually works.

[Zero999]

Switzerland is not part of the trade union either, still for example one can go with car from Geneve to France without basically any control, so I don't see much problem in this, yet taxation of foreign goods are in effect, and AFAIK it actually works.

Switzerland may not be in the EU, but is in the Schengen passport-free zone, which the UK has never been part of and is in the Single market, so has to accept free movement.

Switzerland are more closely tied to the EU, than anyone who voted for Brexit wants the UK to be. I believe a Swiss style agreement is very popular amongst remainders in the government, because it would allow them to officially stick to the result of the referendum to leave the EU,  but without really leaving. I don't back it because it would not be what people voted for. The only moral and right way to allow that kind of agreement, would be to have another referendum or general election with a party committed to such a deal, winning a clear majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Switzerland_and_the_European_Union

[FreezeSSC]

I have to laugh at the idea that Texas leaving the union wouldn't effect them at all.  Every major engineering firm with government contracts would immediately move to the U.S. side not to mention every company that needs or wants access to the u.s. financial market.  As you're seeing with brexit many corporations will move to the bigger financial market creating a drain on Texas and reducing their economic activity, in order to sustain their economy Texas will have to substantially raise their taxes and create job crippling their own citizens or let their economy deflate as people flee to the U.S. side. 

[apis]

The reality is (and I am repeating myself) that the available options are:

1- Remain in the EU - Britain says NO because "Brexit means Brexit".

2- The entire UK exits - Requires borders in Northern Ireland so they don't want this either.

3- Northern Ireland remains under EU rules and a "backstop" in the Irish sea.

Actually, the UK parliament has passed a law now that forbids option no. 2, so the only remaining options are 1 or 3: Remain in the EU or accept the deal that Theresa May has negotiated with the EU (backstop). (Something in-between might also still be possible, if Theresa May drops some of her "red lines".)

Theresa May understands it, Angela Merkel understands it, the entire EU understands this, the British government understands this, even I understand this, and yet we still have people waving their hands a lot and making vague assertions that "something can be found".

Embarrassingly there are still some brexiteers in the uk Gov/Tories that doesn't understand this, but Theresa May and her faction probably does. Maybe the others Tories do too and are only putting on a show so they wont loose too many of their Brexit voters to UKIP/Farage, but I think that is to give them too much credit.

[soldar]

Exactly, banks and other corps are leaving the UK in flocks and Brexit hasn't even happened yet.  I read that many banks and financial institutions are now requiring new hires to sign in their contracts an agreement to relocate to the continent if so required. The economy has taken a nosedive and Brexit hasn't even happened yet. Just wait until it really does happen.

We are not talking of a single club but a group of treaties with different members each treaty. There is already a very good youtube video posted in this thread. I know some people are not interested in facts but those interested in reality should see it as it explains the different treaties.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Supranational_European_Bodies-en.png

The referendum resulted for Brexit without explaining or going into any detail of what that meant. Sensing the disaster ahead Cameron, wisely, stepped aside. Theresa May became leader of her party and prime minister and was totally lost with regards to the issue. She spent months saying vague platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit" which alarmed pretty much everybody. Those who wanted a hard Brexit thought they would be swindled, those who wanted to remain thought she might go for a hard Brexit and those who wanted a soft Brexit thought it looked like she didn't have a clue as to what was going on or what to do next.

After much fuddling she came up with her "red lines".

- Leave the European single market (and retake control of the movement of goods and persons)

- Not be in the European Customs Union

- Regain "control of our borders" and control flow of goods, services and people. (I think capitals too.)

- No longer submit to jurisdiction of the European Court

- No contribution to the general expenses of the EU (although maybe the UK could participate in specific programs)

- A "free trade agreement" with the EU

- No border in Ireland.


This program of red lines had two main problems:

1- It was vague and sounded like a hard Brexit which would provide all the "Brexity" things with no disadvantage. But not all who voted for Brexit voted for a hard Brexit in the first place.

2- She was in denial about the contradictions contained in her program.


I mean, she was going to have a "free trade agreement" while pulling out of the treaties that gave UK that free trade.

And she was going to have "control of our borders" while not having border controls in Ireland.That's the squaring of the circle and when it was pointed out they replied with vague "technological measures" which are impossible and therefore non-existant. 

Unfortunately, she encouraged the pie in the sky crowd who believe anything is possible if you just wish it hard enough.

After that everything has gone downhill from there.


The pie in the sky crowd who believe anything is possible, even the impossible is possible, have taken the position that if the impossible is not being delivered it must be the fault of the EU. So the same people who blamed the EU for their problems while they were in, now blame their problems on the EU for not letting them leave ... or something. The people who said the EU would bend over backwards to accommodate the UK are now blaming the EU for the mess and chaos in Westminster. UK do not know what they want but they want the Eu to deliver PDQ.


This is like someone saying: you know that car we have? It uses too much gasoline and I have a solution to that. I have found out it is the motor that uses up so much gasoline so all we have to do is take out the motor and gasoline consumption will decrease a lot.


I know a couple where she was pretty much using the guy. Two young daughters with problems, he got to take care of everything at home while she went out with her friends. Then she got sick and needed care at home from him. For years he got no sex. Then she got a bit better from her sickness and decided she was tired of him and it was all his fault so she divorced him. She thought she was attractive and intelligent and guys would line up for the privilege of her company.  Needless to say things did not quite work out that way. Yes, plenty of guys willing for a one night thing and only as long as children, ex-husband or health issues were not brought up. Middle aged people with baggage and health issues are not in great demand. She didn't appreciate what she had and she thought she was so attractive she would have the world at her feet.

I feel the UK has miscalculated. They didn't want to pay for their share of the gasoline that made things move along and are surprised that if you take the motor out of the car it no longer moves. And they thought they were so attractive the world would line up to beg them for commercial deals when in reality the three big trading blocks will screw you tonight and not even call you in the morning.

For now the only solution to these conundrums is to kick the can down the road.

At this point I think Theresa May is totally burnt out and exhausted and the only thing holding her in place is that nobody want to assume the royal mess. 

I would tell them to pound sand and get lost but obviously that would be no good for anybody so the EU patiently wait for the fool to stop fooling and return to reality. 

I guess as long as they do not demand the Sudetenland we're OK. We can just point and laugh while we wait.

[apis]

Voters tell them what they want and leave the details to them.  But the goal is to get it done!

We have representative democracies. We vote for a representative who shares our values, and more pragmatically, our interests. If they get elected they go off and becomes experts on the politics and hopefully make the best possible choices in line with those values and interests. If they realise something isn't possible or would be really bad it's their responsibility to say so and do what they believe is right.

Yes, the politicians work for the citizens, but they are supposed to think by themselves and make the best possible decisions. You don't just hand the politicians a list of how to vote. That would be direct democracy.

[soldar]

Actually, the UK parliament has passed a law now that forbids option no. 2, so the only remaining options are 1 or 3: Remain in the EU or accept the deal that Theresa May has negotiated with the EU (backstop). (Something in-between might also still be possible, if Theresa May drops some of her "red lines".)

Yes I am aware of that. In reality Parliament have rejected all three and therein lies the problem. When I proposed those three choices I was talking about a practical point of view, not what Parliament are thinking (which is anybody's guess).

There is an aside discussion to be had about voting systems. There are infinite number of voting systems and there is no one system that is better than all others. This is something simple people fail to grasp as they have this notion that there must be some ideal system.

Now, in the UK Parliament they vote for/against bills. Suppose you have 1/3 who favor bill A, 1/3 who favor bill B and 1/3 who favor bill C/ None of them will pass because 2/3 will always vote against any of the bills.

This is the case where countries cannot form a government because there is always a majority opposed to whatever is proposed.

A solution is to not vote Yes/No on each measure but to introduce all alternative bills and each voter can vote for one and the bill which gets most votes carries the day and the others are rejected. That would solve the Brexit issue PDQ.

This puts voters in a different frame of mind. They cannot just obstruct by voting against everything. Now they know some measure is going to be approved and they better really vote for the one they consider least bad.

It is easy to gain the approval of a majority *against* something, anything. It is much more difficult to get people to unite in support of something.

[apis]

I guess as long as they do not demand the Sudetenland we're OK. We can just point and laugh while we wait.

It's like a little child who wants to bring the cute lion cubs home from the Zoo, and the parents try to explain why it's not possible, but the child is angry and crying and thinks the parents are just being mean. It's not so funny when it's the leaders of a big country behaving like that though, because the consequences will be dire for everyone.

[soldar]

It may be just me getting old but I grew up in the longest period of peace and the most prosperous the western world has known and there was a feeling that things were always getting better.

The Anglo countries, especially US and UK were examples of stability and good government. You could disagree with many of their policies, and I did, but overall they had responsible leaders and good government. They did not do *really* stupid things, only moderately stupid. They did not damage the system.

For the last few years I have a feeling that these countries are decomposing from within and losing weight in the world. And it makes me sad because this is my culture, my family if you will.

We are like children playing to be grown ups but without responsibility, without thinking there are real consequences to what we do. We are like the monkeys in the Jungle Books.

We think that we are superior to other cultures just because of who we are but other cultures are catching up fast and we better wake up or we will be surpassed.

I don't want to imagine the day when people visit the ruins of Westminster, like we visit the ruins of Rome today, and think "this was once a great place that ruled an empire".

[soldar]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/11/switzerland-court-overturns-referendum-as-voters-were-poorly-informed

Court overturns referendum as voters were poorly informed ... in Switzerland

Incomplete detail and lack of transparency invalidated vote on tax laws, says supreme court

Switzerland’s supreme court has overturned a nationwide referendum for the first time in the country’s modern history, on the grounds that the information given to voters was insufficient.

In a ruling that may resonate in Britain, where remain campaigners have long argued that voters in the 2016 Brexit referendum were not adequately informed, the court said incomplete detail and a lack of transparency had violated the freedom of the vote, which could now be re-run.

Maybe the UK can learn something.