EU referendum are you in or out

[Dio]

Either end of the scale is bad. Unlimited capitalism inevitably leads to all the money concentrated in a very small place, and no innovation because of monopoly. Unlimited regulation prevents anyone making money at all so the incentive to innovate is lower.

There's not a lot of obvious evidence that one place or another on this scale is more optimal. Is China suffering from being a high-regulation economy (in many respects)? Can anyone give an example of where Europe or the similarly tightly regulated Japan struggles with innovation?

[Little stoned kiwi]

An example of how things get weird in Japan is agriculture, which is heavily regulated with tariffs and subsidies.
Every Halloween (of all things) they have a crippling shortage of butter because they like to bake cookies. A small thing, I know, but just an example that comes to mind. Australia and New Zealand could ship them boatloads of it.
Protectionism might slow the 'race to the bottom', but that's dictated by consumers. If they want availability of a commodity, and at a cheaper price, then why not? They are disadvantaged and forced to prop up local industries who get to charge more for an artificially limited supply. Standards in quality control and labeling can still be maintained.

Given that the EU taxes countries and controls production by subsidising industries in different countries with that money (while limiting competition from non-EU countries) I expect there are just as many examples of that being a negative thing as there are positive (positive for those in the subsidised industries).
There's just as much room for corruption with those controls as there is without.

[venusian]

If they want availability of a commodity, and at a cheaper price, then why not?

Because often it's not actually cheap, it's just that the number on the label is low.

If it's produced in a low-regulation economy then there's an environmental cost. If it's produced in a country with human-rights problems then there's a social and moral cost. If it's produced in a facility that's been outsourced from the consumer's country then there's an economic cost. Domestic competitors and supply chain employers are forced to drive down wages which are then subsidised by social security payments. There's another cost there.

These are all externalities to the producing industry; the costs are borne by all of us.

But for the consumer there is no viable alternative; the global economy does not empower consumers to make that choice. Through industry consolidation and the driving down of labour costs, globalisation also drives down individual agency - we become slaves to the machine and to government benefits. A supranational body such as the EU can use regulation to push externalities back into an industry, push up prices, push up the relative value of labour and thus increase agency and positively influence innovation.

It's a question of being globalised paupers or asserting our collective power to push back on the oppressors. Comrades.

Or, the EU is a neoliberal club benefiting only the global elite. Take your pick (and I realise you already have).

[Little stoned kiwi]

All true. Which EU country sustainably and ethically grows pineapple and bananas, or stitches clothes together? What about all those soccer balls? What hardware do you own with components from Foxconn? Which countries mine coal and which burn them, or has the EU banned that in favour of more expensive renewable energy?
It's a nice sentiment you have but isn't applied across the board, so I very much doubt it's the reason for protectionism in local industries.

[venusian]

It's a nice sentiment you have but isn't applied across the board, so I very much doubt it's the reason for protectionism in local industries.

This is true.

But a fragmented Europe makes it all worse. A united EU make it better in some areas with the potential to make it better in many others. It's a choice between bad and less-bad.

[Dio]

I'll give you that the CAP is a colossal clusterfuck of vested interests.

But let's note that the noises that have come from the government so far are that they will continue the appropriate subsidies and generally replicate its effects when we leave to "protect British farming".

[(o)(o)]

If they want availability of a commodity, and at a cheaper price, then why not?

Because often it's not actually cheap, it's just that the number on the label is low.

If it's produced in a low-regulation economy then there's an environmental cost. If it's produced in a country with human-rights problems then there's a social and moral cost. If it's produced in a facility that's been outsourced from the consumer's country then there's an economic cost. Domestic competitors and supply chain employers are forced to drive down wages which are then subsidised by social security payments. There's another cost there.

These are all externalities to the producing industry; the costs are borne by all of us.

Good to hear mention of something which is covered in A level Economics but rarely gets a mention in political discourse!

Does my nut in how most people can't seem to see past the £pricetag.

Exteranlisation also folds into the topic of false economics, something at the core of Conservatism due to the lack of ideological foresight and narrow focus (gains for a tiny minority at the expense of everyone - including themselves). I swear I raised the topic of how inequality is bad for EVERYONE, 6 or more years ago, backed by evidence and research (The Spirit Level, among others).. it was brushed off then (hello Pogo!) when it should have been a core focus...

[(o)(o)]

But let's note that the noises that have come from the government so far are that they will continue the appropriate subsidies and generally replicate its effects when we leave to "protect British farming".

Tell you what is going to be complicated and expensive clusterfuck.. trying to satisfy both EU and US market regulations.

[(o)(o)]

Dangerous times we are living in when the unelected upper chamber better serve the people.



This feral government needs restraining.

[Harlequin]

Dangerous times we are living in when the unelected upper chamber better serve the people.

That is what it is there for, is it not?

[Little stoned kiwi]

...better serve the people.

That could be purely coincidental. If everyone was keen for Brexit there would be the usual grumbling about them being self-serving, antiquated dickheads.

[gumboot]

...better serve the people.

That could be purely coincidental. If everyone was keen for Brexit there would be the usual grumbling about them being self-serving, antiquated dickheads.

I'm sure there's plenty saying exactly that. They've just been purged or driven into hiding, here.

Or we're all just naturally too well informed around here. Could be that.

[Absolute_Zero]

At considerable risk of repeating myself...

Most experts regard the Article 50 process as irrevocable once initiated. The Government believes likewise; I heard Truss say precisely that on Marr.

So what exactly would this vote be for?

Ayes: accept the deal, leave the EU to trade under the new arrangements
Noes: reject the deal, leave the EU to trade under default WTO rules

There is no stop-the-world option to remain once Article 50 is invoked. Having left, we could reapply under Article 49.

Since the Conservatives would never do that, Labour/LibDems would have to win a GE in order to rejoin... whilst admitting that none of the current opt-outs we currently enjoy would survive. Oh, and by the way, we'd likely have to adopt the Euro/EuroZone. Good luck with that!

I'd try to get used to it if I were thee. Once invoked, the chances to remain are slim, possibly non-existent.

[merman]

Lord Heseltine sacked from his Government advisory roles for voting against the Gocernment.

Vindictive and unnecessary.

[Darkflame]

http://www.develop-online.net/news/ukie ... it/0230386