Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

In international trade, there are no best friends

by Frank Schnittger Sun Dec 31st, 2017 at 04:29:43 PM EST

John Bruton is a former Irish Prime Minister and EU ambassador to the USA. Like Leo Varadker, he was leader of Fine Gael, the most conservative and arguably the least nationalistic party in Ireland. Indeed he was the leader of the least nationalistic and most conservative wing of that party. So much so, that that he was dubbed "John Unionist" by his rival, Fianna Fail leader and then Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds, for his willingness to crack down on IRA violence and to accommodate Unionist demands on almost everything.

I give you this background to emphasise that there has been no more conservative and Anglophile figure prominent in Irish politics, and one sympathetic to both UK Conservative and DUP Unionist concerns. And yet he has some dire warnings for the UK about the difficulties they are likely to encounter in phase 2 of the Brexit negotiations:


The UK Cabinet is, at last, getting around to discussing the sort of trade agreement it wants to have with the EU after it has left.

It intends to make up its mind by mid-January, according to the Sun newspaper.

Prime minister Theresa May has ruled out staying on in the EU customs union (like Turkey) or in the single market (like Norway).

Although she has ruled out these options, May has in fact gone much further down the soft Brexit road.

She has committed, in the joint report of EU-UK negotiations, to "the avoidance of a hard border, including any infrastructure or related checks and controls" at the border in Ireland, and also to protect Northern Ireland's place in the UK internal market.

Customs checks exist at the EU border with both Turkey and Norway, so May's promise in the joint report goes beyond either the Turkish or Norwegian options.

It is noteworthy that the UK has not just said it will never erect a hard border on its own side. It has committed itself to the "avoidance" of such a border, presumably on either side. That would mean that the UK has bound itself not to adopt any UK policies that would require the EU, under its existing rules, to impose such border controls.

That would rule out devising new and distinctive UK product standards, which Boris Johnson suggested over the weekend. It would also rule out Philip Hammond's idea of the UK diverging from EU rules on certain technologies.

He then goes on to say:

The EU would have difficulty offering the UK better terms than it would offer another European country.

For example, Norway and Switzerland have access to the EU market. They also make ongoing financial contributions every year to poorer regions within the EU. Those agreements with Norway and Switzerland would be undermined if the UK got a similar deal without similar contributions.

Furthermore any EU-UK deal will have to comply with the Interlaken principles.

These principles govern all EU agreements with third countries, and were formulated in 1978, with UK participation. They have been followed ever since.

The first Interlaken principle is that, in developing relations with nonmember states, the EU will always prioritise its own internal integration. The UK cannot expect the EU to agree to anything that would cause divisions within the EU.

The second Interlaken principle is that the EU must safeguard its own decision-making autonomy. For example, the European Court of Justice, and the legislative bodies of the EU, cannot be constrained in their decision-making processes by any deal made with the UK. The idea that a joint UK-EU court might have precedence over the ECJ would run counter to this principle.

The third Interlaken principle is that any relationship must be based on "a balance of benefits and obligations". It is not for the nonmember state to choose only those aspects of EU integration it likes.

There is another factor the UK will need to take into account. This is the "most favoured nation principle" of the WTO, which is the foundation stone for global trade.

It requires the extension, to all members of the WTO, of any "advantage, favour, privilege or immunity" that is offered to one .

Cherry-picking in international trade could get the UK into trouble with all the countries it does business with.

Formulating a UK proposal, which satisfies all these conflicting criteria, will be hugely demanding task, not only politically, but intellectually and legally.

"Taking back control" and "no hard border" are hard to reconcile, to put it mildly.

The dilemma, in which the UK in which now finds itself, may be self-created, but it is real. Irish people should wish Theresa May well in her immensely difficult task.

The reality is that in today's global economy, economies of scale and of comparative advantage result in vast amounts of trade being carried out across political borders, and some quite tightly defined rules dictate how that trade can be conducted - in fairness to all parties. And this is before we even consider the much more restrictive conditions that apply to members of the (internally borderless) customs Union.

You can, of course, choose not to play by these rules, as Trump is claiming to be doing, so far to little practical effect. But even an economy as large as the USA is going to suffer if the flow of inward investment slows to a trickle, or if US goods are subject to export restrictions - as in the case of the famous 'chlorinated chickens' or genetically modified foods.

It will be interesting to see how the UK responds to US plans to impose swingeing 219% tariffs on Bombardier plane exports from N. Ireland to the USA. The UK may be about to learn that its a very cold world out there if you are out on your own. Would the USA propose similar tariffs if the EU threatened to impose equivalent tariffs on Boeing planes?

For the UK the problems are much more acute, as so much of the UK economy is based on services, and these are generally not covered by trade agreements at all. The UK is already running large trade deficits - despite periodic devaluations of the £ - and it will not help if it loses access to the Single market for such services. In addition, Ireland is one of the few countries with which the UK runs a significant trade surplus. Restrictions on trade at the Irish border will not do the overall UK balance of trade any favours at all.

The UK may want a "special", "bespoke" deal with the EU, but the reality is that the EU cannot offer such a deal without offering similar terms to Norway, Switzerland and any other WTO member claiming they too deserve similar 'most favoured nation' status. The EU simply has too many FTAs already agreed or in the works that it will not wish to undermine by offering more favourable terms to the UK.

Indeed German Foreign Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, has already stated that the Brexit agreement could serve as a model for other countries such as Turkey or the Ukraine, who wish to have a closer relationship with the EU. Ouch! The UK granted a status equivalent to the Ukraine or Turkey? Has the Empire come to this? Poetic justice, perhaps, for Brexiteers using the false "threat" of Turkey joining the EU against UK objections as a bogeyman in the Brexit referendum debate.

The UK is about to find out that in international trade, there are no best friends, just business partners, and there are a lot of rules which apply to those relationships. Unless you are at the head of a global empire, perhaps, in which case you can set your own rules. But even here, there are limits to what you can do, as Trump is finding out. Mexico shows no sign of paying for his wall. In the world of international trade, "Taking back control" is a slogan strictly for domestic consumption. It doesn't export well.

Display:
A commentator on John Bruton's article makes the following point:
Bruton assumes that the Brits understand the EU customs code they signed up to once upon a time. There's ample evidence recently that they don't bother to read or try to understand agreements they sign:

  • they could have kept their fantastic blue passports all along
  • they didn't understand that the agreement that made the move to phase two of Brexit negotiations was actually binding
  • they want single market access without the four freedoms and without contributing to the EU budget
  • they never realised that member-states are free to make their own rules regarding healthcare and social security benefits for EU migrants

They probably don't even see the bind they've put themselves in over the border issue and imagine they can fix it by repeating some meaningless phrase like "A soft border is a soft border".


Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Dec 31st, 2017 at 06:50:58 PM EST
Oh god, trying to navigate a path of logic through the idiocies of the UK brexit negotiations is a fool's errand; there is no there there.

They don't know what they want, they have no clue how to get it. they've never even discussed it in Cabinet. there have been no reports, calculations or investigations into the consequences.

It is a madness. The most useless, lazy, ignorant f..kwits to ever disgrace Her Majesty's Parliament are gathered together to mould this country's future course through the 21st century. And mould is the appropriate term.

We. Are. So. Fucked.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Dec 31st, 2017 at 10:32:42 PM EST
Put your two posts together, and what do you get?

Brexit is a fall-of-the-Soviet-Union moment - a chance to remake the UK into the kind of bandit utopia that Russia turned into: a country where public assets can be stolen with impunity, and the UK can be turned into a zero-justice gangster state.

Much like the US, without the superficial veneer of sophistication.

I wonder if at least some Brexiters - possibly the less prominent ones, behind the scenes - know exactly what they want.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 02:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I hadn't put that together, but that's exactly where we're going, isn't it?

We'e in Naomi Klein Year-Zero territory, aren't we?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 08:09:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My bad ... didn't know the expression:

Naomi Klein's Year Zero

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 09:00:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and for those who, like me, don't have a harper's subscription Baghdad Year Zero

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 12:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but the shorter version is the synopsis of her book Shock Doctrine

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 12:42:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read Shock Doctrine but got nowhere near the understanding of Iraq that Baghdad Year Zero supplied. Clearly, one thing that is worse than Neo-Liberalism is Neo-Conservatism. I particularly liked the following:

" in trying to design the best place in the world to do business, the neocons have managed to create the worst, the most eloquent indictment yet of the guiding logic behind deregulated free markets."

They are so blinded by ideology that they cannot see or accept that government is a precondition for doing business. Blind, dangerous fools. I used to subscribe to Harpers and preferred it to The Atlantic, but I was not subscribing at the time. I was scrambling and a self employed consultant needing to sell my services at a good hourly fee.


"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jan 5th, 2018 at 05:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Leaving EU would make UK the North Korea of Europe, warns Gordon Brown
Mon 9 Mar `15 15.00 EDT

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 04:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He's probably right, but as he was one of the principal architects of the de-regulated neoliberalism that led to the crash of 2008 in the UK and the subsequent austerity (which he never disputed) of the Tory party that created the conditions for brexit, he's hardly in a position to criticize.

As Owen Jones argued recently, the Remain argument is greatly undermined by the discredited nature of the people who lead it. Osborne, Blair, Brown ? Is anybody gonna listen to them about anything?

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 04:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And Clegg.

Cameron clearly doesn't care any more, which - on balance - is a good thing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 05:35:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Please note that the scenario painted above is without the EU wishing the slightest ill-will towards the UK: It is simply applying existing rules contained in existing treaties to the UK as a third party, in order not to undermine it's existing trading relationships with the rest of the world. What the UK (and other EU member states) may have been taking for granted is that the sheer scale of the EU allows it to negotiate extremely advantageous relationships with trading partners. These will be difficult for the UK to replicate outside the EU.

This difficulty is compounded by the fact that any "bespoke" trade deal for the UK will have to achieve the unanimous agreement of the EU27 including some regional parliaments such as Wallonia which have taken an age to agree other trade deals such as the one with Canada. If the "bespoke" deal includes elements not already delegated to EU competency in previous treaties, some countries, like Ireland, will have to hold referenda to enable those additional powers be delegated to the EU. That should go down well in the UK: the people of Ireland voting on whether the UK can have it's bespoke deal or not...

The one advantage the UK has is that the Brexit deal itself only requires weighted majority support on the EU Council.  However it is looking increasingly likely that the Brexit deal will include not much more than the "divorce" (phase 1) and transitional implementation arrangements. The full post-Brexit FTA will come later and will therefore require unanimous approval - as would any extension of A50.

The more you look at it, the more it is in the UK's interest to cram as much stuff into the Brexit agreement as possible and get it signed off by the EU Council by weighted majority vote before any requirement for unanimity comes into play. But it is difficult to achieve that objective if the UK cabinet have yet to discuss and agree what they actually want in the Brexit deal and there is less than a year left to secure that agreement.

Time pressures alone may result in the UK having to agree to more or less staying in the single market and customs union in all but name, the Norway+ option, for an extended transitional period pending the agreement of a Canada+ style FTA with special derogation for N. Ireland (to avoid a hard Irish land border) which could only be concluded after the DUP backed Conservative government has left office to avoid the DUP veto. Barnier's declaration that the EU would only agree to a 21 month transition period may prove to be a master stroke. Now an agreement for a longer transitional phase can be presented as a 'victory' for May's negotiating team, whereas before Brexiteers would have resisted it tooth and nail. It only becomes a win when you have been told you can't have it.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 11:36:10 AM EST
The elephant in that space between his ears is the instruction in the MOU for IE and UK --NOT EU and UK-- to arrange "North-South" arising from the GFA. That is as good as it's going to get, Ireland's sovereignty. So one might imagine it's about time to have a word with Varadkar or the Dáil to get Ireland's bearings and correct its course.

Now the "balance of power" is shifted, eh. What shall you all do with it? Nothing, to judge by press waddle around the legs of the beast to discover NEW! wrinkles in Tory gov's liege.

This interminable grief for "the unnegotiable - some special trade deal with the EU " (2016) and, inexplicably, the one clause of A50 that will and cannot be denied (3) is the formidable barrier to "certainty" so many have claimed to seek, lo, these many years of dissipating "transition" euphemisms.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 06:12:15 PM EST
The punitive tariffs on Bombardier aircraft may be moot now, because CSeries planes for US customers will be assembled by Airbus in Mobile, Alabama.
On 16 October 2017, Airbus and Bombardier Aerospace announced a partnership on the CSeries program, with Airbus acquiring a 50.01% majority stake, Bombardier keeping 31% and Investissement Québec 19%, to expand in an estimated market of more than 6,000 new 100-150 seat aircraft over 20 years. Airbus' supply chain expertise should save production costs but headquarters and assembly remain in Québec while U.S. customers would benefit from a second assembly line in Mobile, Alabama. This transaction is subject to regulatory approvals and is expected to be completed in 2018. Airbus did not pay for its share in the program, nor did it assume any debt. Airbus insists that the company has no plan to buy out Bombardier's stake in the C-series program, and Bombardier would remain a strategic partner after 2025.

While assembling the aircraft in U.S. could circumvent the 300% duties proposed in the Cseries dumping petition by Boeing, Airbus CEO Tom Enders and Bombardier CEO Alain Bellemare assured that this factor did not drive the partnership, but negotiations began in August after the April 2017 filing and the June decision to proceed and, as a result, Boeing was suspicious.

by Gag Halfrunt on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 07:30:28 PM EST
So the solution, every time a UK company gets into trouble on world markets, is for an EU company to take it over (at zero cost) and leverage its other production facilities to circumvent those difficulties?  There are few enough UK owned major strategic industries left in the UK without the remaining ones being taken over.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Jan 1st, 2018 at 08:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
yes, but that's exactly the sort of management consultant thinking that passses for industrial policy in the UK these days.

Find a foreign owner, flog it off, move production overseas = profit !!!

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 07:53:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In an industry dominated by global behemoths like Boeing (who brought the lawsuit which precipitated the 219% tariff) and Airbus, this may have been the only way for the Bombardier plant to survive. However global behemoths tend to have global political benefactors to enable their dominance.  The USA, EU, China etc. are ensuring they have global "champions" in key strategic industries to ensure they aren't dependent on foreign owned companies to meet key national or supranational objectives. Thus Boeing is a key defence contractor (and probably more state subsidised than Bombardier ever was) and has the clout to make supposedly independent US courts bend to its will.

But who is going to champion key UK businesses outside the EU? UK Aerospace companies are already effectively subcontractors to Airbus etc. who may be thinking of in-sourcing those parts if there is any question of tariffs or goods stuck in customs. Many key UK industries and utilities are already foreign owned. When Diageo in London took over management control of Guinness in Dublin, it completely transformed the business, and generally not for the better. Generally speaking where a corporate HQ is located matters a lot. Decisions are taken from that location's perspective and culture and with the interests of HQ management most in mind.

The UK risks becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of EU, US, Japanese, Chinese and Indian companies who will treat it increasingly as a low cost location for low value activities with management, R&D, Innovation, strategic planning, Finance, Marketing, and legal activities centred elsewhere. Even devaluation of Sterling is not of much help here, as HQ functions are generally not very price sensitive. The UK market itself is quite big, but generally not big enough to sustain major industries in is own right. The hegemony of global brands like Scotch Whisky is being challenged. What else is left of major UK owned and headquartered industries?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 11:17:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
EU cannot `cherry pick' terms of post-Brexit trade deal, Davis warns
Britain's Brexit secretary David Davis has warned the European Union that it cannot cherry pick the terms of a free trade deal with the UK when it leaves the bloc.

Mr Davis said Britain wants "the full sweep of economic cooperation" and financial services must not be excluded from any agreement.

The EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier has repeatedly insisted the UK cannot choose to keep the best elements of membership when it quits the union.

No trade agreement exists that includes financial services and the City of London will inevitably face curbs on access, he has warned.

But Mr Davis said a deal that took some areas of the current economic relationship but not others would be "cherry picking".

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, Mr Davis wrote: "I do not believe the strength of this cooperation needs change because we are leaving the European Union.

"Many of these principles can be applied to services trade too. Given the strength and breadth of the pan-European economic relationship, a deal that took in some areas of our economic relationship but not others would be, in the favoured phrase of EU diplomats, cherry picking."

No doubt a time will come when services are included within the scope of an FTA, and perhaps Brexit will be a catalyst for such a development. But these things tend to take many years to negotiate, and have to be clearly in the interest of both parties to agree. I'm not sure that the EU is that unhappy about many of London's activities having to relocate to the EU. What can Davis offer as a quid pro quo for retaining London's privileged position within Europe?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 02:19:31 PM EST
New Statesman - Anoosh Chakelian - A close reading of David Davis' delusional Telegraph piece on Brexit

The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis has written a worryingly Panglossian article in the Telegraph about his plan for Brexit this year, headlined: "How we will deliver the best Brexit in 2018".

It reads more like a fantasy than an honest plan, so let's have a closer look at what it really means:....



keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 06:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sigh, what an original tactic, accuse the accuser.
When in doubt, project!
Back to '"We just want the money, Johnny Foreigner"


'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 05:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fintan O'Toole: Brexit was only supposed to blow the bloody doors off
Ask most English people for their favourite line from a movie, and they'll do Michael Caine's Cockney bark from The Italian Job when his sidekick has just accidentally blown a security van to smithereens by remote control: "You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"

It was the line that Michael Gove's wife, Sarah Vine, thought of when she woke him on the morning after the Brexit referendum to inform him that Leave had won: "`You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off,' I said, in my best (ie not very good) Michael Caine Italian Job accent. In other words, you've really torn it now."



Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 05:20:58 PM EST
that's a really good set of analogies

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 06:10:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So in March 2019 Davis will be telling us "I've got a great idea."?
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 06:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It helped, of course, that Caine himself is an enthusiastic Brexiteer, a multimillionaire who declares that it would be better for Britons to be poor and free than rich and enslaved. As Gove told the Sun: "I love Michael Caine. He's the kind of expert I like."
by Bernard on Tue Jan 2nd, 2018 at 07:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here is the link to Sarah Vine's full description in her Daily Mail column of her reaction to the result for anyone who is interested.

When I discovered that, I also had in mind Laura Kuenssberg's Conspiracy thoughts of 21st Feb 2016, where she suggested, well before the referendum, 'that Boris is intent on becoming 'The Man Who Tried'' (and failed).

That worked out well for us all.

by oldremainmer48 on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 09:59:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Gods, reading that Sarah Vine column made me begin to feel a tad muderous. The beginning of 2018 is a bad time to be reading the smug and entitled, self-righteous outrage that anyone should hold them them to account for their decisions.

Yet, there it is. Brexit as a nice middle class suburban kitchen drama, full of nice middle class people saying nice things with perfect Home Counties Received Pronunciation.

I am reminded of the Young Ones comedy from the early 80s and Viv's dislike of "The Good Life"

quote suitably amended

I HATE THEM !!!
It's so bloody nice. Sarah treacle Vine and Mihael sugar flavoured snob Gove.
What do they do now??
CHOCOLATE BLOODY BEDKNOBS !! That's what
They're nothing but a couple of reactionary stereotypes sustaining the myth that everyone in Britain is a lovable middle class eccentric
AND I HATE THEM


keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 01:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]


keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 01:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the English middle class are world champions at niceness!  They are the most competitively nice people I know. You have to undercut each other by being even nicer that they are. The ultimate embarrassment is to be outniced by somebody else.  So why can't the EU just be nice to us?

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 03:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as many people here know, I ain't middle class and I'm a long way from nice.

When it comes to the self-absorbed nonsense of a Tory party that has absolutely no clue what it wants or even any real understanding of why it broke the relationship it had, I'm afraid I'm all out of patience.

I. HATE. THEM.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jan 3rd, 2018 at 04:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, it's not Freddie M. that's singing:

Risk Psychology - How Brexit resembles a Plane Crash - Spiegel Online

As the weather turned for the worse and the air controller again recommended an Eastern rerouting, captain John R. Philipps told his first officer "Don't talk too much. He just wants us to admit to a big mistake." ... Only a few minutes later, the voice recorder shows, captain Philipps tried a turnaround but it was too late. ... All 85 people on board died.

The crash on the 3rd of May 1968 goes back half a century but it could explain what's going wrong with Brexit. ...

Behavioral Decision Theory ... posits that humans shirk risks if there is a secure gain. However, if there is a potential loss they are willing to take high risks. ...

Faced with a choice between 80$ and an 85% chance of winning 100$, most people chose the guaranteed 80$. The same did not hold for the other way around. Faced with a choice between a guaranteed loss of 80$ and 85% chance of losing 100$, most people chose the latter [the 15% chance of lucking out]. ...

The chances [for a successful Brexit] are becoming ever murkier. Instead there is a looming catastrophe. But British politics is steadfastly going for it. ...

O'Hare sees some of the same mechanisms at work ... Pilots would have had to endure ... "landing at another airport, a damaged reputation." Similarly, ... the unique British EU rebate would be gone, and a big portion of national pride and political capital.

Surveys show little Bregret from the Leavers. Instead, the non voters are now firmly Remain. Thanks for nothing.
Mathematically, that would still be the best option. ...but there is a small chance ... maybe none of that comes true and Brexit turns out a brilliant success. And since people are horrified by assured losses, O'hare says that behavioral decision theory predicts the British to go on Brexiting full risk ahead - "regardless of ever increasing potential losses." ...

[More so in politics]. "Politicians are keen to seem steadfast, consistent, ... turnarounds extremely unattractive." ...

People tend to think about goals not from their end but in comparison to a certain point. Which is usually the current state. But it could also be an expected change, say a glorious Brexit future. Everything that undercuts that big expectation would be handled like a loss. ...

But there is, as O'Hare states, an important difference between Brexit and the plane crash: a pilot is also affected by the negative consequences of his decisions. "That probably doesn't hold for Brexit."



Schengen is toast!
by epochepoque on Thu Jan 4th, 2018 at 09:02:28 PM EST
Just the other week I overheard a conversation in the pub that discussed brexit in terms that were overtly racist. And those of my FB friends who voted brexit (yes I have a few) they are still firmly in the brexit camp and unable to understand why we just can't leave now.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri Jan 5th, 2018 at 07:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But you can leave now! You just won't be able to trade, travel, or do any kinds of business involving the EU. But there is a big world of wonderful opportunities out there, millions of other people to do business with: just ask Boris...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jan 5th, 2018 at 11:18:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries