21–30 of 112 posts
So, why do it? Should a razor thin majority in a public vote 2 years ago decide the UK's policy forever?
Apparently, yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's the farming community doing in Hong Kong, Macao, and Singapore?
Imposing tariffs on imports is classic protectionism - are you actually arguing that that is a net benefit? Of course the protected industries benefit from protectionism, the argument against protectionism is that everyone else loses. There is no reason that a transaction with a counterparty in Shanghai should incur any more taxes than an equivalent transaction with a counterparty in Manchester.
Net benefit to who? Global capital efficiency, people?
Jobs going overeseas to countries with lower wages and less safty/environmental/etc. regulation has been a net loss for humanity... but it has been a major win for capitol!
The Economist, The New York Times, SF Chronicle have extracted their full brand value from me and there's nothing left. What I mean by this is that when I see their links, I know that the article will be unreadable, because either they will make me jump through some "created free account" hoops to read it, or there will be so many CPU intensive ads or banners "you have read 2 out of your 3 free articles per month" th…
Well, I'm kind of expecting that the no-deal scenario will actually happen. Then a big economic crisis will follow, making it palatable for politicians to actually endorse a new referendum. I'm not saying what the question in such referendum would be, though. And actually, this is the reason why some remainers are voting no to the brexit deal, and it's not even a secret.
Why would a big economic crisis follow a no-deal brexit?
Well, I'm kind of expecting that the no-deal scenario will actually happen. Then a big economic crisis will follow, making it palatable for politicians to actually endorse a new referendum. I'm not saying what the question in such referendum would be, though. And actually, this is the reason why some remainers are voting no to the brexit deal, and it's not even a secret.
Why would a big economic crisis follow a no-deal brexit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you propose? A razor thin minority in a public vote 2 years ago decide the UK's policy forever?
The referendum should have never have been specified with a simple majority rule.
Let's agree that if everybody wanted Brexit, we should have Brexit. And if everybody wanted to remain, we should have remain. Then, start with everyone wanting Brexit, and flip opinions towards remain, one by one. At some point the group decision flips. Political decisions are just like that. Majority rule is not to blame.
The Economist, The New York Times, SF Chronicle have extracted their full brand value from me and there's nothing left. What I mean by this is that when I see their links, I know that the article will be unreadable, because either they will make me jump through some "created free account" hoops to read it, or there will be so many CPU intensive ads or banners "you have read 2 out of your 3 free articles per month" th…
I got the article page directly. Clean, readable, no ads all over the place.
You get what you pay for.
Well, I'm kind of expecting that the no-deal scenario will actually happen. Then a big economic crisis will follow, making it palatable for politicians to actually endorse a new referendum. I'm not saying what the question in such referendum would be, though. And actually, this is the reason why some remainers are voting no to the brexit deal, and it's not even a secret.
Why would a big economic crisis follow a no-deal brexit?
> What to expect from a no-deal Brexit
>The terrifying consequences if nothing is sorted
The title and subtitle should be enough to get the gist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How's the farming community doing in Hong Kong, Macao, and Singapore?
Imposing tariffs on imports is classic protectionism - are you actually arguing that that is a net benefit? Of course the protected industries benefit from protectionism, the argument against protectionism is that everyone else loses. There is no reason that a transaction with a counterparty in Shanghai should incur any more taxes than an equivalent transaction with a counterparty in Manchester.
Not sure if it's a net benefit. And neither are you. But there are certainly winners and losers.
Protectionism for European agriculture has made Europe a positively lovely place to live. Have you seen it? I recommend the south of France.
> Of course the protected industries benefit from protectionism, the argument against protectionism is that everyone else loses.
I have a degree in economics, the concept hasn't escaped me.
Noticing that having protections evaporate overnight could have massive negative consequences for many is pretty relevant.
> There is no reason that a transaction with a counterparty in Shanghai should incur any more taxes than an equivalent transaction with a counterparty in Manchester.
If it just happens to turn Manchester into an economic wasteland where the daughters of England are sold into prostitution and working men beg for scraps of food in the street, then those are two reasons.
I get the argument you're making. It's a style of economic conversation where you assume frictionless perfect markets and rational allocations of resources. Those of us that actually understand how economic systems work moved on from that sort of simplistic line of thinking generations ago.
So, why do it? Should a razor thin majority in a public vote 2 years ago decide the UK's policy forever?
That's basically the reason why Boris Johnson didn't "run" for Prime Minister on the election after the referendum. And he was the main representative of the Brexit campaign that had just won. He knew whoever was going to be PM would only be able to get a bad deal and would be fiercely criticized.