Help me in my ignorance about Brexit

[Squinch]

I admit, I am not well versed in the intricacies of Brexit, but it seems to me that there is a lot more to it than simple xenophobia.

The consensus here on DU seems to be that Brexit is absolutely wrong-headed, and Trump supports it which makes it clear to me that it must BE absolutely wrong-headed, but I am seeing some arguments that make me go, "hmmmmm..."

For example, didn't the EU force austerity down everyone's throats in response to the 2008 crash, thereby making everyone's life miserable and creating an unnecessary second crash which extended and multiplied that misery? I understand that Brexit will raise prices for goods and services, and I see how that is bad for poorer people. What I don't know is whether that hardship exceeds the economic hardship caused by the EU austerity measures.

I also understand some may be voting for it simply to close borders, which is truly xenophobic and disgusting, and has terrible implications for Ireland among other places. And I understand that it puts the UK's position as the economic center of Europe in jeopardy, which may lose them jobs.

But on the other hand, the true engine of the EU is Germany, which has won most of the policy discussions within the EU so far. German values are shaping policies. That wrong-headed insistence on an austerity response to 2008 is an example of this. It benefited Germany but was disastrous for most other EU countries, and yet it was the policy that was followed. It is inevitable that there will be situations in the future where German-backed policies will again create economic chaos for everyone else.

Isn't there value in the UK taking itself out of the path of that? Wouldn't we, as progressives, have fought tooth and nail against an austerity response to 2008 if that had been proposed for the US?

I guess what I am seeing is that there are many benefits and many costs to membership in the EU. And what I am not seeing is any analysis of the numbers of whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Or am I missing other issues besides cost/benefit that make membership preferable?

Tell me what I am missing. (Seriously. I am not taking a position, I just want to understand this.)

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. NO, austerity had NOTHING to do with it

any austerity in the UK is thanks to the UK's Tory government, and has nothing to do with the EU. The UK, unlike most of the rest of the EU, has its own currency. The austerity measures imposed on Greece by the European Central Bank were because Greece was on the Euro and could not take independent action on exchange rates and currency itself.

[Squinch]

2. So that was not an EU inspired action? Is the EU able to influence UK economic decisions?

(thanks for this)

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Nope, the UK has complete fiscal responsibility and the EU has no say at all.

That's the benefit of having your own currency and central bank.

[Squinch]

4. Thank you. I didn't know this. So is it all simple xenophobia, then?

Were any UK systems or costs being overloaded as a result of membership?

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. UK payments to the UK amount to 37 pence per day per person, £135 per year per capita

so, no.

[Squinch]

12. And the benefits of that were the eased trade arrangements, and things like

access to education and health care in other countries, and the position of the UK as the economic center of EU businesses?

That would seem to be a pretty good return on 37 pence a day.

Thanks for this information. I really do appreciate it.

[Squinch]

10. You seem to have a handle on this, so let me ask you something else. Below,

libdem4life's link seems to indicate that the whole Brexit move was a misguided political ploy by Cameron. What are your thoughts about that?

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. Yep, it was a totally miscalculated move to keep Tory Eurosceptics in line

he promised a referendum in 2013 when the Tories were in coalition with the Lib Dems...contingent on the Tories winning an outright majority, which he probably didn't expect to get; then he did, and had to deliver (and he expected to win, because the Scottish independence referendum went for "remain in the UK&quot . He made a terrible misjudgement.

[Squinch]

21. Do you think other countries will follow the UK and leave? And do you think this effort to get

a "do-over" vote will have any effect?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Other countries may

although I am not convinced the UK is actually going to leave. The Article 50 notification required under the Lisbon Treaty has not been given. It may not be. And there are potential constitutional problems involved.

[Squinch]

27. Spider, thanks so much for this. This is very helpful.

[uponit7771]

40. +1

[Denzil_DC]

53. I had a bit of a handle on some of the constitutional shenanigans

and complications that nobody in our mainstream media seems to want to touch on at the moment, but some of the info at that link's potential dynamite.

I liked the acknowledgement of Sturgeon's level-headed competence and preparedness for all this in the comments, in contrast to Westminster and Leave's unprepared floundering. Seriously? Cameron had no contingency plans for this happening?! Even the civil service were caught flat-footed, by the sound of it. That's a height of irresponsibility that surpasses the calling of the vote and the lack of setting a higher hurdle than 50% for such a major change from the status quo, which was bad enough. Shame we can't impeach in this country.

I don't much relish the idea of us folks in Scotland being used as scapegoats to save the Tories' face by being their excuse for not fulfilling the referendum vote. There were enough really shamefully disgusting sentiments from the mainstream parties, let alone UKIP and the nutter fringe, during the last election at the idea that we might have the cheek to elect MPs in significant numbers who might want to be able to represent their constituents in parliament, then the demonizing in the gutter press when they took their seats.

But if that's the way it has to go, I guess we'll cope.

Add to that article's complications the potential lawsuits over election spending that might eventually vanish the Tories' majority anyway, and these are indeed interesting times.

[libdem4life]

5. I found this very informative and non-judgmental.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027949740

Edit to add...I read it again...perhaps a bit judgmental. But poster lives there, apparently from the flag.

[Squinch]

7. Thank you. And I HAD seen the argument that it will have no real impact on

immigration, because most immigration into the UK is not coming from EU countries.

[cali]

6. I can't help you. I don't know enough. But I will say

I'm divided about it, from what I do know.

[Squinch]

8. Spider has some very good answers and libdem4life's link is informative.

[cali]

18. Thank you, Squinch. Much appreciated.

[Squinch]

36. .

[Rex]

11. DU is not the place to get an unbiased opinion on this.

People are running around saying this will cause WWIII etc.. Best to look elsewhere imo.

[Squinch]

15. No! I'm learning good things! People are giving me good information.

But generally, yes, I agree DU as a rule is not the most, um, dispassionate place to learn about things.

[Rex]

20. Not dissing their passion for debate.

Just that the Brexit has caused DU to go into meltdown mode. I've seen people from the UK post polar opposites of what the Brexit means...so I will leave it to them as it is their country. Some good OPs with links as to what this is all about. Good unbiased articles.

[RAFisher]

13. The Socialist Worker's Party supported Brexit. There were people on the left that supported it.

Polling shows they made up at least less than 20% of the Brexit vote. Maybe much less than 20%. But a solid 70-80% of the Brexit vote seemed to be right wing based.

And in your post you probably should replace England with United Kingdom. The UK hasn't desolved... yet.

[Squinch]

17. Yes, I will make the correction. Thanks.

[Denzil_DC]

29. The gap between the SWP

and any sector of British society that's likely to figure in sufficient numbers in polling as "on the left" to be identifiable at all is vast. The SWP are a tiny fringe.

Pollsters will count folks who've voted Labour in the past as "left". Since the Blair years, that doesn't mean they're any sort of political animal that you or I might recognize as being of "the left", more likely centrist in most cases.

[treestar]

23. lol

How many people are "crammed" onto Manhattan Island?

[Squinch]

50. You have a fan club!

[Denzil_DC]

31. Haven't we met before, "Zozo"? Like earlier this afternoon

You seem kinda familiar.

Or should I call you Name Removed?

[Squinch]

34. LOL! You're PSYCHIC!

[Denzil_DC]

37. Good grief.

Must be a slow day down the troll mine! LOL

Persistent little twit, huh? Get a life, "Zozo," is my recommendation.

The style was almost identical to my last encounter, so it wasn't a difficult spot.

Anyhoo, I'm glad you saw it, Squinch. They can lock you up and medicate you for your own good for talking to yourself, you know ....

[Squinch]

38. I'll be your witness! I suspect we'll meet him/her again...

[Denzil_DC]

39. I'll give you first shot next time! n/t

[Travis_0004]

19. 2/3 of new 'laws' in england come from Brussels

This number includes new regulations, but its still a staggering amount.

The EU wants to put new restrictions on toasters, but some say they have delayed taking action to avoid pissing off people before the vote. I'm not against UL saftey regulation, but this is just one of many examples where they can overstep their bounds.

[Squinch]

28. That's a lot, but it could go either way as to whether those laws

make people's lives better or worse. Still, that's a lot of regulation, and all regulation has expense associated with it.

[Denzil_DC]

41. A number bandied about repeatedly and discredited as misleading propaganda

during the debates, I'm afraid.

As for regs on toasters, that's likely set standards for the industry and make them more energy-efficient. I don't have a problem with that. Do you?

[Squinch]

42. This is an interesting point, though, and a quick look through the Google tubes gives me numbers

from 10%, 30%, 50%, and 72% of laws resulting from EU regulations.

So obviously no one knows, but any of those numbers represents a lot of laws.

And that does bring up an interesting issue of whether membership diluted the average person's already diluted sovereignty and reduced the level of influence over his own government. To me that is a compelling point.

[Denzil_DC]

44. But it's a function of the EU to set international standards,

so it's not necessarily any indication of anything sinister!

We'd have to spend UK money on setting our own standards if they didn't do it. Or worse, not set any standards - a free market dream. If we made stuff that we wanted to export to the EU or other international markets, we'd have to comply with whatever that market's standards were anyway.

The manufacturers actually like it because it gives them a level playing field. As a consumer, I actually like it most of the time. My fridge wastes a lot less energy than the old one we had while costing me less to run. That sort of thing.

It's one of those figures that makes people go OMG out of context. A lot of the anti-EU propaganda (and I'm by no means an unquestioning fan) is like that: tabloid headline fodder.

One American parallel might be the RW freak-out over energy-saving lightbulbs. Remember that?

[Squinch]

46. Not sure how to frame this question, but how are you represented in the making of these

laws? Is there a UK delegation to a committee that makes the laws or something like that? (Again, I am sure my ignorance on this is showing.) And if so, how is that delegation selected?

[Denzil_DC]

47. Can't give the details without Googling, and you can do that yourself!

It's a bit irrelevant, to me at least, anyway.

In or out of the EU, if we want to sell to countries within it or be a more formal part of its single market, we have to comply with its rules. If we want to sell to the US, the same applies, and vice versa.

It will be a EU civil service function, with "expert" and industry input by people paid to do that sort of thing, presumably with the requisite professional qualifications.

The question's a bit like asking me how the UK civil service functions and whether we elect civil servants. No, we don't. They're recruited like any other job, or in the higher echelons appointed by a mechanism that relates to our elected representatives in ways that probably border on black magic, or maybe not at all!

Other law-making functions are more transparent in some ways, though not necessarily more representative. But then we don't elect UK High Court or Supreme Court judges or the House of Lords in the UK either. Again, you can Google the details as well as I could. (Not being dismissive, but maybe somebody'll chip in who can answer you directly about it if you really need an answer, otherwise I'm sure you don't want me to sift Wikipedia for you.)

[Squinch]

49. Thanks. I will do that. I was just asking in case it was something widely known.

It is different from the rules that are set if you want to sell to the US, though. The US has no standing in your system other than as a trade partner. If we told you a regulation had to be enacted in the UK, you all would rightly tell us to go scratch.

If the EU tells you you need to comply with certain regulations, though, I am guessing you will need to comply to remain in good standing. So it is a real question whether you are being represented in the formation of the laws that affect you.

We over here are very tetchy about being subject to laws we had no representation in setting.

[Denzil_DC]

52. Yeah, I was focusing on trade regulations.

I'm not particularly bothered about having representation in setting those. I'm not qualified to do it myself, and I don't trust our own UK vested interests any more than those currently involved in setting them, and generally the EU's been pushing improved environmental standards etc. beyond those our set-up would have settled for if left to itself, dragging us, sometimes kicking and screaming, or at least a little pouty, into being more responsible towards the environment.

IIRC, the installation of catalytic converters on automobiles, for instance, was driven by the need to comply with initiatives in the US market (in fact, I think some of our companies had come up with lean-burn engines that could have been developed fairly quickly to be clean enough to comply with emissions standards without the need for cats, but history took a different turn), which being so big, meant worldwide automobile manufacturers fell into line. As it happens, that's led to its own problems with sourcing the precious metals involved (try buying an aftermarket cat to replace the original one - it likely won't last more than a year or two, if that, as they skimp on the platinum etc.), so lean-burn might have been a better route to pursue, but in the mean time, folks are a bit healthier than they might have been otherwise.

So the US may not have ordered us to comply, but market forces did the job anyway. I'd imagine there are loads of examples of the same sort of thing happening with other developments. If they're not that plentiful, maybe it's because you've had some pretty sucky administrations in recent memory that haven't been too hot on setting decent standards. But you're a big enough beast on the world stage that we'd comply whether you explicitly told us we had to or not because we'd want the sales. Once the production lines are set to comply with that stuff, with all the sunk costs that involves, it makes little sense to downgrade them just to assert a little independence for the home market.

There are plenty of things in the world to get my underwear in a wad about without worrying about the details of who set what regs and why as long as they're promoting a general improvement in our relationship to the environment.

[HuckleB]

22. Living in the Age of Stupid: How to comprehend Brexit, Trump and the Anti’s

https://risk-monger.com/2016/06/25/living-in-the-age-of-stupid-how-to-comprehend-brexit-trump-and-the-antis/

[Squinch]

32. This is interesting, but it's more an analysis of how bad ideas are propogated by social media.

I'm just trying to understand what Brexit IS, and the two sides of the argument.

[HuckleB]

35. It puts Brexit in its historical place.

The rest is mildly interesting for context, but...

[Rex]

24. Good article explains a lot imo.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/american-idiots-guide-to-brexit.html

A huge amount of information.

[Squinch]

33. Thank you. That is helpful.

[smirkymonkey]

43. Thanks for this!

Very helpful!

[Teamster Jeff]

48. Here is what I have learned from DU re Brexit

The young Brits who voted to Stay are an wise and informed group who voted in their own interests, for their own future.

The young Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders are naive dreamers who probably won't show up to vote anyway.

[ljm2002]

51. Yes, I learned that too! :-) n/t