Hacker News Reader

Comment by matthewmacleod | Hacker News Reader

Little to celebrate here. The main outcome is that it’s now going to be much more of a pain in the arse to perform lots of basic functions that we took for granted.

There is now a bunch more red tape involved involved in buying or selling goods or services to other European counties. It’s harder and more expensive to move for work or education, both to and from the UK. The UK now has a customs border inside it’s own territory (which is fairly mad in itself). We end up trapped in the wake of the EU with far less influence on what that environment looks like.

It’s not the end of the world, but it’s hard to find many positive opportunities that arise from it.

View on HN

Wouldn't it be better to replace the EU with an expansive multilateral free trade treaty that encompasses the same states? Why do we need an additional layer of government?

Hard to answer that without defining what “better” means. It’s not clear what difference you would imagine between “an expansive multilateral free trade treaty” and the EU as it stands.

The European single market is essentially the largest international free trade agreement, going far further and deeper than any other by eliminating as many barriers to both trade and individual freedom between states. In order to support that and provide a level playing field, there needs to be common set of rules on things like regulation, worker’s rights, state funding of industry and so on. And in order to administer those, you need a level of bureaucracy. Quite quickly, you’ll find you’ve recreated the EU.

It’s totally reasonable to argue for the EU to take a particular direction - like closer integration, or more distant cooperation, or less bureaucracy or whatever. But the arguments in the Brexit case in particular often seem to fall apart on interrogation of the details.

EU's stated objectives go far beyond just facilitating free trade, with most of their budget allocated to unrelated projects and goals. To the extent that the EU does facilitate free trade, which is indeed one of its goals, I have no objection, but I believe we can do away with a huge amount of big government/globalist excess and just go for an explicit multilateral FTA with as little bureaucratic overhead as necessary to enact such a treaty. That would look distinctly different to the extant EU.

This sort of thing was the kind of statement we heard pretty frequently over the course of the Brexit process, but it’s really horribly nonspecific - “big government excess”, “bureaucratic overhead” etc.

The total EU budget is about 2% of the total public spending of the member states. That’s a chunk of change at at international level, but is relatively lightweight as a layer of government. Much of its spending is investment into shared projects that are intended to encourage development, trade and collaboration between member states.

What are the specific EU programmes or endeavours that represent “globalist excess” and should be cut? Do those changes really fundamentally affect the structure of the EU?

> What are the specific EU programmes or endeavours that represent “globalist excess” and should be cut?

I'm pro-EU, but I'd say the Euro is questionable, at least in hindsight. However the UK opted out of it (and Schengen), which makes this a non-argument for Brexit.

One thing the UK could have done but never did, was to require EU citizens to move out if they were jobless for 3 months. Given this, it's mind-boggling that part of the reason some voted for Brexit was to get foreigners out. One can say the UK purposefully didn't opt for less globalism in this case.

Another similar example is the "red-colored passports": a minor issue that got blown out of proportion, but the UK could have had them without leaving the EU.

Yes but now the politicians can't hide behind the idea that "we can't do that because we're in the EU" - even as you said they could. One big advantage for me with leaving is that British politicians can be brought to account. They will have no excuses.

Investment into renewables, as one example among others. Not that such investment shouldn't take place, but it has nothing to do with free trade, and I would much prefer a large carbon tax with minimal bureaucratic overhead than the centralized EU as-is allocating capital to ventures that the bureaucrats have decided are worthwhile. It's the globalist, big government and centrally planned solution to climate change.

Also two percent is a stupefyingly large amount if it were simply about effectively administering a FTA (and it isn't as per the above). NAFTA on the other hand requires roughly 0 percent, which is markedly better. Given the precedent of low overhead FTAs, I don't accept the premise of the EU.

Investment into renewables, as one example among others.

You could make a reasonable argument that the EU should generally refrain from funding infrastructure and other development projects, and that this is a power best reserved for member states.

But don’t sell it short; those programs are generally intended to provide long-term support for the stability of the single market by developing international cooperation and helping the least developed regions and countries catch up. It’s more intertwined with supporting free trade that it may initially seem.

NAFTA on the other hand requires roughly 0 percent, which is markedly better.

NAFTA (or USMCA now) is not really comparable to the European single market even from a free trade perspective. The latter eliminates barriers to the extent that trading with other member states is like trading between different US states. I could load a van up with products, drive them to another EU country, and deliver them to a customer - with no need for customs forms, tariffs, inspections, bureaucracy or anything else of the sort. It’s hard to overstate how much easier this makes trade.

The cost is that removing barriers means greater harmonisation between member states is required on many levels, and the purpose of the EU is to provide the means for that harmonisation.

Again, it’s fine to feel that a better approach is possible. But I think it’s also important to be honest about what the trade offs really are. Neglecting to do that is what led to Brexit.

> The total EU budget is about 2% of the total public spending of the member states. That’s a chunk of change at at international level, but is relatively lightweight as a layer of government.

this argument is constantly stated and it's still as bogus as ever

the vast majority cost of implementing powers delegated to the EU is borne by national budgets

once correctly attributed: the "lightweight" label becomes somewhat of a joke

I think you’d need to make a much more detailed analysis to come to that conclusion.

You’re right that implementation of regulation is funded domestically. But it would be incorrect to attribute all of the spending to “the EU”, given that much of it takes the place of whatever alternative domestic regulation and implementation would be required in the same area.

Depends how expansive you want it. At a certain point, to ease trade, you need common standards and rules and an enforcement mechanism for both, and, oops, suddenly you’ve got a government. That’s essentially how the EU came about in the first place.

Without a layer of government, the free trade agreement can’t adapt itself to a changing world. One of the bigger criticisms of the EU is that it adapts too slowly, so this would definitely be the opposite of an improvement.

Trade is not and was never was the primary purpose, either for the EEC or the EU. This was the lie (officially documented) that was sold to the UK population on the first referendum, in 1975.

> Wouldn't it be better to replace the EU with an expansive multilateral free trade treaty that encompasses the same states? Why do we need an additional layer of government?

I don't know much about it, but I suppose if you want a free trade without a race to the bottom or a "giant sucking sound," you'd need something like a government to set standards across the area.

Also, it seems like there's some obvious benefits to a currency union (drawbacks too), and if you want to have that, then you need some kind of body to manage it.

The world is becoming a smaller place with bigger fish every year. Without the EU powers like china and russia would have it even easier to dominate smaller european nations politics.

Just being able to deflect other parties to negiotiate with the EU instead of national goverments can be a help: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-e...

A tighter foreign and military policy integration could also enable more independence from the US but most EU countries prefer to reap the dividends of the waning pax americana than to spend necessary ressources on defense.

Interesting multipolar times are ahead where standing alone might not be the best choice.

Wouldn't it be better to do that to the US also?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com