Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

news.sky.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#201

Post by NetStrikeForce »

threatofrain wrote: post #175
alva wrote: post #62

"With regard to unskilled workers, Japanese businesses rely on inexpensive labour from Eastern Europe in the manufacturing and agricultural industries in the UK" What a hypocritical demand from the Japanese. They have one of the strictest set of immigration policies in the world, largely for the sake of national homogeneity at the expensive of their economy. They believe that is a worthwhile sacrifice for them, why n…

I don't see why hypocrisy really matters in something as elevated and high-stakes as national policy. Rectifying the moral shame of hypocrisy should be like item #300 on a very long list of priorities. Japan is making a cold policy argument about factors to business decisions, an argument for the factors that made the UK attractive. Hypocrisy is a distraction focused on who is saying it rather than what is being said…

Funnily enough, the hypocrisy lies in saying cheap labour is bad, but 0.005% company tax is good :-)

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#202

Post by alexbilbie »

hackuser wrote: post #197
helthanatos wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am extremely uninformed about Brexit (because I live in the US and don't have any connection to the UK or EU and don't care to read possibly false information regarding it.) So, in my simplistic and limited view on Brexit, I support it as it looks to be more freeing than being a part of the EU. ((Also, I tend to find that those currently in control of the US want to limit personal freedoms and grow government.))

> it looks to be more freeing There are many other factors, and it depends on what you mean by "freeing". Political power, like energy and matter, is generally conserved; the question is, who controls it. * The ethical, generally accepted solution is for the people to control political power, via democratic government. (Undoubtedly it's very imperfect, but that's inevitable for every large human institution.) * When…

> Sharing government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom, it's simply respect for others.

But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government.

With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares it means trying to form trade deals is a multi year process that leads to no tangible output (see the failing Canada trade deal as a prime example).

You argue that 60 million people might not make a global super power but it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions.

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#203

Post by NetStrikeForce »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #150
hackuser wrote: post #136

People supporting bad policies like to say there are no bad consequences. You hear this about Brexit, climate change, bankrupting the government, violence and war, etc. It's the same rhetorical tool used for a lot of propaganda: You can lie in a moment; it takes hours or days for people to gather the evidence to disprove it. (To disarm this propaganda: It's easy to construct nonsense that sounds plausible - even to y…

Most people I talked to were well informed. I think a lot of people were happy to stick it to big business, most of who pay less tax than a local chippy. We felt Brexit was about control, we wanted more of it. When the USA told us off for wanting more freedom it felt a little weird... but, but, you're the land of the free. We just want to be able to control immigration. We want control from Brussels.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...

Brexit is hardly sticking it to big business when Rupert Murdock is behind it. Just let that sink in.

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#204

Post by NetStrikeForce »

davidf18 wrote: post #138
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think May and the Cabinet do. All the noises seem to suggest the real priority is xenophobia - i.e. immigration. ...Which is a purely political strategy to capture the continued support of leave voters - exactly the people whose lives will be destroyed when trade dries up. The problem is that the typical leave voter understands immigration because they have direct personal experience of immigrants. But leave…

The issue with immigration is not xenophobia but economic as Economist Branko Milanovic (and perhaps others) have been pointing out since 2012. Milanovic's now famous "Elephant Curve" shows that the working or middle class in developed countries have seen no wage growth in 20 years. Part of that effect is from exporting jobs to China, Mexico (for US), Eastern Europe (for Europe) and part of that is from importing uns…

That's a very long comment to fail to justify it's not xenophobia. It is.

Leave got better results in places with less immigration, i.e. in places where they don't have foreign neighbours but fear having them.

Moreso, restricting immigration will actually make economy worse and take unskilled jobs out of the country (to China, India, etc), thus screwing even more over the working class.

If it was the economy, people would favour immigration (young people paying taxes, keeping jobs around, not using the NHS, etc) and complain about other stuff (company tax loopholes anyone?), but they complained about immigration and that's what they fear.

It is xenophobia, but of course no one fears Swiss, Japanese or Swede immigrants because they're rich. I don't see many problems in UK for Saudi princes or Russian magnates that exploit and slave people, again because they're rich. Racism is basically now fear of the poor (hence all the negativity about asylum seekers and other refugees).

People, including me of course, are assholes.

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#205

Post by tajen »

avar wrote: post #177
tajen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> instill fear Is that how Europe is governed? I think any country should be allowed to leave without condescending comments by anyone. I prefer staying in Europe, but if the majority of my fellows prefer the opposite, then it's democracy. Who are we to judge they are "stupid", "country-side, or "senile", like I've read all across newspapers, or even fascists, like I've heard too? If Europe relies on hating the peopl…

> Is that how Europe is governed? [...] I prefer staying in > Europe, but if the majority of my fellows prefer the opposite, > then it's democracy. It's democracy in action in the UK & EU that you can leave. How does democracy have anything to do with the UK then getting some sort of preferential treatment for trade once they're out? That would not be in the democratic interests of the remaining EU citizens who don't…

The position in your first 2 lines is entirely valid in my opinion. I was condemning the hatred, but it's entirely valid for each country to negotiate for their best interest, especially, I reckon, since the UK received preferential treatment when they were in.

> in the democratic interests of the remaining EU citizens who don't want to see the EU crumble any further

It's in the democratic interest of the remaining EU citizen to know that they won't get hatred if they ever decide to leave EU. The democratic interest is in freedom.

I'm looking at the increase of power of international law, and its democracy, the fact that they override country-level laws, and the track record we need to set for future agreements. We're negotiating with powerful countries who have a track record of spying, blackmailing and subverting other democracies to make them sign agreements against the will of the people. Once signed by our leaders, TTIP is unrevokable. This is not in our democratic interest. In democracy, all laws are voted and can be changed. It may incur costs (e.g. the loss of not having free trade anymore) but it shouldn't incur any fine, hatred, or condamnation based on moral standard.

A positive outcome of the Brexit on the TTIP/EU/WTO/OTAN/Climate/... would be if international agreements faced a referendum by the People every 10 years. That way, we'd ensure the people are in on the laws that apply to them.

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#206

Post by monk_e_boy »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #203
monk_e_boy wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people I talked to were well informed. I think a lot of people were happy to stick it to big business, most of who pay less tax than a local chippy. We felt Brexit was about control, we wanted more of it. When the USA told us off for wanting more freedom it felt a little weird... but, but, you're the land of the free. We just want to be able to control immigration. We want control from Brussels.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not... Brexit is hardly sticking it to big business when Rupert Murdock is behind it. Just let that sink in.

Big business was behind both sides - just let that sink in

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#207

Post by genofon »

sbmassey wrote: post #115
mpweiher wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>areas that [have] the least amount of immigrants that wanted to vote for leave Ironic, isn't it? But absolutely typical. In Germany as well, the areas with highest anti-immigrant sentiments (and voting etc.) are the ones with the least amount of actual immigrants. Which kind of makes sense when you think about it...

I don't see why it is ironic, really: areas of low immigration can see what happens to areas of high immigration, so will vote against it, whereas for areas with high immigration it is too late

except that immigrants were not allow to vote for Brexit.

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#208

Post by hackuser »

alexbilbie wrote: post #202
hackuser wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it looks to be more freeing There are many other factors, and it depends on what you mean by "freeing". Political power, like energy and matter, is generally conserved; the question is, who controls it. * The ethical, generally accepted solution is for the people to control political power, via democratic government. (Undoubtedly it's very imperfect, but that's inevitable for every large human institution.) * When…

> Sharing government with other people is not prison or a lack of freedom, it's simply respect for others. But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government. With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares it means trying to form trade deals is a multi year process that leads to no tangible output (see the failing Canada trade dea…

> But that respect between countries under the guise of the EU doesn't necessarily lead to a more effective system of government.

Nothing "necessarily" leads to anything. See my comment above about FUD like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12425125

> With 28 member states all vying to promote their own wares ...

They'll be vying regardless. That's the nature, indeed the whole point, of democracy: To provide a system of rules for doing that fairly, rather than might makes right.

> it's going to be a lot easier for one nation to form new trade agreements that one conglomerate made up of members with completely different ideas and opinions.

More FUD. They need to deal with those other nations' interests one way or the other; who would choose anarchy over democracy?

The EU regularly makes trade deals among its 28 nations, far more quickly and flexibly than any other trade block. That's because, rather than stone-age international anarchy, which requires painful, undemocratic treaty negotiations that are so difficult that they can't be updated and revisited, they operate with normal laws and regulations.

How will the UK make deals now with those 28 nations? Certainly not as easily. How will their 60 million have the leverage to get the deals that an entity ten times bigger gets? Would the individual U.S. states be better off negotiating international trade deals absent the federal government? After all, then they wouldn't have to deal with all the other interests.

The ideology is naive. You have to deal with other people and their interests; that's part of life. You can do it by fighting them or by cooperating to create the best possible outcome. It also is moral, because we need to respect that others' interests are as important as our own, another element of maturity. It is called 'civilization' and even 'enlightened self-interest'.

Re: Japan's Unprecedented Warning to UK Over Brexit

#209

Post by davidf18 »

NetStrikeForce wrote: post #204
davidf18 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with immigration is not xenophobia but economic as Economist Branko Milanovic (and perhaps others) have been pointing out since 2012. Milanovic's now famous "Elephant Curve" shows that the working or middle class in developed countries have seen no wage growth in 20 years. Part of that effect is from exporting jobs to China, Mexico (for US), Eastern Europe (for Europe) and part of that is from importing uns…

That's a very long comment to fail to justify it's not xenophobia. It is. Leave got better results in places with less immigration, i.e. in places where they don't have foreign neighbours but fear having them. Moreso, restricting immigration will actually make economy worse and take unskilled jobs out of the country (to China, India, etc), thus screwing even more over the working class. If it was the economy, people…

This Guardian article states its economics and not Xenophobia.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald...

Believe what you want to believe.

Post reply on HN