[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[Username17]

But... if there was the will and the political capital to do that they could just negotiate for the pony and not have to relitigate all the things they already have.

So what you are saying is, if Britain could convince France to sign a trade treaty, then it logically follows that Britain alone could completely rewrite the EU with no opposition... Oh wait, that... is not at all true.

Last I checked, Canada did not rewrite the entire EU, but did sign a trade treaty with the EU. Almost like one of those things is easier than the other.

Having "a trade treaty with France" in no way covers all the things the EU provides now. A trade treaty between England and France does not give you the ability to appeal decisions by your government to the European Court, for example. Nor does it allow Finnish people to travel to Africa on EU passports and have money they can use to buy local currencies with. The political union provides a lot of value and improves lives in a lot of ways, and any "trade treaty" big enough to provide all of that would be harder to ram through than reforming the EU in whatever way you wanted.

But the bottom line remains is that the argument for pulling the EU apart is still "We must do something. This is something, therefore we must do it." And that is a bullshit argument.

The people advocating breaking up the EU have to throw down an actual mechanism by which anything at all gets better by doing that. Seriously, name one fucking thing that gets better by actually scrapping the EU.

-Username17

[sendaz]

Having access to a wide variety of cheap quality food is actually one of the main draws of the EU.

If the UK leaves the EU, then the EU countries have zero reason to keep selling quality food to the UK at cheap prices, and the UK citizens will have to eat considerably shittier and more limited food. It's just that. No war, just business.

My mother still remembers the time when eating a banana was a rare luxury.

Think you mean the EU countries could potentially increase trade tariffs on exports going to the UK as most of the governments themselves are not actually selling said food items, but do you really see companies like Dole or Chiquita embargoing the UK? So costs could certainly go up due to added tariffs, but that is not the same as living on scraps.

And for that matter, the EU is not the sole source of food.
Most of your foods come from farther abroad, let's look at your banana as an example. Many of your bananas in ASDA come out of the West Indies and Ecuador. Now some of the areas in the West Indies would be part of the Commonwealth so actually has more ties to UK than the EU.

You do see some Chiquita brand bananas, but the company is actually US-based so unless they break all trade relations you should still see bananas in the UK even if they did break away.

I do agree it is foolish to leave the EU, but saying there will be no quality food is not entirely true.

[John Magnum]

It also just looks like Kaelik completely misinterpreted what Frank is saying. The whole point is that "renegotiate the entirety of the EU, plus get a better trade deal" is more difficult than "get a better trade deal", not less. Kaelik swapped the "if" and the "then" and, indeed, found absurdity.

[Kaelik]

It also just looks like Kaelik completely misinterpreted what Frank is saying. The whole point is that "renegotiate the entirety of the EU, plus get a better trade deal" is more difficult than "get a better trade deal", not less. Kaelik swapped the "if" and the "then" and, indeed, found absurdity.

No what happened is that you decided to believe Franks lies that the only possibilities are:

1) Marry the EU, make a will in which the EU gets everything when you die, then shoot yourself in the head. Hope for the best. And

2) Burn everything to the ground.

Just because Frank claims that the EU does no wrong, doesn't actually make it true, you can tell because wholly shit, he has also stated a bunch of things the EU does wrong.

You don't need a "better trade deal" because the mere fact of exit from the EU strips the bad of the EU. Exit as Greece or Spain or Italy allows you to negotiate new trade and immigration treaties that don't have to be as good as the current ones to make that worthwhile.

If your trade deal is slightly worse, but you aren't slaves to the German Bankers, you can live with that, because that's a better over all deal than staying in the EU.

Frank's super put down is "The people advocating breaking up the EU have to throw down an actual mechanism by which anything at all gets better by doing that. Seriously, name one fucking thing that gets better by actually scrapping the EU." Which is pathetically easy, and if I wanted to waste the time, I could list 14 things that Frank fucking Trollman listed as things that get better when he was arguing for a Grexit. But suffice it to say, the things that get better are, you aren't a slave to German Bankers and you can have your own currency that isn't permanently wedded to zero inflation for the next 62 years, and then you can actually do anything at all besides double and triple down on austerity until your economy recovers by magic.

Now, obviously this doesn't apply to the UK, and frankly, I don't know why the UK gives a shit, because they aren't the ones getting fucked. It would basically be like France or Germany trying to pull out, you are the beneficiaries of this system, don't know what your issue is. But for other countries, the exit from the EU has super mega obvious benefits, to be sure, there are certainly some disadvantages too, your trade treaty, honestly, would probably be exactly the same except for the inherent losses from moving off the Euro, but your immigration treaty will almost certainly be worse. Those are losses, but to say that nothing at all will get better is nonsense, and to claim that if Greece has the ability to sign a trade treaty with the EU, then it follows that Greece has the ability to reform the entire EU to fix stupid inflationary policies and save the Euro from being a tool of the powerful to fuck them is absolute crazy shit.

[DSMatticus]

But... if there was the will and the political capital to do that they could just negotiate for the pony and not have to relitigate all the things they already have.

Actually, they very much can't, because the EU can't be superseded without unanimous consent of the member states, which isn't going to happen because Germany is quite happy with the scam they've got running thank you very much. It doesn't help that anti-EU sentiment is at an all time high and selling people on "moar EU!" is not likely. And while it is theoretically possible that Germany could single-handedly derail a EU-UK trade agreement, they have very little to gain from it economically and everything to lose when they further demonstrate that the EU is wholly incapable of its basic duties. I mean, you clearly think they should, but we've established that you're fucking insane[/b] on this matter so I'm not particularly impressed. And when I say "theoretically" it's because it's not actually clear they have the legal standing to do so in the first place, so they'd be fighting a contentious legal battle for a less democratic EU in order to protect the EU from... people who criticize it for being too undemocratic... Man, you spilled these irony sprinkles everywhere. It's a fucking mess.

It is in fact much easier to walk away from the EU and call do over. Significant changes to the EU require two-thirds majorities (at best, unanimous approval at worst) in at least one institution (at best, several at worst). The only legitimate concern is what "do over" looks like, because depending on the political climate that could easily be a trade up or a trade down. But when you look at the growing voteshare of the far-right, the eventual trade down is looking pretty fucking inevitable. In all likelihood, the fascists are eventually going to pull that trigger for us whether we like it or not.

And yes, attempting to deny the people of the UK food security and financial stability is World War 3. I don't care how far back you walk the mechanism by which you're going to do that to something seemingly moderate (that still isn't really all that moderate), that is the exact same "realpolitik" that gave us World War 2. The specific proposals were insane, but when you set those aside and consider what you're trying to do, it's still insane.

[Username17]

Any do over requires unanimous consent by definition because there wouldn't be a framework for change as you'd be building something from scratch. Your bizarre underpants gnome strategy of caving to UKIP and the Front National, mumblemumble, Make everything Better! is still bullshit. It has always been bullshit.

Setting fire to everything and then hoping you can figure out something better than what you had before the fire destroys your homes and grain stocks is simply madness. You can't shock doctrine your way out of this problem. If you pull a shock doctrine, the bad guys will play too. And they are better at that particular game than we are. Liberal sentiment does not grow well in soil made of fear. Fascist sentiments, however, totally do.

-Username17

[Stahlseele]

And now the EU is talking a european marshall of the armies.
Something the Brits are not likely to like all that much either.

[DSMatticus]

If the EU magically dissolved right now, I am sure there are states which would elect not to renew their membership and that by definition means we wouldn't be getting "unanimous consent" from current members on whatever came next. But on the flipside, a bunch of members would sign new treaties and those members would be better protected from having Europe savage them as Europe has savaged Greece. It's a path forward that can be achieved without unanimous consent, just as the original EC was only six nations - none of which was the UK.

Also, "caving to UKIP" is still begging the question. You've unilaterally declared that there is no left-wing case for exit (there is, it's called southern Europe), so therefore any left-wing pro-exit sentiment is misguided accidental pro-fascist sentiment. It's circular and stupid and pointless. If you define away left-wing euroscepticism as not being left-wing, that doesn't make you right, it just makes you annoying to argue with. I would have very much appreciated if the left-wing parties had stood up and called bullshit on the EU in 2010. They did not. That doesn't mean exit has no place in left-wing politics. It just means left-wing politicians are more committed to the European Union than they are Europeans.

Also also, I am still at a loss as to how concern about the conservative proficiency for exploiting crises in order to push their agenda translates into defending the EU. That seems backwards. It would be very difficult for an exit from the EU to match the harm caused by the EU. Most mainstream economic analyses of Brexit put the damage at something like 2% of GDP, which pales in comparison to the devastation inflicted on southern Europe. It is such a small dip that UK has had several of them in your lifetime and we don't even remember them. Spoiler: one happened when the UK signed the Treaty of Maastricht, which means that tearing up the Treaty of Maastricht will be exactly as economically painful as signing it, except it comes with the added bonus of not having to hang out with Germany anymore. Worth it.

[Parthenon]

I find a lot of predictions for a Brexit wildly optimistic- 'we'll be able to negotiate better deals because the UK has so much trade with countries in the EU', or 'the act of metaphorically pissing all over the efforts countries have spent in trying to join the EU won't piss countries off', or 'the EU won't have an interest in making trade deals difficult to discourage other countries from leaving', or 'almost 5 million people won't have to be kicked out of the countries they are living in because despite the overwhelming rhetoric of stopping immigration and kicking out EU nationals it would be too bad to consider'.

I've heard things ranging from that not much will actually change because there are so many other treaties still ongoing or any trade has to meet the requirements of the EU anyway, in which case why rock the boat, to everything needs to be renegotiated.

I mean, I can't see going from being part of a trade deal with the rest of the EU where you get a certain price because you are a part of the EU, to having the exact same prices while being outside the EU. Any trade deal made will have to be worse because it is coming from outside the EU.

And that isn't considering the actual real thing Frank points out where the EU then has to show to the countries considering leaving how it is a bad idea- blockading the channel is likely hyperbole or at least would require the UK and the EU to have a series of really shitty negotiations but just having high tariffs for trade is likely.

[erik]

Wouldn't having just the most right wing elements individually leaving the EU make it easier and more likely for the remainder to enact more progressive changes?

[Kaelik]

Wouldn't having just the most right wing elements individually leaving the EU make it easier and more likely for the remainder to enact more progressive changes?

No, because countries are only going to leave the EU when they are tired of getting fucked by Germany's cock.

Since Germany is the one doing the fucking, they are never going to leave, and since all the terrible EU policies benefit Germany, they are never going to change those policies.

If countries leave the EU by becoming fascist, it's because Germany's fucking managed to help the fascists take over, not because evil Spain and Greece were preventing progressive reforms because they were ruled by fascists.

[PhoneLobster]

And that isn't considering the actual real thing Frank points out where the EU then has to show to the countries considering leaving how it is a bad idea- blockading the channel is likely hyperbole or at least would require the UK and the EU to have a series of really shitty negotiations but just having high tariffs for trade is likely.

As mentioned already.

That "real thing" is not applicable vs the UK the UK is too big.

That "real thing" is not applicable vs any nation still ruled by the allied neoliberal aristocrats. Like the UK. That retribution is only for leftists defying the failed economic policies of Europe's elites. NOT for simply backing out of union that the neoliberal aristocrats see as nothing more than a lever with which to inflict their will until they break it.

If that "Real Thing" were ever deployed in retribution against a former European nation state as major as the UK, or even as major as Spain (against which it COULD conceivably be deployed, you know, unlike the UK) then it would mean the end of the EU. The street riots would be massive and continent wide. Governments would fall. The aristocrats are pretty fucking dumb, perhaps dumb enough to make that mistake with Spain. But again. NOT dumb enough to pull the risky trigger against themselves in a powerful nation they dominate like the UK.

[Mask_De_H]

Okay fuck this: does anyone have articles or political commentary on potential Brexit and the dumpster fire that is the EU that doesn't involve Frank/DSM frothing at the mouth? Because this is a very complex issue and I want to at least know how either/both of them have gone completely batshit insane.

[Mechalich]

I found articles in The Economist and The Guardian discussing the Brexit scenario is a reasonable level of detail. Those are both fairly mainstream sources with strong reputations, so while it's not a perfect picture I think it probably qualifies as a good overview.

However the real stakes of the 'Brexit' are not what happens to the UK - which is a highly advanced economy with a lot of people that will survive even if the situation makes it severe diminished (a hypothetical -10% to GDP over a decade or so would suck massively, but it wouldn't lead to total collapse). Likewise, the UK isn't on the Euro and isn't impacted by the inherent restrictions of the currency union in the way that Greece or Spain are. It seems more likely that the bigger consequences of the Brexit would be triggering other countries to do the same thing - starting with Greece and ending somewhere no one knows, which could lead to the utter collapse of the EU as a functional entity. That gets really theoretical really fast, since it depends on who withdraws, how fast they withdraw, what the terms of those withdrawals are, what the consequences happen to be, and what the political developments internal to the countries in question and to the EU happen to be.

As for Europe itself being a dumpster fire, here's Paul Krugman talking about it in one of many posts on the subject. Typing 'Paul Krugman EU' into google gets you a lot from him. I wouldn't agree with Krugman on everything, but his basic gist that the shared currency serves as an economic straight-jacket that permanently disadvantages certain European economies (Southern Europe mostly, but also places like Finland) while permanently boosting others (primarily Germany) seems quite convincing. Exactly what should be done about this is unclear. For my money it seems like the ideal solution would be to scrap the euro but retain as many other aspects of the EU, the trade agreements, the movement freedoms, etc. as possible. I have no idea whether that's a politically viable solution at all though.

[Username17]

There are indeed several layers of issues with the Brexit. The people who actually vote on it are citizens of the UK (and commonwealth citizens) living in the UK. UK citizens living and working in other EU countries and citizens of other EU countries living and working in the UK do not get to vote. So right away, you can see that there are millions of stake holders who stand to lose the most if the Brexit goes through who do not get to vote. For the people who do get to vote, the issues are mostly ones of economic impact. The UK is not going to stop being a member of NATO or lose its nuclear arsenal. No foreign country is going to seize portions of their territory and tell them to suck it.

Brexit discussion in the UK is therefore delightfully tone deaf. Economists are in virtual unanimous agreement that Brexit will carry short term costs - the only issue is how much poorer the people of the UK are going to be ten years from now if Brexit passes versus whether it doesn't. And that has more to do with what assumptions you make about what, if anything, the UK is going to negotiate to replace their EU membership in the two years it takes for the "Leave" vote to kick in. And the second question is whether the losses can ever be made up or whether it's simply a permanent reduction in output. The floor here is a few percentage points of lost productivity - which of course translates on the ground to thousands of lives destroyed. The ceiling... well as I've said earlier there basically is no ceiling. If the migrants issue goes badly, the UK could end up trading over two million working people for over two million unemployed people with different skills and have a recession and a debt crisis and empty shelves in their grocery stores and shit. There is no particular reason to believe that the economic downturn couldn't be worse for the UK than the Great Depression was, there are some pretty bad worst case scenarios. And that's without invoking worst case political end states like becoming a pariah state or going to war.

So the chattering classes in the UK are going on about how all the economists and the partisan and non-partisan portions of the government all agree that the UK will be poorer in the short run, and then they just sort of gloss over the tail risks that things will go really bad and also barely discuss the fact that many economists believe the costs will continue to be large ten, twenty years down the line.

What will happen to the rest of the EU countries is not and will not be discussed by UK punditry. The BBC attempts to be "balanced" on Brexit, as you can see Here. This basically means that Vote Leave's statements are presented in an "opinions differ on the shape of the Earth" sort of way. So here's their presentation of the economic issue:

Leave	Remain
UK companies would be freed from the burden of EU regulation	Brexit would cause an economic shock and growth would be slower
Trade with EU countries would continue because we import more from them than we export to them	As a share of exports Britain is more dependent on the rest of the EU than they are on us
Britain would be able to negotiate its own trade deals with other countries	The UK would still have to apply EU rules to retain access to the single market

Now, what do you notice about those three bullet points? Well, the bullet points for the Leave Campaign are fucking fairy dust and unicorn farts! Where have we heard "economic growth will come from being freed from the burden of regulation" before? Oh right, that's been the conservative answer to where they are going to get growth from to replace their contractionary policies for the last forty fucking years. And it has never ever worked, because it's bullshit. And the BBC doesn't call them on this bullshit, because balance.

And the next two bullet points are just Leave claiming that they will be able to negotiate yuuuge beautiful trade treaties after they've unilaterally walked out of a bunch of trade treaties because they have terrific hands. There's nothing there. The claim is really that having given themselves a self imposed time limit and proven that treaties they sign aren't worth all that much that they'll be able to negotiate cool new treaties with the entire planet and they'll be great treaties. It's literally the Donald Trump argument. And no, it doesn't sound any better with a British accent. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the UK could get better deals as a free agent than it does as part of the world's largest common market - it's like claiming that a Walmart store could get their stock for less after they left the company and became an independent store.

The future relations with the EU issue is particularly strange. The entire run of punditry in the UK, from both sides, pretty much assumes that the rest of the EU does nothing at all and continues to work productively with the UK to the limit the British government allows them to. I have no idea why they think this will be the case. The EU leveling any kind of sanctions on the UK for treaty breaking at all is undiscussed. The EU could make pretty much any demands they want for the UK to retain access to the common market, and as I noted earlier it is to the advantage of everyone who wants other countries to not leave the EU for a Brexit experiment to be a demonstrable failure. The only issue here is how badly it has to go for the people of Albion for the Eurocrats to consider their point made. This is another issue where there is a floor of how badly it could go and no ceiling. The UK punits seem to all assume that we'll be at the floor of "no reprisals at all" but there's no reason to believe that will be the case.

-Username17

[MGuy]

Frank, what mechanisms are in place to keep the fascists out of office? Again and again you stress how badly an exit would be. Ok FUCKING FINE but it looks like not improving things is going to make it fall apart with the Right leading the charge. So WHAT THE FUCK (for the 100th time) is the Left doing to fucking stop how popular the right is becoming just by acknowledging the EU issue and promising to do jack or shit about it? That's what I'm really still wondering here because thus far pro EU people are so fucking busy screaming about how there'll be a blasted hellscape from the exit but I am not seeing how things are at all going to improve at this rate.

[Username17]

Frank, what mechanisms are in place to keep the fascists out of office? Again and again you stress how badly an exit would be. Ok FUCKING FINE but it looks like not improving things is going to make it fall apart with the Right leading the charge. So WHAT THE FUCK (for the 100th time) is the Left doing to fucking stop how popular the right is becoming just by acknowledging the EU issue and promising to do jack or shit about it? That's what I'm really still wondering here because thus far pro EU people are so fucking busy screaming about how there'll be a blasted hellscape from the exit but I am not seeing how things are at all going to improve at this rate.

The Euro area unemployment rate is lower now than it was last year or the year before. We complain about the EU having failed in their duties because they have been slow in restoring growth and prosperity after the crisis, not that they haven't been doing it at all. After the failed policies of 2010-2011, the EU unemployment rate rose from 10% to 12%, and it's been falling slowly since then.

Yes, things are much shittier than they could be, and advocating left wing policies would increase growth. But simply fighting the fascists and keeping them from power for a few years will in fact make them lose popularity. It's way riskier than launching large infrastructure projects and getting to full employment quickly - but none of the countries in the EU seem to have the political will to do that sort of thing. Like, even less than the US, amazing as that sounds.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

So... its just moar important to fight fascism than it is to fix the broken EU or advance any actual left of center right economic or other policy.

Lets say we pretend that is itself true and that actually fixing the EU or advancing leftwing economics or policy and you know, reducing unemployment and poverty MORE isn't actually THE BEST thing you do to "fight fascism".

Then even given that... Frank didn't answer the fucking question on how the fuck the EU fights fascism. He just said "we should fight fascism instead of fighting its root causes by fixing anything ever".

Oh yeah. And he explicitly undermined his "The EU is how you fight fascism" thing even further by pointing out how the EU is making unemployment way worse. You know, that thing that directly empowers fascism.

So yeah, I'm now curious. What is the mechanism by which the EU ignores all left wing agendas and concentrates all it's force to " just fight fascism" INSTEAD. How IS that supposed to work? WHAT does that even look like? Because it certainly doesn't look like it is happening. Is it just a discredited neoliberal charisma hole like Cameron calling the fascists unreliable poopy heads on TV? Is that your plan? Because that's a shit plan.

[Parthenon]

As mentioned already.

That "real thing" is not applicable vs the UK the UK is too big.

That "real thing" is not applicable vs any nation still ruled by the allied neoliberal aristocrats. Like the UK. That retribution is only for leftists defying the failed economic policies of Europe's elites. NOT for simply backing out of union that the neoliberal aristocrats see as nothing more than a lever with which to inflict their will until they break it.

If that "Real Thing" were ever deployed in retribution against a former European nation state as major as the UK, or even as major as Spain (against which it COULD conceivably be deployed, you know, unlike the UK) then it would mean the end of the EU. The street riots would be massive and continent wide. Governments would fall. The aristocrats are pretty fucking dumb, perhaps dumb enough to make that mistake with Spain. But again. NOT dumb enough to pull the risky trigger against themselves in a powerful nation they dominate like the UK.

I think you're stuck on the idea of blocking the channel tunnel and blockading the UK. Simply having trade tariffs the same as the US or Canada would be punishment compared to what would be possible based on current trade and location, and would screw over the UK's economy. Forcing the same immigration deals or even more relaxed rules would screw over the idea that Brexit happened to get more control over immigration.

Hell, even making the negotiation process 6 months or a year longer than planned would make the government look like idiots who can't keep their predictions accurate. Or doing what they can to devalue the pound compared to the euro.

What I am saying is that there is a variety of things that could be done to punish the UK in lots of minor to medium ways that aren't as major as saying 'fuck off', and which still keeps the neoliberal aristocrats in power.

Let alone the recent history where Germany forced Greece into austerity despite how stupid it is.

You are both saying that the EU is a corrupt shitty organisation that can't make any good decisions and is led by people who will force through stupidity based on ideological principles, and at the same time will after a Brexit insulting them suddenly be sensible and willing to deal fairly and reasonably.

So yeah, I'm now curious. What is the mechanism by which the EU ignores all left wing agendas and concentrates all it's force to " just fight fascism" INSTEAD. How IS that supposed to work? WHAT does that even look like? Because it certainly doesn't look like it is happening. Is it just a discredited neoliberal charisma hole like Cameron calling the fascists unreliable poopy heads on TV? Is that your plan? Because that's a shit plan.

So yeah, I'm now curious. What is the mechanism by which after leaving the EU the fascists decide they've won and bow out of the political process, and instead you get more left wing agendas? At the moment if Brexit happens then it is people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage who are doing the treaty negotiations, or at least setting the terms.

Because heres the thing. I don't really think the EU is likely to be fixed anytime soon. I think the rise of fascist parties is going to increase and unless something radical happens that is going to continue.

But at the same time I've seen no credible plans for after a Brexit which take into account the UK leaving will piss people off, that having zero-tariff trade is overwhelmingly unlikely, and that the people negotiating everything are the right wing conservatives and racists that want to stop immigration altogether.

I am willing to vote either way if I can see a reasonable, politically viable plan to make things better which people and political parties are actually likely to follow, which won't be led by people like Farage.

[PhoneLobster]

What I am saying is that there is a variety of things that could be done to punish the UK in lots of minor to medium ways

BZZZT!! SHIFTING GOAL POSTS.

The explicit stated scenario was the EU punishing the UK for Brexit enough to ensure no other nation ever dared to leave them. Not "minor to medium ways" not a minor embarressment of a few months of negotiation for the same outcome. Enough to stomp on all hope of rebellion by any other nation. And they have to do this to the UK, one of the big three so the sheer scale has to be huge.

The EU making some insignificant show of punishing the UK? Maybe, but frankly my prediction in that scenario is lots of apologetic language of "hope and regret" with long term goals of "reconciliation and reunion" which may or may not themselves amount to anything at all in actual action.

And damn straight the EU neo-liberal aristocracy gets to be crazy destructive lunatics who won't take this specific crazy destructive action. Crazy destrcutive lunatics aren't "lulz random, all potential actions have equal chance of happening". They have their own motivations, loyalties and agendas. The neoliberal agenda is not served (in reality or it's own fevered imagination) by punishing trade embargoes against neoliberal UK with or without the Brexit, so as long as the neoliberals are in charge of the EU... the EU won't do that.

So yeah, I'm now curious. What is the mechanism by which after leaving the EU the fascists decide they've won and bow out of the political process, and instead you get more left wing agendas?

I don't especially, or at least not entirely, agree but DSM was pretty clear. The EU empowers fascists, does not fight facists, and prevents the policy changes that would disempower fascists. It's pretty fucking clear as to the proposed mechanism there and if you missed it... you basically can't read. You don't get to keep asking "nuh uh, YOU answer the mechanism question" thats been done already and now you actually need to address the stated mechanism OR provide a better one.

1) Support the EU and the Neoliberal agenda OR Allow/encourage the current EU to collapse
2) ?
3) Fascists defeated.

Fill in the fucking 2. DSM gave his 2, it's that the EU stops fucking things up and handing everything to the fascists, you can attack it if you like but you don't get to keep saying there isn't a 2 on THAT side of the argument, and you OWE a 2 of your own to explain how continuing with the current status quo actually fights fascism.

[Kaelik]

Simply having trade tariffs the same as the US or Canada would be punishment compared to what would be possible based on current trade and location, and would screw over the UK's economy.

The CETA eliminates 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU. If the UK had the same trade tariffs as Canada, their economy would, unsurprisingly, not be screwed over.

Welcome to 2016, Free Trade Treaties are basically the standard.

[Username17]

Simply having trade tariffs the same as the US or Canada would be punishment compared to what would be possible based on current trade and location, and would screw over the UK's economy.

The CETA eliminates 98% of the tariffs between Canada and the EU. If the UK had the same trade tariffs as Canada, their economy would, unsurprisingly, not be screwed over.

Welcome to 2016, Free Trade Treaties are basically the standard.

CETA was also proposed in 2008, negotiations concluded in 2014, and it hasn't come into effect yet because it hasn't been ratified by all interested governments. The Brexit plan is to make new trade treaties in 24 months, which has never ever happened anywhere for any countries.

-Username17

[maglag]

Fill in the fucking 2. DSM gave his 2, it's that the EU stops fucking things up and handing everything to the fascists, you can attack it if you like but you don't get to keep saying there isn't a 2 on THAT side of the argument, and you OWE a 2 of your own to explain how continuing with the current status quo actually fights fascism.

As pointed out multiple times already by several people, what DSM calls the EU "fucking up" is still way better than the pre-EU governments that were actual fascists. That's why his point 2 is a delusional hallucination at best.

Greece, as a single example, under german austerity still gets twice the GDP as Greece under their previous fascist government, and that's before the bits like greek people no longer needing to worry about their own police turning the schools into hunting grounds with the human children as the prey. There's your point 2 for why keeping the EU around is good.

[DSMatticus]

Or doing what they can to devalue the pound compared to the euro.

Aside: devaluing the pound would be more likely to stimulate the UK economy and improve their international bargaining position than anything. A low currency values makes it more attractive for both people inside and outside your borders to buy your shit. Strong currencies tend to be a consequence of strong economies, but they aren't a requirement or even particularly helpful. Both Germany and China deliberately devalue their currencies as part of their strategy for growth.

You are both saying that the EU is a corrupt shitty organisation that can't make any good decisions and is led by people who will force through stupidity based on ideological principles, and at the same time will after a Brexit insulting them suddenly be sensible and willing to deal fairly and reasonably.

I trust the EU to do whatever makes their corporate buddies the most money in the short-term. The sacking of Athens wasn't just pure insanity; it genuinely was economically beneficial to the people who more or less own Europe's neoliberals. Economic devastation in southern Europe pushes the value of the EU down, which increases the competitiveness of all exports being sold on the currency, which is a stimulus for the German export industry. The vast majority of the southern European "bailout" money went to having the EU buy toxic assets off of private (particularly German) banks, transferring liability from the under-regulated financial sector to European taxpayers. The crisis ended up flipping several EU members from left-wing/moderate governments to right-wing ones, which may have just been a happy accident but whatever. The EU was able to unilaterally crush left-wing politics under their boot in certain member states, and force a bunch of privatization and deregulation solely for the opportunity to make a couple bucks off it in the end.

You'll note that doing all of those things also created a wave of far-right euroscepticism so potent it's a credible threat to the continued existence of the EU, and that really hasn't made them rethink their strategy. The long-term preservation of the EU is clearly not a concern; this isn't politics, it's business. Specifically, the same kind of short-sighted opportunism that gets us into all these fucking messes. Do you think they really care about smacking penalties down on the UK in order to hold the EU together when they've spent the past six years nearly tearing it apart over the pennies in Greece's pockets? I trust the neoliberals to step forward and say they want to keep doing business with the UK because money is their one true love and the UK is a large market.

So yeah, I'm now curious. What is the mechanism by which after leaving the EU the fascists decide they've won and bow out of the political process, and instead you get more left wing agendas? At the moment if Brexit happens then it is people like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage who are doing the treaty negotiations, or at least setting the terms.

Because heres the thing. I don't really think the EU is likely to be fixed anytime soon. I think the rise of fascist parties is going to increase and unless something radical happens that is going to continue.

But at the same time I've seen no credible plans for after a Brexit which take into account the UK leaving will piss people off, that having zero-tariff trade is overwhelmingly unlikely, and that the people negotiating everything are the right wing conservatives and racists that want to stop immigration altogether.

I am willing to vote either way if I can see a reasonable, politically viable plan to make things better which people and political parties are actually likely to follow, which won't be led by people like Farage.

I do not think anyone is ever going to put forward a left-wing exit plan. It obviously should have happened, but the political parties of the mainstream left are not interested in making the case for exit and are not going to put forward a plan to do so no matter how long you wait. Even Syriza could only bring themself to use the idea as a bluff. You've got two cups of poison, limited information, and are trying to guess which one is less likely to make you vomit out your innards. It's not a pretty proposition, but there's a correct answer. I think the ceiling on fascist support is high enough that they will eventually be the dominant right-wing force in a large part of Europe and they will end up leading ruling conservative coalitions. I think dissolving the EU lowers that ceiling, even if it is difficult to accurately quantify amount of painful in the immediate sense. Frank thinks there's plenty of time to let recovery run its course and continue with politics as usual.

Greece, as a single example, under german austerity still gets twice the GDP as Greece under their previous fascist government, and that's before the bits like greek people no longer needing to worry about their own police turning the schools into hunting grounds with the human children as the prey. There's your point 2 for why keeping the EU around is good.

First off, GDP is a lot like population. If it doesn't go up every year, something has gone horribly wrong. The correct way to look at GDP figures over time is to look at GDP growth, and even that's not particularly fair because sometimes GDP growth reflects technological progress which is often independent of policy and sometimes GDP growth happens alongside increases in unemployment and decreases in wages and other forms of shittiness. With that said, Greek GDP growth was positive every year during the fascist junta and has been negative every year under German austerity. I don't think the contest you've chosen is particularly meaningful, but nonetheless fascist junta wins and German austerity loses.

You have not managed to post a single example that did not blow up in your face. Is this deliberate? Are you getting off on this or something?

[Username17]

With that said, Greek GDP growth was positive every year during the fascist junta and has been negative every year under German austerity. I don't think the contest you've chosen is particularly meaningful, but nonetheless fascist junta wins and German austerity loses.

This is not actually true. GDP growth was -6.4% in 1974. The Junta fell out of power in no small part because they delivered economic performance that was very bad. But are we seriously comparing just the years of German austerity to the years of the Greek junta? Because that's stupid. Or rather, it's extremely irrelevant for purposes of deciding whether the EU has been a net positive or negative to Greece over all. Because before the Great Recession, Greece enjoyed many years of steady growth over 3%. A feat not really duplicated by previous administrations.

Basically you need to stop pulling numbers out of your ass.

-Username17