[Albert]

@Potemkin So why not have all that but without the free labour movement. So I a guy wants to move from Italy and open an Italian restaurant he can do that. Move his capital from Italy open a restaurant in Britain. A work/business permit will be issued to him. Also for a sheff from Italy if non of the British citizens are trained to do the job and cook good Italian cuisine. But other staff like waiters, cleaners and so on should be hired locally.

Something like this, a regulated labour flow will solve a lot of problems. In regards of preserving social cohesion and providing employment for the local population.

Instead of these jobs going to foreigners, like example with Chinese you see so often, who open up a restaurant and only hire their own nationals.

Out of this you also get gettozination of ethnic groups. As after such business get established in a area more people of same ethic groups begin to move into the area. As they work in these business and also live around them. Then that is how you get ethnic enclaves forming like this.

Edit: also the definition you provided, if that's what they mean be 'free trade' then they might as well just say, we are going to abolish borders and unite with whatever country we are signing the 'free trade' agreement. Might as well abolish the government, what real use does it have then except collecting taxes.

[Potemkin]

Not quite, Potemkin. You don't have a single market without the free movement of labour. Free trade in goods and services, movement of capital and labour together facilitate a single market.

Yet human labour power has its own market, Kaiserschmarrn. Restricting the free movement of human labour power is equivalent to raising tariffs between nations in the market of labour power. This means that a truly free market can only be attained by abolishing national borders, which act as a form of friction in the marketplace of labour power.

Edit: also the definition you provided, if that's what they mean be 'free trade' then they might as well just say, we are going to abolish borders and unite with whatever country we are signing the 'free trade' agreement. Might as well abolish the government, what real use does it have then except collecting taxes.

Which is precisely the position of the libertarians, the 'purest' of the free marketeers, Albert.

The libertarians may be retards, but they at least have the virtue of being self-consistent thinkers, unlike the mainstream liberal bourgeoisie. It is the very naivete of the libertarians - their ignorance of political and historical realities - which makes them such good bellwethers to indicate the ultimate goals of the capitalist system.

[Albert]

That explains a lot. If EU is indeed run by libertards and people why think in classical liberal way, no wonder the project is failing.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yet human labour power has its own market, Kaiserschmarrn. Restricting the free movement of human labour power is equivalent to raising tariffs between nation in the market of labour power. This means that a truly free market can only bet attained by abolishing national borders, which act as a form of friction in the marketplace of labour power.

Quite right, free movement is required to have a ideal - in economic terms - market. Free trade in goods and services is required too. But you can have free movement without free trade and vice versa.

Of course the single market is not enough. To reduce barriers you need to have a common currency too. After that everybody becomes incredibly prosperous and lives happily ever after.

[Potemkin]

Quite right, free movement is required to have a ideal - in economic terms - market. Free trade in goods and services is required too. But you can have free movement without free trade and vice versa.

Indeed. But there was a confluence of political, ideological, historical and economic forces in the 1950s when the European Project was founded, as you well know. The political and historical drive to create an "ever closer union" of the nations of Europe into a single 'superstate' in order to make another European war impossible found its perfect ideological mate in neo-liberal ideas of creating a perfectly free, frictionless market in which there would be no 'artificial' barriers to the free movement of goods, services and people (in the form of labour power). The Cold War against the communist Soviet Union reinforced this trend. This is why, as Tony Benn pointed out, the European Union is the only regime in the world which has free-market neo-liberal capitalism written into its basic constitution. Neo-liberalism and the ultimate abolition of national borders is non-negotiable to the ruling elite of the EU.

Of course the single market is not enough. To reduce barriers you need to have a common currency too. After that everybody becomes incredibly prosperous and lives happily ever after.

Halleluja!

[soron]

You are right that the EU lends itself to it, but it isn't necessary. The obvious example to demonstrate this is the Anglo-Saxon countries' cooperation' within NATO.

My own view of NATO is rather mixed. After 9/11, the US was loath to declare this a NATO event because it would have restricted their operational freedom - or something like that, I forgot the precise wording.
The US can certainly do without NATO, so why are the US still supporting NATO, even tho many Americans are constantly whining that they have to burden too much of it and that other countries should do more ?
I think it is because NATO is regarded as a tool for supporting their hegemonic interest. That is what NATO today is, first and foremost. The common interest we had during the Cold War between 1950 and 1980 is no longer present.

Today, the interest of the Europeans might be completely different than those of the US. See Russia. Part of the mess we have today is because NATO was expanded in violation of the treaties and guarantees we had with Russia. The US reverted right back to the "encircle and contain" strategy it employed against the Soviet Union. Why ? Because Putin committed the ultimate sin (long before the Ukraine crisis) : He brought the sell-out that took place in post-war Russia under some kind of control and stopped foreign attempts to get the filet pieces for a song. It hurt American business interest. And that is why we are right back in another Cold War although there are no more "communists" to fear.
And if it wouldn't have been for Merkel's intervention, we might have such pearls of democracy like Georgia as NATO members.
So NATO is a tool for the US to keep the Europeans in line, but the US never acts if it isn't within their own interest, which is why a purely European defense concept might be a thing of both convenience and necessity.

The reason for me is that I simply no longer to trust the US to come and help us in the event of a war against "Redland" (as it was called back when I served my time in Bundeswehr). After the Boxer incident I started to have severe doubts if today's America would really be willing to go that far - to risk nuclear destruction in the event of a war against an opponent that has nuclear capabilities, such as Russia.

With Russian politics being what they are today, that has become a possibility again. Other than back in the 80's, Russia has no longer the huge numerical conventional advantage over NATO - in convential terms Russia is definately weaker. Because of that the current Russian military doctrine regards nukes as an integrated part of their military, not longer an ultima ratio.
Now we don't know how much of that is bark and no bite but I'm not eager to find out.
With the Americans out of the picture as trustworthy allies, where does that leave us ?

So that is why I strongly support the idea of a more integrated European military, now that the Brits can no longer veto it.

[Albert]

[redcarpet]

Well they've got themselves into a big fix. Esp. those that want more 'control' and to stop immigration to the UK. Wonder how many were ignorant voters? A huge spike afterwards on Google search on "What is the European Union?". Lol!

NYT article

Leaders of ‘Brexit’ Campaign, Having Won, Turn to Managing Expectations

JUNE 28, 2016

LONDON — With their giddy celebrations of “independence day” having given way to political and economic turmoil, one thing has become especially clear about the former London mayor Boris Johnson and other leaders of the successful campaign to vote Britain out of the European Union: They had no plan for what comes next.

In the days since Britain voted to leave the bloc, the movement’s leaders have often appeared as if they had not expected to win and were not prepared to cope with the consequences. Faced with the scope of the decision, they have been busy walking back promises they made during the campaign and scaling back expectations. They have failed to show a united front or to answer basic questions.

[Dr Cosmo]

This is how souvereingty looks like …

UK rating cut by S&P and Fitch

The UK was stripped of its top credit grade by S&P Global Ratings, and Fitch Ratings also lowered its rank, the latest crushing verdicts on the country's decision to leave the European Union that has left it in political and economic paralysis. S&P reduced the grade by two steps to AA from AAA, citing the risk of a less predictable, stable, and effective policy framework in the UK.

[Atlantis]

The deal Cameron got is an exceptional deal that trashes everything that Europe is about which is equality for all EU citizens, the fact that you managed to get so much out of the EU was a success and the only positive thing from Brexit is that this deal has now vanished never to be heard of again. It is a huge positive that such a deal never got activated so that it becomes mainstream.

I couldn't have expressed it better myself. For once I have to agree with neomon.

The ignorance and self-delusion of the British public together with deceit of the double-dealing elites have terribly backfired.

This deal was a step backwards and on the integration level it was a step in the wrong direction, it is truly mind-boggling that the EU countries actually agreed to such a deal,

There are some (on both sides of the big pond) who always feared that the free marketeers and transatlantic war mongering faction in the EU will no longer dominate the union once the Brits are gone.

That is why the UK has been given special privileges since Thatcher banged on the table to demand her money back nearly 40 years ago in order to keep the UK in the EU. Now, they are finally out, there will be no more cherry picking.

and it is equally mind-boggling that the Brits know so little about EU that they could not even see what kind of lines the Europeans crossed just to accommodate British non-sense.

Do you think that decades of EU-bashing, using the EU as punching bag for every conceivable domestic problem, does not leave a trace in the minds of the people? Combine that with a xenophobic campaign orchestrated by the likes of Murdoch from behind the scene in connivance with the Bullingdon club upper-class toffs who were orchestrating a power-grab, and you got a toxic mix.

The funny thing is, the Brexiteers didn't want to win. They never thought they would win. They thought they could just go on with their "lying on an industrial scale" and never be put to a test. Now, the country is in tatters and they haven't got a clue what to do.

The only way left is to destroy the economy by leaving the common market or by reentering the common market on the Norwegian model; which would give them the same status they have now, except that they won't have voting rights and probably won't get a rebate either. They would have to accept most EU rules without having a say. That's is what they call "taking back control." It's so utterly crazy, I haven't seen anything like that in my 65 years on this planet.

This degree of criminal self-harm ought to be banned by law.

Thank fully this ordeal at least is now over.

The agony will continue for months or even years, and there is no guarantee that there will be united kingdom at the end of it. Anyways, we'll all be in for a bumpy ride, and you know what that can do the economy and the "decent folks" Farage so like to defend.

But there is one consolation, even if the economy tanks and the UK political system implodes, the hedge funds who financed the Brexiteer campaign will reap rich profits in the ensuing turbulence.

[Atlantis]

I put this in another post since I can't find the edit button in the new format.

Another advantage of Brexit is that Europe will find it easier to mend fences with Russia after the Brits have gone, who have always been the strongest advocates of the US in Europe.

Brexit Could Open the Door to Russia Joining the EU

With Brexit now really happening, the EU and Russia have an opportunity to mend their relationship and seek peaceful co-existence through diplomatic and positive reinforcement, instead of through sanctions and posturing.

“Without the U.K. in the EU, there will no longer be anyone so zealously standing up for sanctions against us,” Sergei Sobyanin, the influential mayor of Moscow, tweeted last week after Brexit was confirmed.

Obviously membership isn't an option for the foreseeable future, but there are other forms of cooperation. I very much expect there to be a rapprochement in the near future.

If a left-left-green government were to replace Merkel in Germany next year, then I expect things to move very rapidly.

[Nonsense]

What is so hard to understand about the fact that this is not possible. Like in: NOT going to happen in any case. It is just not possible.

Well, not just yet,but maybe soon,either way,'frying pan' & 'fire' comes to mind.

[Potemkin]

I put this in another post since I can't find the edit button in the new format.

At the top right-hand corner of every post, there is a symbol that looks like a cog with a downward pointing arrow beside it. Click on that, and one of the options you can select is to 'Edit Post'.

[hartmut]

Well they've got themselves into a big fix. Esp. those that want more 'control' and to stop immigration to the UK. Wonder how many were ignorant voters? A huge spike afterwards on Google search on "What is the European Union?". Lol!

NYT article

That´s a point, and thanks for the link.
Surely their was no practice in decision finding.
(UK is not Switzerland, which is accommodated to have permanently referendums on all kind of stuff.)
Did the British realize, in total number, that they will really take a big choice, or did "mood" made the pendulum swing in that direction, which causes now a hangover?
So, these are almost rhetoric questions, since we see now that no adequate plans for such an outcome are displayed.

Whatever further outcome,
.. their will remain a study-case for later historians, how populism worked in the beginning of the 20th Century.
Lol.. ..
hope we keep humour.

[Philby]

Britain’s Democratic Failure

By Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003.

CAMBRIDGE – The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.

This isn’t democracy; it is Russian roulette for republics. A decision of enormous consequence – far greater even than amending a country’s constitution (of course, the United Kingdom lacks a written one) – has been made without any appropriate checks and balances.
Brexit

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No. Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not. Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on? Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability. I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.
Mind you, citizens of the West are blessed to live in a time of peace: changing circumstances and priorities can be addressed through democratic processes instead of foreign and civil wars. But what, exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions? Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup on a rainy day?
In terms of durability and conviction of preferences, most societies place greater hurdles in the way of a couple seeking a divorce than Prime Minister David Cameron’s government did on the decision to leave the EU. Brexiteers did not invent this game; there is ample precedent, including Scotland in 2014 and Quebec in 1995. But, until now, the gun’s cylinder never stopped on the bullet. Now that it has, it is time to rethink the rules of the game.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term. Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

That’s why enacting, say, a constitutional amendment generally requires clearing far higher hurdles than passing a spending bill. Yet the current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.
With Europe now facing the risk of a slew of further breakup votes, an urgent question is whether there is a better way to make these decisions. I polled several leading political scientists to see whether there is any academic consensus; unfortunately, the short answer is no.

For one thing, the Brexit decision may have looked simple on the ballot, but in truth no one knows what comes next after a leave vote. What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum, the majority ought to be demonstrably stable. A country should not be making fundamental, irreversible changes based on a razor-thin minority that might prevail only during a brief window of emotion. Even if the UK economy does not fall into outright recession after this vote (the pound’s decline might cushion the initial blow), there is every chance that the resulting economic and political disorder will give some who voted to leave “buyers’ remorse.”

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard. In the Spartan assemblies of ancient Greece, votes were cast by acclamation. People could modulate their voice to reflect the intensity of their preferences, with a presiding officer carefully listening and then declaring the outcome. It was imperfect, but maybe better than what just happened in the UK.
By some accounts, Sparta’s sister state, Athens, had implemented the purest historical example of democracy. All classes were given equal votes (albeit only males). Ultimately, though, after some catastrophic war decisions, Athenians saw a need to give more power to independent bodies.

What should the UK have done if the question of EU membership had to be asked (which by the way, it didn’t)? Surely, the hurdle should have been a lot higher; for example, Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons. If Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.
The UK vote has thrown Europe into turmoil. A lot will depend on how the world reacts and how the UK government manages to reconstitute itself. It is important to take stock not just of the outcome, though, but of the process. Any action to redefine a long-standing arrangement on a country’s borders ought to require a lot more than a simple majority in a one-time vote. The current international norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen, a formula for chaos.

[peter767i]

It's a tiny majority, 52%, who wanted out and many of them are retired old people who don't care about tax rises or job losses.

[killim]

Well, not just yet,but maybe soon,either way,'frying pan' & 'fire' comes to mind.

Potemkin already explained it with an economic 101 why it is a fundamental pillar or the common economic market. Thats why it is not going to happen.

[Atlantis]

At the top right-hand corner of every post, there is a symbol that looks like a cog with a downward pointing arrow beside it. Click on that, and one of the options you can select is to 'Edit Post'.

Thanks Pot.

Now, are you happy that Labour is about to self-destruct and that Bojo leads you into neoliberal wonderland with Banks organizing a new fascist outfit to mobilize the masses?

Was that the revolution you were looking for?

[Potemkin]

Thanks Pot.

No problem Fritz, er, Atlantis.

Now, are you happy that Labour is about to self-destruct and that Bojo leads you into neoliberal wonderland with Banks organizing a new fascist outfit to mobilize the masses?

Was that the revolution you were looking for?

Meh, I'll take what I can get for now.

[Heisenberg]

Labour deserves to self destruct. It speaks for no one, despises its own voters, and its MPs are bland careerists with nothing interesting to say about anything at all. It's truly embarrassing that a party that once produced people like Hugh Gaitskell, Aneurin Bevan and Tony Benn is now represented by such nonentities as Angela Eagle, Chris Bryant and Chuka Umunna.

Good riddance to boring rubbish.