Slightly interesting little bit

So, I was in Prague a few weeks ago, the only genuine outer and true eurosceptic at all at a political meeting/gabfest. Was introduced to a Czech MP who asked that we stay. Well, you know, used to work for Farage, all that. Yes, so I understand your point, but won’t you think of us?

It’s hard enough trying to be a free market liberal, an anti-technocrat, with the British in. Think how much worse it will be with you out.

Well, umm, maybe you shouldn’t be in either then?

Yes, it could come to that…..

31 thoughts on “Slightly interesting little bit”

  1. http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-02-25/business-news/What-can-Brexit-mean-for-Malta-6736153912

    There’s a lot of concern here, because we’ve adopted the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’ of having pro-business taxation policies – and the UK was the biggest partner in telling the rest of Europe to go fuck itself with the likes of proposed harmonisation of corporate tax (and the FTT etc).

    The hope now is that the EU becomes a bit more self aware and pulls backs – and we can take advantage of the UK’s potential lack of access to the market – a lot of companies will need an EU base, and the likes of Malta or Ireland will become a lot more attractive because of their taxation policies and English speaking population.

  2. The Inimitable Steve

    The hope now is that the EU becomes a bit more self aware and pulls backs

    Good luck with that!

  3. BiM: The best thing that could happen is that lots of other countries get stuck into it and force change on the Islamtown Gang. By it very nature no such organisation can endure because statism/socialism will bring it down eventually–but life in Europe could be greatly improved while awaiting the end of the EU by breaking down a large measure of its centralised arrogance and dictat.

    However–as Steve says–good luck with that. They will likely redouble their efforts to become a dictatorship.

  4. Been talking to a French guy here. He’s pissed off with Brexit and complaining that the EU is too economically liberal. How’s that for a lack of awareness?

  5. Dongguan John,

    After sitting on the fence for a while, my reason for leaving was talking to my neighbours, a pair of right watermelons, and realising that all they wanted to do was to have a way to overrule democracy. And I read up on a load of serious people on Brexit and it all became very clear.

    It’s why all these small businessmen nearly all want out. Every single one I know wants out. It’s only banks and car makers who have all sorts of protectionism that wanted in.

    I was very nervous when I saw the pound collapse yesterday that I’d done the wrong thing. Now, I think I was absolutely right. Look at all the lies like Obama telling us we could fuck off if we voted out, and that cunt now saying that the Special Relationship was still strong.

    And frankly, the fucking Remainers, what an absolute fucking shower of whining losers. 700,000 people want a do-over. They’re complaining that it should take account of them, as it was so close, like they’d have done the same. I’d frankly rather be associated with the fucking racists than them.

  6. “Seven states are in the queue to join the EU under a new wave of enlargement, that will not take place before 2019: Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, Turkey and Macedonia. Membership could take years for some, as they are gripped by corruption, cronyism and sky-high unemployment, according to the EU’s own assessment reports”

    The EU assesses others as :” gripped by corruption, cronyism and sky-high unemployment”

    Lacking in self-awareness somewhat.

  7. Well BM, complaining about the EU being too liberal and complaining that the most liberal country has just decided to leave seems to show a particular lack of awareness to me. If I’m missing something please feel free to let me know.

  8. So if Brexit causes Czechix is that Czechmate for the EU?

    They should have given us a better deal. Serves them right.

  9. DJ the lack of awareness from the British (right-wing) maybe comes in how ‘liberal’ the EU really is/was. I thought some of the most ideologically consistent arguments for Brexit actually came from the left – they were absolutely correct in stating that the EU was making life for corporations easier… the right got all hung up over ‘freedom’ from regulations and standardisations which were actually intended to allow EU companies to enjoy the same type of ‘one rule for everyone’ regulatory burdens that companies in the USA enjoy with their huge domestic market.

  10. The Inimitable Steve

    Bloke in Malta – pish.

    The EU, with its endless gushing river of new regulatory bullshit and environmental bumpickery, is a nightmare for most businesses – that is, small and medium sized businesses.

    Big multinationals love it, of course. It’s their sort of corporatist trough.

  11. They made life easier for their big business buddies by legislation to cause max trouble for small companies. That way much harder for small firms to become big enough to threaten the business of , let alone supplant, the large friends of EU corporate socialism.

    “standardisations which were actually intended to allow EU companies to enjoy the same type of ‘one rule for everyone’ regulatory burdens that companies in the USA enjoy with their huge domestic market.”

    Odd then that European companies have been amongst the largest and most successful in the world long before that little Nazi-inspiring creep Jean Monnet was a gleam in his Daddy’s eye.

    As Jack Nicholson put it in the original Batman: “We didn’t ask”.

  12. I go into the shop here and see chicken breast from Romania and steak from Ireland. I’m a bit weary about trusting the chicken breast from Romania, probably because of prejudices, but I’d be a hell of a lot less trusting if there wasn’t EU rules on that chicken breast.

    Trying to create a single market where people can trust the products of everywhere, and the small chicken farmer from Romania doesn’t have 28 different regulatory standards to raise his chickens to, was always going to be tough going.

  13. “Trying to create a single market where people can trust the products of everywhere, and the small chicken farmer from Romania doesn’t have 28 different regulatory standards to raise his chickens to, was always going to be tough going.”

    Your chicken won’t have come from a small chicken farmer in Romania, thats the very point. It will have come from a chicken farm in Romania set up by a big multinational food conglomerate, because its the one who can afford to spend the $$$ required to meet the regulatory standards, and it can pay pennies to poor Romanians to work on the farm and in the slaughter house and packing plant. The small chicken farmer can’t afford to comply with the rules so loses out, even his local customers will end up buying their chicken from the multinational. He’ll probably end up working in their plant, rather than running his own business.

    And the small chicken farmer in France and Britain and Germany loses out too, because they not only have to comply with all the regulations but also have higher costs (being in a higher cost countries), so slowly go bust too, and all that happens is that the multinational conglomerate puts its competitors out of business, pays peanuts wages to poor people in poor countries and makes a killing.

    The EU is corporate welfare writ large, at the expense of ordinary people running businesses in their native countries.

  14. Jim, similar arguments were used by the left on why big corporations like GAP shouldn’t have been setting up shop in China. We were exploiting them, blah blah. 650m people out of poverty later the Chinese are buying up half the developed world.

  15. Chinese prosperity wasn’t the result of multinationals. Multis have improved the wealth and lifestyles of some of the former victims of Chinese socialism, as the hypothetical multi-national chicken farm might have done for Romanians in the example. Better than the state socialist extreme poverty of Ceauşescu’s years.

    Low wages are better than none and low wages by our standards might be ok by local ones. Such wages might have provided a bit of capital for enterprises that the Chinese started themselves.

    Those are the source of China’s prosperity.

    Such that we now have Chinese corporations moving into the Int’l market in a big way, such corps having grown from small acorns.

    Exactly the process the EU exists to stop. Little businesses becoming big ones. Of course a few small businesses can beat the odds and become big–but there will never be an economic boom and ferment of new industries in areas under EU control as their big business donors and pals might be in competitive trouble if there was.

    Stagnation is the only future for the EU–unless it ceases to be the EU in more than name only.

  16. Jim,

    Brilliantly articulated – I’m going to refer / copy that example next time it (inevitably) comes up in discussion.

  17. “similar arguments were used by the left on why big corporations like GAP shouldn’t have been setting up shop in China”

    Its not the outsourcing thats the problem, its the regulations that prevent the small producer competing with the multinational, whether the small producer is in a poor country or a rich one. You said that EU regulation was good, because it allowed the small Romanian chicken farmer to sell anywhere in Europe, whereas in fact the regulation puts him out of business (because regulations have fixed costs – if you produce 10 chickens a week you’re going to struggle to pay the cost of them, if you produce 10,000 the regulatory cost will be fractions of pence per bird).

    So the regulation favours large producers over small, and creates increasing concentration into larger and larger conglomerates. And people wonder why their High streets are all the same chains of shops and fast food outlets, and ask ‘Where are the quirky little independent shops?’ Answer – regulated out of business by people like you. Thats why big business loves the EU, it shuts off the competition from below.

  18. But can we trust unregulated chicken breast from Romania?

    You don’t need to fight the ‘hands off works best’ arguments with me, I’m a fully read up member of the Milton Friedman fan club. I’ve just conceded ground, in that if there has be regulation of some sort, then it’s good that there is only one regulation of a certain sort, across a big a market as possible. It’s also why I spent last night arguing with a bunch of shitheads (who can’t see how much they profit from the existing system) that TTIP was a good thing.

  19. But can we trust unregulated chicken breast from Romania?

    Trust whatever you want to trust.

    And after the first outbreak of the trots that is traced back to a shipment of dodgy Romanian chicken, do you think there would be any being imported to sell to you?

  20. if there has be regulation of some sort

    But we don’t always need “global” standards.

    The Rumanian chicken farmer can sell chicken breast to his village quite happily without any global standard. If they don’t trust his chicken, they won’t buy it from him.

    Otherwise aren’t we simply in effect “ruling against” any sort of localism.

  21. A tragedy of the commons situation in regards to the free market and chicken breasts could allow one Romanian chicken farmer to fuck the rest by cutting corners. It will almost certainly happen. We don’t always have laws and regulations for the 99%, they are there for the outliers.

  22. Regulation is a classic case of being seen to be doing something–even if that something is massively harmful.

    A rogue chickenman can cause problems for a while. But not cause the end of the world. BSE didn’t finish British beef and that happened despite a shitload of regs already making a pest of themselves.

    Of course that just meant more regs.

  23. BiM

    It always happens – cutting corners and crooks that is.

    But we over react – we already have far too much regulation as it is.

    If we are stupid enough – and the evidence increasingly suggests we are – to implement regulation for every single instance or occasion that someone could take advantage of a situation, then liberty is dead.

    In that it becomes impossible to do anything without some form of state licence. Hence, it becomes impossible to work / survive without expression permission / approval from the state.

    Is that the kind of “freedom” we aspire to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *