Brexit pt2: UK picks Hard Brexit over Brexit Lite

The big question coming out of the Brexit decision is how the UK plans to leave - they can't have their cake and eat it too with the EU. Would they remain in the free trade area which would require them to meet most of the same obligations they had as an EU member, including allowing free movement of people from EU countries, or would they leave the free trade area to be free of those obligations at the cost of more difficult trade with the EU?

Turns out they're going with the latter option:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/03/news/economy/brexit-markets-uk-plan/index.html

As a result the pound has taken another hit...which is good news for anyone who wants to buy parts or cars from the UK at least.

They certainly have the right to conduct the sovereignty of their country as they see fit. I'd like to see that kind of principled leadership here at home.

It makes sense to go for the hard exit. A soft exit would defeat the point. On the other hand, a soft exit would soften the post vote regret.

I do have further opinions, mostly related to nationalism in a modern global world, but I sell enough fish at work to get my fill of flounder.

As far as continued weakening of the GBP, it might be time for my friend's English fiancé to say berk it and settle over here.

1988RedT2 wrote: They certainly have the right to conduct the sovereignty of their country as they see fit. I'd like to see that kind of principled leadership here at home.

Even if it's a bad idea?

Doesn't seem like a good idea to cut off your largest trading partner just to spite them.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

lol pfft

alfadriver wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: They certainly have the right to conduct the sovereignty of their country as they see fit. I'd like to see that kind of principled leadership here at home.

Even if it's a bad idea? Doesn't seem like a good idea to cut off your largest trading partner just to spite them.

If they feel their largest trading partner goes against their principles, absolutely.

In reply to alfadriver:

It's a bad idea in whose opinion? It's been put to a vote and decided. It would seem rather arrogant of anyone to suggest that they know better than the people of the UK what's best for their country. I think this world would be a better place if more people got their own houses in order and spent a lot less energy being critical of their neighbors.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Wow, really? I thought the overwhelming public response to the Brexit vote was "Wait, we did what now?"

In reply to 1988RedT2:

You should know by know that Anything Modern European > Anything Else.

1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: It's a bad idea in whose opinion? It's been put to a vote and decided. It would seem rather arrogant of anyone to suggest that they know better than the people of the UK what's best for their country. I think this world would be a better place if more people got their own houses in order and spent a lot less energy being critical of their neighbors.

Who's opinion? Nobel Prize winning economist believe it's a bad idea. When your decisions effect your neighbors, and the world economy for that matter, those critical neighbors should count for something.

Just because it wins the popular vote doesn't mean it's a good policy. The UK's post vote walk of shame shows that even the people that voted for it believe it might be a bad idea.

1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: It's a bad idea in whose opinion? It's been put to a vote and decided. It would seem rather arrogant of anyone to suggest that they know better than the people of the UK what's best for their country. I think this world would be a better place if more people got their own houses in order and spent a lot less energy being critical of their neighbors.

We will see how this works out.

But given the population of the UK, and the leading industry there, and that they now have to fend for themselves, basically- logic tells me that there's a fault with the vote.

The only reason they wanted out was that too many Eastern Europeans were coming to the UK to get jobs that were available.

to stop that, they just turned down the water faucet of money.

The UK is just like the US- we made all of our money sending our stuff to other places and having them pay for it. We still are rich in natural resources, but the UK is not. They are going to pay a premium for the resources to make stuff, and pay an tax to sell it back in another form. Which is why the Pound is going down in value.

Good luck with that.

NEALSMO wrote: Who's opinion? Nobel Prize winning economist believe it's a bad idea. When your decisions effect your neighbors, and the world economy for that matter, those critical neighbors should count for something. Just because it wins the popular vote doesn't mean it's a good policy. The UK's post vote walk of shame shows that even the people that voted for it believe it might be a bad idea.

So let me make sure I understand you correctly: You are saying that the opinions of an elite few should be given greater weight than those of the "common" people of an entire nation, and that those elite few should have the power to make laws that are opposed by the people that will live under them?

In reply to 1988RedT2:

Yep. I'll take the opinion of an experienced, educated, highly awarded specialist over the opinion of the masses any day.

NEALSMO wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: Yep. I'll take the opinion of an experienced, educated, highly awarded specialist over the opinion of the masses any day.

Well, that's terrifying. Think about the implications of that statement.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

NEALSMO wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: Yep. I'll take the opinion of an experienced, educated, highly awarded specialist over the opinion of the masses any day.

Well, that's terrifying. Think about the implications of that statement.

In this specific context that isn't terrifying at all.

NEALSMO wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote:

NEALSMO wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: Yep. I'll take the opinion of an experienced, educated, highly awarded specialist over the opinion of the masses any day.

Well, that's terrifying. Think about the implications of that statement.

In this specific context that isn't terrifying at all.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know, since "experts" are wrong all the time. But it would be a hell of a precedent to set.

Democracy may not be perfect, but it's still better than anything else humans have come up with.

alfadriver wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: It's a bad idea in whose opinion? It's been put to a vote and decided. It would seem rather arrogant of anyone to suggest that they know better than the people of the UK what's best for their country. I think this world would be a better place if more people got their own houses in order and spent a lot less energy being critical of their neighbors.

We will see how this works out. But given the population of the UK, and the leading industry there, and that they now have to fend for themselves, basically- logic tells me that there's a fault with the vote. The only reason they wanted out was that too many Eastern Europeans were coming to the UK to get jobs that were available. to stop that, they just turned down the water faucet of money. The UK is just like the US- we made all of our money sending our stuff to other places and having them pay for it. We still are rich in natural resources, but the UK is not. They are going to pay a premium for the resources to make stuff, and pay an tax to sell it back in another form. Which is why the Pound is going down in value. Good luck with that.

But, as the pound loses value, Britain's buying power drops too. So the EU will be negatively affected by the decrease in demand for it's goods from one of it's largest end markets. If you were the EU, would you want to further penalize such a large market for goods by adding additional taxes/fees to that? Hurting the UK kind of hurts the EU doesn't it?

Duke wrote: In reply to GameboyRMH: Wow, really? I thought the overwhelming public response to the Brexit vote was "Wait, we did what now?"

Haha it seems that was indeed the first question on the minds of UK voters! If the referendum were held again there's roughly zero chance the outcome would be the same. The public was horribly misinformed and they now realize it.

As for the question of an expert's opinion over the masses...I'd take the masses opinion every time. It's not as likely to produce an ideal outcome but it is far more likely to consistently produce a safe outcome. Plenty of "experts" over the years have made vastly worse decisions for their countries than the masses ever would or could, most notably Chairman Mao and the Kim dynasty.

Now I think the Brexit decision is easily the worst decision democracy has produced in recent history but I wouldn't even risk putting an expert in charge of that one, because whenever you put an expert in charge you're not putting expertise in charge, you're putting the person who qualifies who's an expert in charge, and that person could then put a total looney toon in a position of power.

In reply to STM317:

yet the EU has already stated they will do a harsh cut off. That's been pretty clear from the end of the vote.

If the UK does not want to play by EU rules, it wont get EU free trade.

I'm sure the deal the UK makes with Switzerland will be great.

In reply to alfadriver:

It will be interesting to see how it all works out. I haven't been keeping up with details other than what's been discussed here, so I hadn't heard that. But, until the time comes to actually follow through with these statements, it's all just political positioning

Tom_Spangler wrote:

NEALSMO wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote:

NEALSMO wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: Yep. I'll take the opinion of an experienced, educated, highly awarded specialist over the opinion of the masses any day.

Well, that's terrifying. Think about the implications of that statement.

In this specific context that isn't terrifying at all.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know, since "experts" are wrong all the time. But it would be a hell of a precedent to set. Democracy may not be perfect, but it's still better than anything else humans have come up with.

I'm really glad that this guy wasn't around during the American Revolution

Railing on the "educated elite" is pretty funny considering that it was the other opinion's "educated elite" that convinced so many people to vote as they did.

They voted on it. There are consequences to voting and it's really important to democracy that those consequences go forward instead of having and 'expert' nullify them.
It's still a democracy over there, they can vote for other things in the future if they feel that they made a bad choice.

tuna55 wrote: I'm really glad that this guy wasn't around during the American Revolution

There were some people like that around...

tuna55 wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote:

NEALSMO wrote:

Tom_Spangler wrote:

NEALSMO wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: Yep. I'll take the opinion of an experienced, educated, highly awarded specialist over the opinion of the masses any day.

Well, that's terrifying. Think about the implications of that statement.

In this specific context that isn't terrifying at all.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to know, since "experts" are wrong all the time. But it would be a hell of a precedent to set. Democracy may not be perfect, but it's still better than anything else humans have come up with.

I'm really glad that this guy wasn't around during the American Revolution

WTF are you talking about? We're not discussing the American Revolution, we're talking about the Brexit. Settle down with your giant leaps Evil Kenivel. Let's keep it in context, umm'kay.

Lets say you and your family are making a financial plan. You have access to a panel of financial specialists or you can take a vote from all your neighbors on how to spend your money. Which do you choose?