Brexit THread

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

I understand that, but taking a hard line now and being forced to "capitulate" in front of the EU in a few weeks or months will be ever more damaging for her relationship with Brexiteers right?

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU defends itself. If you can have all the advantages of the EU without all the obligations of the EU, what's the point?
To be a member of the single market you have to pay for the access, you have accept EU laws and rulings of the ECJ, you have to accept all 4 liberties. That's the case for Norway and Iceland.
Now why the UK should have a special treatment? (The UK already had a special treatment inside the EU and were never happy with it, and the transition is already a kind of special treatment but they want a special treatment inside the special treatment?).
The goal of the EU is not to include all of Europe, it is to create a political and economical power in Europe. The UK, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland don't accept the political aspect of the EU, therefore their place is not inside the EU. That's fine, they can have some kind of relationship with the EU, but the EU will not "denature" itself to allow them to join.

Why do you assume she'll be forced to capitulate? If economics were all that mattered, Brexit would never have been brought to a vote, let alone begun. And if the EU were truly interested in freedom instead of being a large lowest common denominator market, it would have done more about Poland and Hungary's actions impinging judicial independence than toothless complaints by now. The way the EU has acted of late, if Franco and Mussolini were still in charge of Spain and Italy (don't ask how they're still alive) it wouldn't complain in the least so long as they were in favor free trade and free movement of people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.

And the way things are, there's a good chance the UK will choose to reject the single market.  It will of course be painful in the short term, but given how the EU is sliding towards being a union of illiberal "democracies", in the long run it might turn out to be for the best.  It's not the UK that is exposing the weakness of the EU so much as it is Poland and Hungary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is simply the rule, you want the single market you have to accept the freedom of movement (among other things). Michel Barnier in London today repeated it. The UK has to choose.

And the way things are, there's a good chance the UK will choose to reject the single market.  It will of course be painful in the short term, but given how the EU is sliding towards being a union of illiberal "democracies", in the long run it might turn out to be for the best.  It's not the UK that is exposing the weakness of the EU so much as it is Poland and Hungary.

Again, the EU is not a federal country like the USA. Like it or not, almost no normal person sees regulating the exact degree of judicial independence as either a function or an advantage of being in the EU.

So in other words, the EU exists for the benefit of plutocrats rather than democrats.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there's one thing history teaches, it's that in the long term the rule of law, not of bureaucrats, not of governments, but of law, i.e. a system that allows for people to predictably make economic decisions is necessary for economic vitality. Like it or not, judicial independence is an essential part of the rule of law. If the UK was truly the stumbling block there, then the EU will soon be able to fix it. Indeed, all sorts of thigs EU-philes say "but for the UK" it will soon be able to do unless the British bogeyman made a convenient excuse.

Also EU support a free market without monopolies or cartels, while USA seem to be fine with both.

I hope you'll excuse me for thinking the EU would happy to have monopolies and cartels, provided they were European ones.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If there's one thing history teaches, it's that in the long term the rule of law, not of bureaucrats, not of governments, but of law, i.e. a system that allows for people to predictably make economic decisions is necessary for economic vitality. Like it or not, judicial independence is an essential part of the rule of law. If the UK was truly the stumbling block there, then the EU will soon be able to fix it. Indeed, all sorts of thigs EU-philes say "but for the UK" it will soon be able to do unless the British bogeyman made a convenient excuse.

Also EU support a free market without monopolies or cartels, while USA seem to be fine with both.

I hope you'll excuse me for thinking the EU would happy to have monopolies and cartels, provided they were European ones.

You would be wrong, as EU doesn't allow them to be created, and when a hidden cartel are discovered, they're dissolved and the companies behind them are made to pay billions. EU are very committed to capitalism and the free market. The American companies just makes the mistake to think, they can get away with the same sh**t in Europe as in USA, it's also why older American companies, who have been on the European market for decades rarely run into the same problems, as they know how the EU courts works.

Older companies are usually in mature industries where you aren't creating new products but improving existing ones. It's when one creates new products that one is most likely to create a new "monopoly". Basically, the EU insists that innovators share the wealth created by their innovation.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For example Microsoft was never prosecuted for having a 85% share in the OS market. But they were prosecuted for using this market share to force the use of their media player and internet navigator.

So we have the EU to thank for the success of iTunes and Chrome?  That's rather delusional thinking, in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No one has ever claimed that you should thank the EU for Chrome or iTunes.

But do you believe that it was fair from Microsoft to only propose their internet navigator? Don't you think that forcing Microsoft to offer to their consumers, in March 2010, a choice between 12 different internet navigators was a good thing for them?

I think it didn't really matter.  Over here in the benighted U.S., we moved away from IE quite readily when there better browsers.  In fact the only real difference in the browser market in 2010 between the US and the EU was that in 2010, the EU had a duopoly of IE and Firefox while in the US, IE had about half the market just as in the EU, but we had three browsers, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari that each had about a sixth of the market.  The idea that the EU had anything to do with the decline in IE use is laughable. (Unless one thinks Microsoft had to spend too much of its resources worrying what the EU might do to spend them in improving IE.) The idea that people need 12 browser choices is even more laughable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are you really trying to disagree with the fact that companies in a position of market dominance can and do abuse that power?

They certainly can, but only in certain circumstances.  Browsers and media players aren't those circumstances.  It's reasonably easy for end users to install browsers and other software if they offer features they want that the dominant provider(s) don't.  History shows that end users were perfectly willing to do that and that it didn't take government action to make it possible.

Maybe you find the idea of offering 12 browser choices laughable, but at least the consumers were informed of the existence of these 12 browsers.

The idea that consumers are idiots who can't find out on their own about alternatives unless wise bureaucrats make certain they are informed is what is laughable.  Especially since those "wise" bureaucrats acted as if browsers were a commodity like cans of peas. What most people care about when it comes to browsers is will it show the content they want shown, will it do it fast, will it do it reliably. They've shown they can make reasonably competent choices about that.

Not necessarily perfect choices, because there are costs involved in selecting between alternatives and in switching from one alternative to another, so minor differences in speed and reliability aren't going to be worth determining for most people. That's why being "presented"12 different browsers is laughable.  If and when people reach the decision that they need to change from the browser that they have been using to another, they aren't going to simply pick another browser at random, or waste time trying out all 12 options for themselves.  They'll do an internet search and see which two or three browsers get recommended most and pick from a far more reasonable number of choices. Granted there will be a few who would do an in-depth comparison of 12 (or more) different browsers, but they'd be doing that even if the EU weren't mandating that they be presented browsers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's a Eurocrat being honest.  The EU isn't about what's best for people, it's about what's best for industry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-43104378/single-market-is-best-solution-for-uk-guy-verhofstadt

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He is talking about Britain's future relationship with the EU once they will have left the EU. So he is not talking about the EU, but about the different economic relationships that a third country can have with the EU.

The single market is one of the aspects of the EU, not the only one.

Earlier in the interview he said that it would be unacceptable that during the transition the only change would be on citizens rights while the rules for goods, services, trade continue to apply with no change. Another example on how Eurocrats only care about the good of industry, not citizens.

Since the context is "we want the single labor market to continue for the benefit of industry", your comment isn't nearly as snarky as you intended.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see nothing wrong with the EU placing its interests first. Indeed, I'd be shocked if it didn't try to do what it thought would be best for it.

But what's clear is that the EU and the UK don't agree on what is most important. In my opinion, the EU has come to the conclusion that economics trumps all, and everything else is of at best secondary concern. Whether that is industrial, consumer, or worker economics is but minor difference to the EU. Yet, the fact that Brexit is happening shows that for a significant part of the British electorate, economics is at best a secondary concern. The Eurocrats remain baffled by that, which no doubt explains why they think pointing out economic problems caused by Brexit will somehow cause the UK to reverse course.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

unless they're hoping for a softer Brexit and doing this to try to collapse the government?

It's either that or they're deliberately trying for as hard a Brexit as possible to discourage anyone else from leaving the EU.  But that makes no sense.  Even a soft Brexit should be enough to discourage other countries from leaving and I doubt that even if Brexit had been as easy as the Leave campaign had claimed it would be that anyone else would have tried leaving.