The show that never ends
In a world gone nuts, this is the sanest thing in years.
The world is dividing into countries attempting to adapt to globalization, and those operating under the delusion that they can reverse it. It's going to be a hell of an experiment. But I know which cohort I'd rather be in.
The U.K. IS adapting to globalization. They have determined, narrowly, that the E.U. version of it is destructive of their way of life and their traditions. I'm guessing that they will be involved in free trade in years to come, but in a way that is less noxious. We may eventually end up with globalization that is practiced in diverse ways by different countries and cultures. That would be great. And I'd like to be in one of those cohorts.
The interesting thing here is that the British are going to the lower tariff side of the argument--EU imposes fairly significant tariffs on the exports of nonmember nations. So which cohort is which? Seems to me that the big issues in play here are whether the British will decide their trade duties and immigration polices in London, or in Brussels. So is globalism about the impact of trade duties, or is it about central control? Count me opposed to central control in most areas, but in favor of a revenue tariff--if that can be balanced with serious cuts in, and simplification to, the income tax.I guess I advocate neither cohort if I've understood things even halfway correctly.
So is globalism about the impact of trade duties, or is it about central control? Count me opposed to central control in most areas, but in favor of a revenue tariff--if that can be balanced with serious cuts in, and simplification to, the income tax.At bottom, it's about whether the decision is made in London or in Brussels.
The Scots voted against independence from England two years ago, deciding that they liked the teat they were pulling on. (I was so sad for what my ancestral land has become). Now they are upset because Britain's decision to Brexit isn't what they wanted. It sure sucks when a distant government gets to rule your life. Yet their answer is to prefer the even more distant government of the EU? There may not be enough teats to go around. I'm not sure that the EU is interested in taking in an economic liability such as Scotland right now.
Yet their answer is to prefer the even more distant government of the EU? There may not be enough teats to go around. I'm not sure that the EU is interested in taking in an economic liability such as Scotland right now.Scotland's gonna have to get in line behind a lot of other teat-seekers.
Regarding teats, it's worth noting that when the EU was being formed, they had some rather strict rules on how much debt a nation could have and the like. Somehow with PIIGS (PIIGSS if Scotland joins?), that got discarded when political pressure--the desire to suck as it were--got too high. Pretty good reason for local government, really. It's an inherent restraint on borrowing.
I note that some 5 other countries-- France, Sweden, Netherlands,?-- are considering the same thing. Good for them. Common Market? Sure. Enormous nanny state? No thanks.
Common Market? Sure. Enormous nanny state? No thanks.That's the message. Outside of certain precincts of Brussels, it's rare to find someone who says "I'm a European."
I think we need to be careful about saying other nations are considering the same thing. At this point, it's the parties on what goes for far right there. It hasn't gone to the mainstream yet as far as I can tell.Don't get me wrong; I think it would be a good idea to abandon the EU as long as you could preserve the idea that animated the EU; that the nations of Europe had more to gain from trade than from war. They put a lot of extra baggage on that to create the EU, and that may end up killing the whole deal. But the idea of reducing the baggage on trade and such--at least internally--was pure genius. You took people who had been invading each other for millennia and made it more profitable for them to trade.
Post a Comment