All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Username taken]

I don't think the UK government explained very well to its citizens the benefits of remaining in the EU.

From a purely business perspective, the unencumbered flow of capital and labor from the EU into the UK (one of the biggest economies in Europe) and vice versa is actually a godsend. The flow of capital generally means higher margins for businesses (and investors) and greater revenue for the government. It was more beneficial to the UK when it didn't even have to adopt the Euro as its national currency (which meant it could easily maintain its payments on its sovereign debt as the pound was still stronger than the euro). The flow of skilled workers into the UK (on a permanent basis) was also regulated by the Home Office having to approve work permits only for foreigners with skills that couldn't be sourced locally. It also helped with lower-skilled jobs that many British citizens might not want to do (meaning it would be easier to absorb a recession shock, provided people don't look at stuff through the lens of "identity politics"). It really was a win-win situation.

It's much more complicated than this but this is just a broad overview of some of the multiple issues that Brexit caused.

Obviously, no one can properly quantify the effects of Brexit but the UK government having to spend money to restimulate the economy with the fall of FDI (due to Brexit) in the UK isn't good. Then having the most recent PM talk about cutting taxes looks like total insanity (hence the markets reacting the way they did).

[hyped78]

I suppose it would be reasonable to adjust for different population sizes and acknowledge that China does a lot of manufacturing processes where finished goods end in different countries?

But guess China still well up the “polluter table” after those adjustments made.

Different population yes, but if you do it by GDP the US economy is still bigger than China's, 20.9 trillion vs. 14.7 trillion in 2020, while China pollutes literally double of what the US does.

I don't think the UK government explained very well to its citizens the benefits of remaining in the EU.

From a purely business perspective, the unencumbered flow of capital and labor from the EU into the UK (one of the biggest economies in Europe) and vice versa is actually a godsend. The flow of capital generally means higher margins for businesses (and investors) and greater revenue for the government. It was more beneficial to the UK when it didn't even have to adopt the Euro as its national currency (which meant it could easily maintain its payments on its sovereign debt as the pound was still stronger than the euro). The flow of skilled workers into the UK (on a permanent basis) was also regulated by the Home Office having to approve work permits only for foreigners with skills that couldn't be sourced locally. It also helped with lower-skilled jobs that many British citizens might not want to do (meaning it would be easier to absorb a recession shock, provided people don't look at stuff through the lens of "identity politics"). It really was a win-win situation.

It's much more complicated than this but this is just a broad overview of some of the multiple issues that Brexit caused.

Obviously, no one can properly quantify the effects of Brexit but the UK government having to spend money to restimulate the economy with the fall of FDI (due to Brexit) in the UK isn't good. Then having the most recent PM talk about cutting taxes looks like total insanity (hence the markets reacting the way they did).

I think it's a case of it's easier to criticize something, stretching the boundaries of what's factual, versus having to defend it.

It was easier, for example, to tell people "We send £350 million to the EU every week, let's use that money to fund our National Health Service instead", than to explain that those £350 million are a form of investment that benefits the UK through commerce and other things.

It was easier to say "EU fishermen are stealing our fish and unelected EU bureucrats are deciding the size of our potatoes" than to defend what a EU membership was generating for the UK. And when explaining the dangers of leaving the EU, it was easy for Brexiteers to say "Nonsense! That's just fear mongering from people who don't believe in the potential of this great country!".

It's a bit like in the US right now. What's easier - to explain that inflation is being caused by asymmetric supply chain shocks in face of growing aggregate demand, or to blame Biden for all of it?

[JackDaw]

I don't think the UK government explained very well to its citizens the benefits of remaining in the EU.

From a purely business perspective, the unencumbered flow of capital and labor from the EU into the UK (one of the biggest economies in Europe) and vice versa is actually a godsend. The flow of capital generally means higher margins for businesses (and investors) and greater revenue for the government. It was more beneficial to the UK when it didn't even have to adopt the Euro as its national currency (which meant it could easily maintain its payments on its sovereign debt as the pound was still stronger than the euro). The flow of skilled workers into the UK (on a permanent basis) was also regulated by the Home Office having to approve work permits only for foreigners with skills that couldn't be sourced locally. It also helped with lower-skilled jobs that many British citizens might not want to do (meaning it would be easier to absorb a recession shock, provided people don't look at stuff through the lens of "identity politics"). It really was a win-win situation.

It's much more complicated than this but this is just a broad overview of some of the multiple issues that Brexit caused.

Obviously, no one can properly quantify the effects of Brexit but the UK government having to spend money to restimulate the economy with the fall of FDI (due to Brexit) in the UK isn't good. Then having the most recent PM talk about cutting taxes looks like total insanity (hence the markets reacting the way they did).

When UK was in EU the skills work permit system was effectively limited to non EU citizens.( There were very few circumstances where entry to UK for work could be barred to some one with a valid EU passport… if an EU citizen wanted to come in for work, they effectively did so without going through work permit system.

In some ways it was a strange set-up in that many Commonwealth citizens with strong historic links to UK found it much harder to work in UK than EU citizens.

In theory leaving EU gave UK better ability to bring people in based on skill set rather than nationality.

Not saying for a second that theory has been translated into practice!

[Username taken]

Different population yes, but if you do it by GDP the US economy is still bigger than China's, 20.9 trillion vs. 14.7 trillion in 2020, while China pollutes literally double of what the US does.



I think it's a case of it's easier to criticize something, stretching the boundaries of what's factual, versus having to defend it.

It was easier, for example, to tell people "We send £350 million to the EU every week, let's use that money to fund our National Health Service instead", than to explain that those £350 million are a form of investment that benefits the UK through commerce and other things.

It was easier to say "EU fishermen are stealing our fish and unelected EU bureucrats are deciding the size of our potatoes" than to defend what a EU membership was generating for the UK. And when explaining the dangers of leaving the EU, it was easy for Brexiteers to say "Nonsense! That's just fear mongering from people who don't believe in the potential of this great country!".

It's a bit like in the US right now. What's easier - to explain that inflation is being caused by asymmetric supply chain shocks in face of growing aggregate demand, or to blame Biden for all of it?

Exactly.

It falls on leadership to properly explain these things to their people.

The inflation problem for example is something that most governments can't solve (countries like China manage it because of the very controlled nature of their economy).

Changing the government can't solve the problem of inflation unless the government is going to enact stuff like price-caps and price-controls which flies in the face of current western economic policies and philosophies.

[Username taken]

When UK was in EU the skills work permit system was effectively limited to non EU citizens.( There were very few circumstances where entry to UK for work could be barred to some one with a valid EU passport… if an EU citizen wanted to come in for work, they effectively did so without going through work permit system.

In some ways it was a strange set-up in that many Commonwealth citizens with strong historic links to UK found it much harder to work in UK than EU citizens.

In theory leaving EU gave UK better ability to bring people in based on skill set rather than nationality.

Not saying for a second that theory has been translated into practice!

Yes, non-EU workers needed a Home Office permit to work.

As you said, leaving the EU should have made it easier to get in labor based on skills-set but how it's been implemented is a big, big question.

[hyped78]

Exactly.

It falls on leadership to properly explain these things to their people.

The inflation problem for example is something that most governments can't solve (countries like China manage it because of the very controlled nature of their economy).

Changing the government can't solve the problem of inflation unless the government is going to enact stuff like price-caps and price-controls which flies in the face of current western economic policies and philosophies.

Are you British or live in the UK, btw? (just curious, as you mentioned the Home Office in your previous post)

"It falls on leadership to properly explain these things to their people" - I also think David Cameron, George Osborne and others didn't really really think the country would vote to leave the EU; they saw it as just political bluff to pressure the EU into making concessions

[JackDaw]

Yes, non-EU workers needed a Home Office permit to work.

As you said, leaving the EU should have made it easier to get in labor based on skills-set but how it's been implemented is a big, big question.

Implementation has been poor (I think) maybe because government has had to fire fight so many other things. Or maybe because our government tends to struggle with almost all things…

One effect is that unemployment is very low. Normally a good thing…of course…but I suspect in UK case it’s making it very difficult to manage a lot of industries.

[CSTowle]

Well, but one of the countries that Cstowle mentioned as a Communist example, China, is by far the world's biggest polluter:

#1 - China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released
#2 - United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2

https://climatetrade.com/which-count...bon-polluters/

Thing about that is, they're polluting for two. They build all of the things we used to build for our consumption, then they build what they consume.

On top of that the main argument China and India and other countries have used (and it's a good one) is that we in the West have an easy time calling for curbs on pollution when we've already had our Industrial Revolution and modernized. They're trying to catch up after being part of that group of countries I mentioned earlier who were robbed of their resources by Colonial Western powers.

When you factor in what they manufacture on our behalf (not to mention exploiting their laborers, including in some cases slave labor of minority groups) we should at the least share the blame and realistically add it to our own bill entirely.

[hyped78]

Thing about that is, they're polluting for two. They build all of the things we used to build for our consumption, then they build what they consume.

On top of that the main argument China and India and other countries have used (and it's a good one) is that we in the West have an easy time calling for curbs on pollution when we've already had our Industrial Revolution and modernized. They're trying to catch up after being part of that group of countries I mentioned earlier who were robbed of their resources by Colonial Western powers.

When you factor in what they manufacture on our behalf (not to mention exploiting their laborers, including in some cases slave labor of minority groups) we should at the least share the blame and realistically add it to our own bill entirely.

Agree. It's a very tricky topic and I'm no expert on climate change and how to fight it, but it seems clear all countries/ regions need to work in the same direction and share the burden

[Username taken]

Are you British or live in the UK, btw? (just curious, as you mentioned the Home Office in your previous post)

"It falls on leadership to properly explain these things to their people" - I also think David Cameron, George Osborne and others didn't really really think the country would vote to leave the EU; they saw it as just political bluff to pressure the EU into making concessions

I live in Canada but did my Master's degree in the UK and lived there for a brief while. That's why I'm a bit familiar with things back there.

I fully agree that Cameron and co never thought the leave campaign would win. It's telling how soon the denials came when the leave campaign succeeded, they knew the shit had hit the fan.

Brexit was always a bluff hence the concrete lack of a post-EU plan.

[Kirby101]

I don't think billionaires have that impact on politics. It would suggest that major disagreements you have with elected Republicans could be resolved if rich Democratic-leaning businessmen (Mike Bloomberg has a net worth of 76.8 billion dollars so he could offer relatives of every member of Congress million dollar jobs and he'll still have 76 billion dollars left) could just bribe enough members of Congress to vote sensibly. Sadly, it won't be so simple.

No, what would solve it is overturning Citizens United and publicly funded elections. Very limited individual donations, no Pacs, no corporate donations. The bribes are in the way of very large campaign donations.
At the very least bring back McCain-Feingold.

[Jack Dracula]

Do you think I'm wrong? Billionaires are often very out of touch, and that leads to them supporting advertising that does not connect to the median voter.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re wrong. The fact that you immediately went to the scenario of the billionaires calling the shots is indicative of the mindset of the “average” moderate conservative. You fall in line, keep quiet, and follow.

[Kirby101]

I live in Canada but did my Master's degree in the UK and lived there for a brief while. That's why I'm a bit familiar with things back there.

I fully agree that Cameron and co never thought the leave campaign would win. It's telling how soon the denials came when the leave campaign succeeded, they knew the shit had hit the fan.

Brexit was always a bluff hence the concrete lack of a post-EU plan.

Not to mention the Russian interference and the role of entities like Cambridge Analytics. Like in our own 2016 election, few saw how big disinformation would be.

[Username taken]

Not to mention the Russian interference and the role of entities like Cambridge Analytics. Like in our own 2016 election, few saw how big disinformation would be.

Good, good point.

[hyped78]

I live in Canada but did my Master's degree in the UK and lived there for a brief while. That's why I'm a bit familiar with things back there.

I fully agree that Cameron and co never thought the leave campaign would win. It's telling how soon the denials came when the leave campaign succeeded, they knew the shit had hit the fan.

Brexit was always a bluff hence the concrete lack of a post-EU plan.

Ah! I was getting confused because I thought you were American (or North American!) and I wasn't understanding how someone living there can have so many insights about the UK. Mystery solved