Explain the impact of Brexit to a clueless American

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Here I will disagree with two points.

Greece borrowed a lot, Goldman sachs helped her hide her deficits, the EU knew.


But why did it borrow a lot?

The EU resulted in a loss of industry and the quality of life had to be preserved.
The competition gaps with Germany were too big and german banks were all too happy to fill the gap with cheap money ad nauseum.

Everyone was happy and the poliitical parties were buying off social consent with the money of future generations.

That's ok so far?

Now, this happened europe wide.

Now, I don't believe that germany has some intricate feeling in "destroying greece" or running it to the ground.

On the contrary I think it wants a stable powerful Greece standing on its two feet.

But the way the treaties are formed makes the way it goes about it, very counterproductive.

It fills me with hope that the people can change to a degree the course of history and events.

It's also abundandtly clear that while Greece was the canari on the mines, it was just the start.

If you check, a bit later - I do mention that this is more sinister, as Germans and French are really protecting their own banks with the actions.

The truth for the case of Greece that you have two parties.

#1. Successive Greek governments and private entities borrowing too much from all possible sources during the "good times".
#2. Various creditors, predominantly Germans and French lending the money without due diligence, throwing money away like it's nobody's business, driven by the need to "invest", which did happen across Europe, but really broke first in Greece

It is a key part of the structural problems of EU, which are coded into various "rules" across the agreements.

Once the whole thing broke, the whole burden was put solely on Greek taxpayers.

This is a travesty, and is causing the biggest contraction of any economy in Europe post WWII. It did not have to be that way, but EU "powers that be" decided it so, and so it is. It is not in the treaties that Greece should have been treated the way they are, but EU is treating it more like US treated the Lehman Brothers, as a "morality tale", with 10M people's lives on the line, while they fight between each other on the way EU should move forward.

For Greece it is a catastrophe, and for the EU it is just a mirror to show us what it really is about, or what the democratic deficit produced. (not a surprise really, there will be more of the same where this came from)

[Bereta_Eder]

For Greece it is a catastrophe, and for the EU it is just a mirror to show us what it really is about, or what the democratic deficit produced. (not a surprise really, there will be more of the same where this came from)

You know I was watching some brits talking about the breremain campaign and how this would bring godzilla to stump on london and will bring catastrophe etc.

The narative is identical.

The two main parties partly responsible for Greece's predicament are history.

I mean the right wing still exists and it's as abnoxious as dinner.

However, syriza and the fear of a grexit did bring some thgings on the table.

I'm starting to believe that brexit will do the same.

There's no way to escape the behemoth, you just swift it slightly to another direction maybe.

Perhaps this is all because simply of a democratic deficit.

I think this certaintly plays a part.

It becomes clearer and clearer that free markets and neoliberalism are incompatible with democracy.

The vehicle is the EU but I don't think it's the cause.

Who knows.

Maybe a fractioned europe will be better but what frigtens me is that in england those who made the difference are a bunch of right wing fascists/racists that don't care an iota about the well being of the average person.

Two figocentric powers, a tiny island and a behemoth are in a death embrace that will make one side split.

If that side can be taken on by a true socialist government then I'd say go for it, you're great. But it doesn't seem that way...

It seems they have jumped ship only to land on a shark...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I will go a bit further.

Let's say Greece had its debt erased (it happened once, 110 billions were given as a gift - big money, true).

It will happen AGAIN!

Not only with Greece. The whole continent is dissatisfied.
Who voted for brexit?

The working class.

What did they get?

Probably the tories who think that the NHS for example shouldn't even exist!

It's called going for hair and leaving with a haircut!

What must be done?

Onefoot says this is the fault of eurocrats.

I'm not so sure.

I think this is the fault of globilization of the ritualistic retreat of the political power in the face of the economic one.
Unfortunately the EU treaties HAVE written in stone, one and only one way of doing business.
And Germany had to endure a 10 year adjustment plan, found itself in a privileged position and said, now I'm going to **** you all because that's what the treaties say.

Make no mistake.

Germany follows this route because that's what's best for Germany.

(I will leave aside the historical shortcomings and estimates of that country and where they led to).


Suddendly Greeks and the south were a bunch of undisciplined lazy bastards that had to be punished!!!

Are you serious?

Are you serious???!!!!

Oh well.


I don't know how this will play out but unless Europe gets back to a sustainable social democratic redestribution system that can guarantee a minimum quality of life for its citizens then yes it will be destroyed.

Like yugoslavia probably. With war

On the other point - there is a cultural difference, no doubt, but this is not the cause of the way that the EU is setup, as the institution has structural issues, which would have been exposed no matter what kind of countries were in. Even if it was just Germany, Austria, and Benelux, someone of them would be the first domino to fall (Belgium ), as this is inevitable with this type of government structure. National governments are not setup like EU, for a good reason - they could not continue as a "going concern" if you will, with this setup.

EU founders knew this, but irresponsibly thought that this will be sorted in the time of "crisis", well the crisis came and went, and nothing was sorted.

The problem with "debt cuts" is that they do not solve the structural issues of the EU, one needs to make a "surplus recycling" mechanism in the area and only setup the debt restructuring in the new framework. Otherwise they could clear all Greek debt, and wait for next country to fall. (not meaning that Greek debt should not have been restructured properly, it should have, but it is a different topic).

I do not see EU has the capacity to change, and I certainly hope that it does not disintegrate with war like ex-Yu, but in a peaceful way, with some initial economic hardship, until we decide to unite again with lessons hopefully learned from this current attempt.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Maybe a fractioned europe will be better but what frigtens me is that in england those who made the difference are a bunch of right wing fascists/racists that don't care an iota about the well being of the average person.

Two figocentric powers, a tiny island and a behemoth are in a death embrace that will make one side split.

If that side can be taken on by a true socialist government then I'd say go for it, you're great. But it doesn't seem that way...

It seems they have jumped ship only to land on a shark...

It might have been a campaign driven mainly by the right, but UK has voted to get full governmental capacity back to itself. It is up to their citizens to vote for right wing or left wing governments with full power and responsibility of what that entails (as it used to be during the majority of UK history), not really that much of a change, it's not like they are Iraq and are not used to it. Certainly a change for the better, given where they just came out from.

[Bereta_Eder]

It might have been a campaign driven mainly by the right, but UK has voted to get full governmental capacity back to itself. It is up to their citizens to vote for right wing or left wing governments with full power and responsibility of what that entails (as it used to be during the majority of UK history), not really that much of a change, it's not like they are Iraq and are not used to it. Certainly a change for the better, given where they just came out from.

Yes I agree thay have taken back full autonomy (if they go through with it)

However, the narative ressembles the darkest days of greek politics when the right wing was in power, the quality of life was plummeting and everyone was turning into a freaking fascist and blaming the immigrants.
And they were lots of them, indeed, back then.

If the british people are so pron to fairy tales, it seems a bit... precarious.

But as you say, we'll see

[Kidlicious]

Yes I agree thay have taken back full autonomy (if they go through with it)

However, the narative ressembles the darkest days of greek politics when the right wing was in power, the quality of life was plummeting and everyone was turning into a freaking fascist and blaming the immigrants.
And they were lots of them, indeed, back then.

If the british people are so pron to fairy tales, it seems a bit... precarious.

But as you say, we'll see

It's a bit ironic when socialists blame others for believing in fairy tales.

[Bereta_Eder]

There was a breeze, I don't know where that came from

[BeBMan]

This is a proper response, so I will take time to be long too

On "how to democratize":

Giving away more national sovereignty is not really a method on how you could create more "democratic EU", rather it is just a proposal to give more power to the bureaucrats who already sit in Brussels. At the moment the only voter elected body is EU parliament, which has less power among EU institutions than a traditional "national" parliament.

Then it's good that I described it as a problem, not a method to democratize

Thing is that stuff like his:

For one, most power should be moved from EU council (heads of state body) to the parliament and the commission, the council should have only veto power not much more as it is the current setup. Council of Europe (ministerial body) dissolved and its power back to the parliament.

European commission should be elected by the parliament as well (the composition can stay the same), the parliament gets to decide on who are the individual members of the commission by state, as well as the president. So you get some traction in the discussion where Europe decides, but the people on board are still responsible to the national governments.

Next "Europgroup" should be removed, as it is in no treaties at all, and it really acts as the "government" of the EU, that power should go back to the EU commission, which should be fully elected by the parliament, with unelected members removed. (thus in the process removing ECB and IMF from direct EU governance)

...while maybe not a loss of souvereignty in the classic sense it means certainly a rebalance of influence in favor of the EU, away from the national level. And the problem is that those nation states would have to agree with it, which is in no way certain. An important part of the Brexit debate was the resistance vs. the idea of an "ever closer union" with Brussels having more to say.

This might be less obvious on the continent, but the sentiment certainly is there in various countries/certain parts of the population. Right now you have both ideas of "more Europe" as well as "less Europe" floating around for future approaches to the EU, without much detail as to what that would mean exactly, which makes it hard to judge for now.

"Neoliberal" EU:

What does it even mean, right? Let's use wiki "Currently, neoliberalism is most commonly used to refer to market-oriented reform policies such as "eliminating price controls, deregulating capital markets, lowering trade barriers", and reducing state influence on the economy, especially through privatization and austerity."

It may be another long argument, but the way current economic consensus works has largely failed as demonstrated in 2008, and this may be called "neoliberalism" however the policies still continue unabated.

In case of the EU, in effect the institution serves to slowly but surely deconstruct any national input in the economy and let the "market forces" do the work. Which is precisely what is happening. Strong state presence in France, or even strong unions in Germany are "legacy" institutions which under current EU setup will be weakened by every passing year in the "desire" to reach competitiveness, while in reality their removal has not much to do with the countries recovering, when the primary reasons for their permanent recession is coded in the way EU has been setup.

I don't have any prob with stuff like "the EU has taken/still takes a neolib. stance in field XY - I'm against it." I do have a prob with taking any kind of reference to "market" or "competition" as ultimate proof for "the EU is neolib. to the core and does not allow for any other approach" - which the article did, and which is simply wrong. Because what is often called the "European (social) model" is basically a combination of a regulated market economy plus social safety net ensured by social spending from the state.

This is obviously not identical for each country, and in recent yrs. has come under stress in various parts of Europe due to economic troubles, but that the EU is there to destroy it sounds frankly quite absurd to me.

[Bereta_Eder]

Even if we agree that there is some leeway on the way the EU works vis a vis state aid (and there is little leeway) there is another grievance.

The the commission is so hidden behind byzantine like regulations (very complicated low upon law) and this coupled with various ad hoc decision making mechanicsms that are circumventing even whatever limited democratic aaccountability there is, produce results that favour the "strong" countries vis a vis the weak ones.

For example, closing down national industries for the benefit of some others, purposefully not because one was better and the other worse.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Greeks will never leave because they pay in not pay out.

[Bereta_Eder]

No we won't.

First, half the country doesn't want to, second the deal was reached and was deemed the best we could get (or a rotten one if you're the other side)

After the brexit almost all say we did the right choice

[Bereta_Eder]

But I'll tell you something my good man.

Power corrupts. Now some ancestor said that but it's very very true.
Make of that what you will

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm not saying that for germany they're doing their thing.

I'm talking about here.

I have an aversion to power display or haughtiness.

Maybe life/whatever gave me the chance to witness this thing from up close, maybe sometime partake.

But it always felt to me that power should be accompagnied with humblesness, with bowed heads.

I mean, of course everyone has his side and they are right to defend it, in a civilized, democratic way, all the way to the end.

But whoever finds him/herself in positions of power should be humble

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Then it's good that I described it as a problem, not a method to democratize

Thing is that stuff like his:



...while maybe not a loss of souvereignty in the classic sense it means certainly a rebalance of influence in favor of the EU, away from the national level. And the problem is that those nation states would have to agree with it, which is in no way certain. An important part of the Brexit debate was the resistance vs. the idea of an "ever closer union" with Brussels having more to say.

This might be less obvious on the continent, but the sentiment certainly is there in various countries/certain parts of the population. Right now you have both ideas of "more Europe" as well as "less Europe" floating around for future approaches to the EU, without much detail as to what that would mean exactly, which makes it hard to judge for now.





I don't have any prob with stuff like "the EU has taken/still takes a neolib. stance in field XY - I'm against it." I do have a prob with taking any kind of reference to "market" or "competition" as ultimate proof for "the EU is neolib. to the core and does not allow for any other approach" - which the article did, and which is simply wrong. Because what is often called the "European (social) model" is basically a combination of a regulated market economy plus social safety net ensured by social spending from the state.

This is obviously not identical for each country, and in recent yrs. has come under stress in various parts of Europe due to economic troubles, but that the EU is there to destroy it sounds frankly quite absurd to me.

No, you do not have to give more power to EU in order to move the powers already within it's realm to an elected body, just move it away from EU bodies that are not elected into the Euro parliament, ie the elected body where voters have a say.Surely this would have to be discussed, but it is not on anyone's agenda as it would be the end of their political life.

For the other topic "EU trying to destroy the social model" - take Greece - it may be extreme, but it shows what the institution is about. In this case it is obvious, it is one of the central aspects of "restoring competitiveness" that EU targeted. This is just the most visible one.

Another example are current French labour reforms which are basically driven from the EU, with expected future consequences.

or would you rather have Spanish labour reforms of 2012 - this time from and "official" review.

You can see current results:

The reform has not contributed much to the creation of employment. Despite a clear improvement, especially during the past year, the unemployment rate was still 22.4% in the second quarter of 2015 compared with 24.8% in the third quarter of 2012 when the reform came into force. Most of the sources consulted agree that the reform has not succeeded in diminishing the duality in the labour market (permanent versus temporary employees) or reducing employment precariousness (the proportion of temporary employees has remained stable since 2012). On the contrary, working conditions have tended to deteriorate (in terms of salary or working time), particularly for those workers who have had to change jobs (often after a period of unemployment). In that sense, there is an increase in salary inequality.

Saying that EU is not out to significantly weaken, if not outright destroy (ala US) the old European social model, is just not being informed well enough. (certainly not in popular media's best interests though, so not surprising really)

Here is a bit more detail for the rest of the EU. (by a German no less)

edit: just to add Portugal, results (or the lack thereof) you can check, as I cannot be bothered at this time, but it is pretty clear that this did not bring Portugal much, if anything, other than the proof of what EU is about with regards to "social model".

[Bereta_Eder]

Well despite the "attrocious" model imposed on Greece we are still nowhere near the poorest states of the EU

I wouldn't want to make a competition of "misery" and I'm positive that was the result of the left wing coming to power.

Also one has to note that the level of "convergence" meaning the cohesion policy of the EU has also been huge over the last 20 years. That's also a reality.
Greece had consistently growth rates of 5% and 6%, the highest in the EU for years on end in the '90s

Having said that I'll agree that things went horribly wrong there after.

At the end of the day is wether democracies can accomodate themslelves in the same model. For how long, until it breaks etc