*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

The biggest barrier to trade is not language, it's law.

Law can be changed at the swipe of a pen. Language can't.

The fact that we've made trading with the EU harder without changing the language we use one jot is evidence of that.

We've also made it easier, in theory, to trade with the rest of the world. Don't forget that. The EU wouldn't let us arrange trade deals that don't involve them. So what, sacrifice the rest of the world to make trading with the EU easier? That's not so bad if that decision can be challenged at elections, and changed at the swipe of a pen, instead of a once-in-a-generation debate and referendum. But it's crazy to think any member state can just go in and out of the bloc at will. In order to streamline trade with Europe, we have to sign up for decades and accept their trade laws. That's what it means to give up sovereignty, and that's what nationalists, and others, have a problem with.

Here's a question for you Ong: If nationalism is such an overwhelming force in politics, why do you think the other 27 members of the EU joined up with each other and have stayed together for so long?

It is an overwhelming force in politics in many places, and those places are questioning their membership.

They have stayed together for so long for a multitude of reasons. For small countries, the trade and freedom-of-movement benefits are so huge that they consider it worth giving up the sovereignty. But it's not so cohesive as you're making out here. Serbia, Hungary, Italy, Greece, you've got important countries here who might not be member states in 10 or 20 years. Or maybe they will be, and if so, it'll be because they consider it worth it.

The UK democratically decided it wasn't worth it. I doubt very much we'll be the only one that makes that decision during the life of the EU.

[Poopadoop]

Law can be changed at the swipe of a pen. Language can't.

Poetic, but has nothing to do with the point I was arguing.

in theory,

Right, so where's all these great new trade deals we were promised?

So what, sacrifice the rest of the world to make trading with the EU easier?

That's not how it worked, for two reasons. First, we weren't just a passive satellite member of the EU having trade deals we were made to follow, we had a say in which trade deals were arranged. As one of Big Three, we had a very big say in fact.

Second, we had better trade deals with the rest of the world than we do now, AND we had free trade with the EU. We were in the EU, getting all the benefits of being in the largest trading bloc in the world with a lot of weight behind it. That's what makes for good trade deals, not that you can act independently to buy lamb from NZ and w/e the fuck other trade deals they've managed to accomplish now we've got our sovereignty back.

In order to streamline trade with Europe, we have to sign up for decades and accept their trade laws. That's what it means to give up sovereignty, and that's what nationalists, and others, have a problem with.

Yup, why be a major part of the world's biggest trading bloc when we can arrange our own little side deals with countries halfway around the world, like (checks notes), the deal with Australia that's forecast to net us (checks notes), a long-term 0.4% boost to GDP. In other words, we only need another 99 deals like that and we'll make up for what we've lost by leaving the EU.

It is an overwhelming force in politics in many places, and those places are questioning their membership.

Put down the Brexit koolaid for a minute, you're not going to like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...c-since-brexit

[OngBonga]

I say that but if the EU did fail, inevitably I would have at least some smug satisfaction, so long as they weren't fighting anyway.