Does the taxation of robotics make any sense

[Zero999]

No, removing VAT from tampons would not be a subsidy. It's a tax, which is totally different. What products the UK decides to tax or not, does not affect trade with the EU and therefore is none of their business. The EU's VAT regulations is something that needs to change. They're stupid. Each state sets their own level of VAT, but the EU still limits what it can be applied to.

Again, the UK voted in favor of this so I just cannot see how the UK can complain about something the UK voted for.

But the public did not vote for this, when the originally voted to join. Fine you correctly state that the UK's elected government allowed this to happen, as they've been a EU member when the regulations were introduced, but this is not the same thing. The EU adds another layer of separation between the voters and rule makers.

The biggest problem with the EU is feature creep, which some people in the UK have found increasing intrusive. I agree being a member brings more benefits, than it does harm, but that doesn't change how some people feel.

I have been very much an anglophile all my life and I admire that the British have what is objectively an outdated system of government but they make it work whereas other countries might have wonderful constitutions and laws on paper but the people cannot make them work effectively.

In my view what is happening in the UK with Brexit is out of character for the UK. The British were always very intelligent in their dealings with other countries and with their colonies and this Brexit mess is totally out of character. It is something I might expect from the French or other southern country but not from the Brits.

I've seen this coming for a long time, long before the referendum. Lots of people in the EU seem to be shocked at the UK deciding to leave, but it's not new.

Were it me, I would leave on the 12th of April with no deal. 

Well, that's another point of view but I think it misses a lot. It is like saying to someone who has blisters in a foot to just "shoot your foot off and be done with it". Yes, the problem with the blisters will be gone but suddenly you've got a bigger problem.

Everybody has said a hard border in Northern Ireland is a no-no so that rules out a no deal Brexit. There are several hundred thousand Britishers living in Spain. Who is going to be the one to tell them they must pack up and leave overnight? How is the UK going to manage the chaos and shortages? Suddenly UK trucks would not be allowed on EU roads without special permits. The UK is not prepared for a no deal Brexit. It would become the North Korea of Europe.

I agree that the UK government has messed up here, but the EU isn't prepared for a no-deal either. I think even if there is no deal, the EU will ensure there's no hard border with Ireland, for their sake, not the UK's of course and the same goes for many other things. I'm not saying everything will be fine, just that it might not be as bad as some say.

As far as non-UK, former EU citizens' status: I thought that had been already agreed, irrespective of whether there's a deal or not. Anyone from the EU, currently living in the UK can apply to stay and will be accepted, as long as they're not a criminal.

[SilverSolder]

A lot of it is down to the fact that the UK is very different, both socially and politically to most other European countries.

Having worked in several European countries, I believe this view is somewhat overdone.   Of course each European country is different, and each has a different national character and language,  but we generally do more things in common than different, when you look under the flags.

Too many British people genuinely feel that (1) their own government is incompetent, and (2) the EU is an international plot against their country. This allows them an intellectual "out" - they wash their hands of both of them and say "Nothing to do with me, mate!" while problems remain unfixed in both spheres, and good things are ignored.

[soldar]

But the public did not vote for this, when the originally voted to join. Fine you correctly state that the UK's elected government allowed this to happen, as they've been a EU member when the regulations were introduced, but this is not the same thing. The EU adds another layer of separation between the voters and rule makers.

The representatives the people of the UK chose to represent them in the EU voted for something and they got what they voted for. And this proves all that is wrong with the EU? I am afraid I do not quite follow you here.

Again, I think so much nationalism growing, not only in the UK but around the world, is based much more on propaganda and gut feelings than on any objective problems created by international cooperation.

To me nationalism is poison which only leads to bad things.

I am reminded of the story where an optimist and a pessimist are discussing what is going on and the optimist says: "If things continue to deteriorate like this we will end up eating shit", to which the pessimist replies: "Do you think there will be enough shit to go around?"

If a democratically elected body failing to make everybody happy is a reason to dissolve it then the UK should dissolve Parliament and Government and Monarchy, call for a constitutional convention and institute a republican government.

Nations who defensively retreat from engagement in the world stage are nations who soon become irrelevant while nations that bravely go out and face the future and are not afraid of change, of progress, be it trade, industrialization, robots, whatever, are nations that become world leaders. 

https://twitter.com/Scotland/status/1111562008065904640

[Zero999]

But the public did not vote for this, when the originally voted to join. Fine you correctly state that the UK's elected government allowed this to happen, as they've been a EU member when the regulations were introduced, but this is not the same thing. The EU adds another layer of separation between the voters and rule makers.

The representatives the people of the UK chose to represent them in the EU voted for something and they got what they voted for. And this proves all that is wrong with the EU? I am afraid I do not quite follow you here.

If a group of people in the UK feel strongly about a certain issue, they can lobby their local member of parliament and hopefully stand a chance of getting it changed. If it can't be changed, because it violates an EU law, then getting it through is much more difficult. They have to get the UK representatives, in the EU parliament to back them and then all the other states have to agree. In many cases it's just too difficult, so it doesn't change.

I'm in favour of remaining in the EU, but I think it needs to be scaled back somewhat (fewer laws, not more and a looser, not closer union) although I accept that won't happen. The main reason why I voted to remain is because the EU is heading towards becoming the United States of Europe (USE) and few people want that and we need to be in it, to stop it from going any further. If we leave, it will be in name only, the government won't allow us to leave the customs union and single market with good reason, which means we'll be tied into becoming an associate member of the USE, with no deciding vote on anything.

A lot of it is down to the fact that the UK is very different, both socially and politically to most other European countries.

Having worked in several European countries, I believe this view is somewhat overdone.   Of course each European country is different, and each has a different national character and language,  but we generally do more things in common than different, when you look under the flags.

Too many British people genuinely feel that (1) their own government is incompetent, and (2) the EU is an international plot against their country. This allows them an intellectual "out" - they wash their hands of both of them and say "Nothing to do with me, mate!" while problems remain unfixed in both spheres, and good things are ignored.

• Brexit has proven our own government is incompetent.
• Just read back through the last page of comments by those in other European countries and note some of the language used i.e. UK being in a barrel. Is it any surprise some people feel that way about Europe?

The UK should want to be in Europe for the benefits, not because it's scared of leaving. If the UK only remains in the EU due to fear, then is the EU really a union?

[rstofer]

Were it me, I would leave on the 12th of April with no deal. 

Well, that's another point of view but I think it misses a lot. It is like saying to someone who has blisters in a foot to just "shoot your foot off and be done with it". Yes, the problem with the blisters will be gone but suddenly you've got a bigger problem.

Everybody has said a hard border in Northern Ireland is a no-no so that rules out a no deal Brexit. There are several hundred thousand Britishers living in Spain. Who is going to be the one to tell them they must pack up and leave overnight? How is the UK going to manage the chaos and shortages? Suddenly UK trucks would not be allowed on EU roads without special permits. The UK is not prepared for a no deal Brexit. It would become the North Korea of Europe.

Yup, the fear mongering runs rampant!

Every technology based solution to the NI border has been rejected.  All the EU wants to discuss is forcing, at least, NI to remain in the Customs Union regardless of what happens to the rest of the UK.  In other words, a border down the Irish Sea.  Hopefully, not happening.  It's funny, other non-EU countries don't seem to have a problem with borders.

Make no mistake, the only reason for the NI issue is that the ROI is making a run at reuniting the island.  The taoiseach is punching way above his weight.  He's going to be in a world of hurt when the ROI can't use the land route through the UK to get to the rest of the EU.  Or the UK charges tariffs and exit duties on cargo passing through...  That would be my starting position.  After all, damage to highways is caused by trucks, not cars.  Outsiders should pay their fair share - plus everybody else's share.

Then there is Spain making a run at Gibraltar.  Again, they know it's not going to happen but they keep poking a stick in the process.  Do the Spanish really expect the UK to surrender Gibraltar just to have a better deal with the EU?  Not going to happen and everybody knows it.  A lot of Spanish folks are going to lose their jobs in Gibraltar when the border gets locked down.
 
No deal is the only way to avoid being trapped into some kind of Customs Union and "Free Movement" which is, of course, the entire reason for Brexit.  The people who live in the UK don't like some of the 'features' of the EU, most importantly "Freedom of Movement".

Limiting UK trucks would result with similar restrictions on EU trucks.  Who has the most to lose?  The EU enjoys a trade imbalance so it's pretty obvious the EU won't like the outcome.  But why not?  Go ahead and stop trade.  And what happens when China sides with the EU (not exclusively, of course) and the US sides with the UK (exclusively).  Trade wars can get ugly.  But the US has a stronger bond with the UK than it does with the rest of the EU.

I suppose you want to throw in 'landing rights'.  Well, don't forget about 'overflight' and the fact that the UK controls ALL northern routes for all airplanes, regardless of destination.  This is another all-lose battle.  But the EU wants to throw it out there anyway.  They know they will lose but they want to continue to issue threats.  Unfortunately, at some point people dig in their heels.

There are mini-deals, outside the withdrawal agreement that cover things like landing rights, overflight, citizen's rights (I'm not sure about medical) and other mutually destructive issues.  Whether these remain after no deal remains to be seen.

Yes, the EU can go full retard (they already have) and run relations into the ground (they already have).

There's no reason for any agreements in advance.  WTO rules will take care of trade, all countries have hired more inspectors so they should be good to go.  On the 13th of April people will see more clearly which issues need to be resolved in which order.  It will all work out in a couple of years.  But mostly, the UK won't be in an all-lose negotiating position.

Unfortunately, Theresa May wants to push her Chequers deal regardless of the damage it does to the UK.  For a long while I thought she had a handle on things.  Today I am convinced she is the worst negotiator, EVER!

Regardless of how Brexit works out, the relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU is destroyed, probably forever.  Any good will that existed prior to the referendum is gone and relations are at a historic low.  The staggering arrogance of the EU during these negotiations will eventually bite them in the ass.

Even if Brexit were reversed, the relationship will never be as cordial as it was prior to the referendum.

And Italy is right behind followed by Greece.  The dominoes are falling...

[Zero999]

Yes freedom of movement was a big factor in Brexit.

The trouble is, although the US would love it, not everyone here would be happy with a trade deal with the US and it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. People here wouldn't accept many US food regulations. Take chlorine washed meat for example. The EU hygiene laws prevent shit from getting on the meat during slaughter and butchery. It's all carried out as cleanly as possible. In the US a less clean approach is allowed, as long as it's cleaned afterwards.

[Rick Law]

There are many forms of machines making our lives better.  The discussion thus far has been conflating these different forms.  I think it may be helpful to discuss each form by itself.

But first, let me bring this point in:

Not too far from where I live, there is a community-college-size facility for the mentally retarded.  This charity-run facility houses them, care for them, and it also contracted local businesses to employ them.  They do really simple jobs - to the extend of their mental ability.  In many cases, when you include logistics of moving the work there and moving the product back, their productivity is negative - they produce less than the cost of production.  BUT, such work give the workers a sense of dignity of having a job and earning an income.

I am almost 100% sure that no one in this forum will want to eliminate this type of negative-productivity outfits.

Back to my first paragraph on many ways machines making our lives better.

The different levels or types of automation matter.  Not being a robotics guy, this is the way I divide them:
 
- At the simplest is mechanization such as farm tractors for farming or steam-engines for a boat.  At the mechanization level, a human operator or operators are deciding and controlling at every point in time.  It may have simple "decision power" that is based on objective targets.  A steam-engine's governor is an example of such "decision power."  The spinning mechanism uses centripetal force of the balls at the ends of a spinning rod to pull the shut-off to prevent it from going too fast.  The target is the set-speed.  No reasoning but just "is the target reached?"

- At the next level is repetitive automation such as early (1980's) automotive manufacturing robots repeating the tasks on each car and with only very simple decision making power.  This is rather like the airport's automated train running the circle stopping at every terminal in the enclosed airport.

- At the 3rd level is AI - now machines are using reasoning powers, objective and subjective judgments to make decisions and execute without human intervention.  This would be like a fully automated self-driving car.  Single function (driving), and bolted to the car.

- At the 4th is AI+Robotics  with ability to execute and with mobility - not a bolted down machine anymore, and can be multi-function.  This is rather like the robots and automated machines depicted in the movie i.Robot.  Not just "Sonny" but the house wracking machines since it can wrack anything else.

I believe type 4 (AI+Robotics) is the one most "worrisome" and the one that should be discussed.  Simple mechanization or simple repetitive automation takes jobs too, but that is something one can overcome.  AI+Robotics is an automation that may exceed our ability to adapt.

I don't want to debate the exact IQ numbers, but I believe all of us here would agree that human beings have a spread of IQ and some tasks require very high IQ to do while some other tasks require little.  The types of tasks an individual with average IQ can do is more than the types of tasks an individual with an IQ one standard deviation below average can do.

As AI+Robotics improves, what it can do will exceed what a person with average IQ can do.  What then?   Would we accept half the population without employment?  People without a function and without the dignity of self-sufficiency would likely be a very unhappy population and perhaps a trouble-causing population.  As AI improves, it could get to a point only top 1% IQ can have a dignify life of being self-sufficient.  What then?


Right now, I think AI+Robotics can probably replace most with IQ less than say 3SD below average, perhaps 2SD below, perhaps even 1SD blow.  Can society exist with that many unhappy individuals?  Should we use drones to control such large and potentially disruptive individuals?

(edited for spelling and wording correction)

[apis]

What laws are enforced on the UK which people don't like? The tampon tax is a classic one. The UK government wants to remove VAT on sanitary product, yet the EU forbids it. This is a stupid law. The EU shouldn't have any right to interfere with what taxes our government imposes on what. It is an internal affair, nothing to do with the EU!

I'm cynical leaving will be as bad as you say, in the long run. Lots of other countries are not in the EU and do quite well: Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. I agree it will be a massive upheaval. It will cause lots of problems and the UK will be worse off, but doubt it will really be that bad. Also note that aforementioined countries have trade deals with the EU, which don't involve being fully signed up to the single market. The UK doesn't have to accept the US food standards if it doesn't want to, but it would have to accept the increase in food prices.

Before you joined the EU, could Scotland have decided to subsidise sanitary products on their own, or would that have to be decided in Westminster?

It is not an internal affair since you are part of the EU's internal market. A country can't decide to subsidise certain products on their own since it will affect the entire market. You would have to make such changes on the EU level (which would be quite possible if you get majority support in the EU).

The alternative you want instead, free trade agreements, are quite different. Then you make a bilateral agreement with e.g. the US on what taxes should apply, and once that agreement has been signed it will be nigh impossible to change. In that case you would have to renegotiate the deals every time you want to subsidise something (e.g. sanitary products) and who do you think will come out on top in deals between the UK and the US/Russia/EU/China? If you decide to subsidise it anyway your country will be sued in a investment court system (something the UK have been an enthusiastic proponent of btw). Who, on average, do you think will win those lawsuits?

No, removing VAT from tampons would not be a subsidy. It's a tax, which is totally different. What products the UK decides to tax or not, does not affect trade with the EU and therefore is none of their business. The EU's VAT regulations is something that needs to change. They're stupid. Each state sets their own level of VAT, but the EU still limits what it can be applied to.

Even if it was a subsidy, it would be on goods traded internally and apply equally to both imports, as well as UK made ones and doesn't affect the EU. Suppose the UK government decide to subsidise stationary: pencils, paper, etc, sold in UK shops and supermarkets, not imported or exported. They should be allowed to do so, as long as it applies equally, to all stationary.

(...)

Scotland doesn't have any say what they tax, because they are not a separate state, but part of the UK and have voted to remain so, the same as the local government in the town I live in can't set VAT and subsidies.

A tax break is a form of subsidy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy).

Scotland couldn't decide to reduce taxes on a specific item themselves because they were part of the same internal market as England, so those issues had to be decided together with England. In exactly the same way, since the UK joined the EU it choose to became part of the EU's internal market (or common market if you will), and so if you want to subsidise certain products it would have to be decided on the EU level together with the other member states that you share the market with.

It might be as you say, that reducing vat on sanitary products wouldn't affect the market in an unfair way, but it would still have to be managed at the EU level since the UK are part of the EU's internal market.

I'm not sure if you saw it, I edited it in later, but this page from the BBC discuss the issue:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36430504

Your statements about the US, Russia and China are incorrect. They have no control of what taxes and subsidies any foreign power applies to their products. For example, Australia has a trade deal with China, yet China don't tell them what they can and cannot tax or subsidise.

You forgot the EU in your list and I did not say the countries would sue you. Free trade agreements works like this: you make a deal with another country outlining which taxes, environmental and labour rules should apply (etc, all regulations that affect the market). After you have made that deal you can't easily change any regulations without renegotiating the deal (which of course will be a serious obstacle to any new reforms). If you do change regulations anyway you will be sued, not by the other state, but by the corporations that feel they are being adversely affected by the new regulation.

Australia, for example, was sued not by the US but by Philip Morris for putting health warnings on cigarette packages.

The US and Canada also has such a free trade deal (NAFTA):

S.D. Myers v. Canada
Between 1995 and 1997 the Canadian government banned the export of toxic PCB waste, in order to comply with its obligations under the Basel Convention, of which the United States is not a party. Waste treatment company S.D. Myers then sued the Canadian government under NAFTA Chapter 11 for $20 million in damages. The claim was upheld by a NAFTA Tribunal in 2000.[40][41]

Ethyl Corporation v. Canada
In April 1997 the Canadian parliament banned the import and transport of MMT, a gasoline additive, over concerns that it poses a significant public health risk. Ethyl Corporation, the additive's manufacturer, sued the Canadian Government under NAFTA Chapter 11 for $251 million, to cover losses resulting from the "expropriation" of both its MMT production plant and its "good reputation".[43]
A similar challenge was launched by three Canadian provinces, under the Agreement on Internal Trade, and was upheld by a Canadian dispute settlement panel.[44] Consequently, the Canadian government repealed the ban and paid Ethyl Corporation $15 million as compensation.[45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

You might want to take a careful look at the Wikipedia article on Investor-state dispute settlement since it will be very important to your country in the future.

[SilverSolder]

• Brexit has proven our own government is incompetent.
• Just read back through the last page of comments by those in other European countries and note some of the language used i.e. UK being in a barrel. Is it any surprise some people feel that way about Europe?

It is hard for the government to "do the right thing" when the country is evenly split, with passionate voices on both sides that have valid points.  The incompetence, if any, probably lies in getting into this mess in the first place, with no plan.

Some of the brexiter politicians have made unfortunate statements about the EU which at least some people in other countries are bound to take personally.  Even if you disagree with the treaties your country has signed and lived with for 45 years, is there any reason for senior politicians to resort to insulting other people? (Boris, we're thinking of you.)  British people have a reputation for being civil and polite, so people don't know what to make of the vitriol.

The UK should want to be in Europe for the benefits, not because it's scared of leaving. If the UK only remains in the EU due to fear, then is the EU really a union?

I would think many Europeans have adopted an attitude similar to yours, i.e. that the EU is a "necessary evil" for a number of different reasons, trade being one of them, influence another ("ganging up" is the only way European countries are ever going to have a say vs. Trump or Xi).  As one Scandinavian chap told me after being introduced to the power of 4 Bitters, "all politicians are @rseholes, but we need to make sure at least some of the @rseholes in Brussels are OUR OWN!!" 

[SilverSolder]

There are many forms of machines making our lives better.

Ever since the first caveman picked up a club and found it a good tool for various jobs,  we have been going down the path to increasing technology.

At some point it will get so sophisticated that it will all be indistinguishable from magic (hat tip Arthur C. Clarke).

At that point, the concept of a "job" and "earning a living" will be very different from what they are today!

The challenge of living a happy and fulfilled life, whatever our current level of technology, has always been with us and is probably the one thing that won't become too much easier no matter what level of technology we achieve...

[rstofer]

Some of the brexiter politicians have made unfortunate statements about the EU which at least some people in other countries are bound to take personally.  Even if you disagree with the treaties your country has signed and lived with for 45 years, is there any reason for senior politicians to resort to insulting other people? (Boris, we're thinking of you.)  British people have a reputation for being civil and polite, so people don't know what to make of the vitriol.

And you consider Juncker, Tusk and Barnier as polite?  To be fair, Barnier isn't as bad as the other two.  What about Verhofstadt or the German Minister Michael Roth?  Macron?  About the only high level EU representative that hasn't trashed the UK is Merkel and she has her own problems.  Not least because she championed this Freedom of Movement deal.  What about Varadkar?

Then we have Spain and Pedro Sanchez.

As I posted earlier, it doesn't matter how Brexit works out, there is irreparable damage to the working relationships.  Nobody in the EU will ever trust the UK again and I suspect the UK feels the same.

The EU could have made this process clean and easy.  Instead they went out of their way to make it as difficult as possible and humiliating for the UK at every point along the way.

We'll just have to see how it works out.

[apis]

As I posted earlier, it doesn't matter how Brexit works out, there is irreparable damage to the working relationships.  Nobody in the EU will ever trust the UK again and I suspect the UK feels the same.

Divide and conquer. The enemies of the EU and the UK are no doubt celebrating right now.

The EU could have made this process clean and easy.  Instead they went out of their way to make it as difficult as possible and humiliating for the UK at every point along the way.

BS. The EU is bending over backwards to accommodate Theresa May. They are screwing the EU and they want EU to thank them for it? Leaving was never going to be pain free, especially when some people go out of their way trying to make us mistrust each other.

The EU's 'SECRET' Brexit Negotiation EXPOSED 🙄

[rstofer]

As I posted earlier, it doesn't matter how Brexit works out, there is irreparable damage to the working relationships.  Nobody in the EU will ever trust the UK again and I suspect the UK feels the same.

Divide and conquer. The enemies of the EU and the UK are no doubt celebrating right now.

The EU could have made this process clean and easy.  Instead they went out of their way to make it as difficult as possible and humiliating for the UK at every point along the way.

BS. The EU is bending over backwards to accommodate Theresa May. They are screwing the EU and they want EU to thank them for it? Leaving was never going to be pain free, especially when some people go out of their way trying to make us mistrust each other.

It's a mess, no doubt!  But has anybody in the EU given even an inch on the backstop once they realized is was a no-go?  What's the story with Spain and Gibraltar?  How about Galileo?  When are they going to move the ground stations?  The EU hasn't given anything at all, or at least that's the view from the UK (AFAICT).

I think you're right, there's a lot of mistrust and there simply didn't need to be any.  But all the EU wanted was $100B (of which they MIGHT get $39B).  That was the first topic on the agenda.  Trade isn't even on the agenda until after Brexit.  The EU wants the UK to pay vast sums without even a hint that there will be a trade deal at some long distance in the future.  I sure wouldn't sign up for that!  But the agenda was driven by the EU.  Their ball, their rules.  Ask them...

This whole thing should settle out to complete separation and WTO rules.  It's all very simple!  If other topics need refinement, deal with them after the exit.  Over time, trade agreements can be reached that will reduce the tariffs but, on day one, use the rules.  Lots of countries trade using WTO rules.

As to NI, leave it be.  Let it run as it runs today and see how it works out.  The idea that NI can be left in a customs arrangement is nonsense and it isn't going to happen.  Still, with technology and trusted traders, there is no reason for a hard border.  But, no, the ROI thinks they can make a run on NI.  Not going to happen!

This thing would be so much cleaner if the UK had just turned in their notice and walked away.  Kind of like leaving a job.  Turn in your notice, walk out the door.  Pretty darned simple!

In a way, it's kind of like Paul Simon's "Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover".  Just drop off the key, Lee!

[apis]

It's a mess, no doubt!  But has anybody in the EU given even an inch on the backstop once they realized is was a no-go?

The backstop has nothing to do with EU, it's the UK that is arguing about what to do internally.

The EU just wants to get it over with. In fact patience in the EU is running out, the UK will not be able to delay past may 22 since that means they would have to participate in elections to the EU parliament, and for obvious reasons many in the EU doesn't want a parliament full of brexiters. So unless the UK can make up their mind before that date it will likely be a no-deal Brexit.

[rstofer]

The UK should have been held to Mar 29.  If issues couldn't be resolved in 2 years, a couple of weeks or even a couple of  months aren't going to change things.

It will be interesting to see if the UK Supreme Court agrees that, by UK law, the UK left on the 29th of March.  Wouldn't that be a hoot!  I suppose there is some validity to the idea that Mar 29th was set by law and the law itself was never changed.

I clearly don't have any skin in the game but it has been an interesting couple of years.  Were I the EU, I wouldn't extend the date beyond April 12th.  This uncertainty has gone on long enough.  For both sides!  It's time to move on.

[soldar]

The EU could have made this process clean and easy.  Instead they went out of their way to make it as difficult as possible and humiliating for the UK at every point along the way.

It is not that you see things differently, is is that you are very much misinformed about reality and facts. You can have your own opinions and interpretations but you are not entitled to a different reality.

The problem is not that the EU will not give the UK something, the problem is that the UK does not know what they want. They say they want to be totally out of the EU but will not admit to having a border with the EU which is impossible.  Two words: Im-Possible!

The UK has three options: Hard Brexit, Mayś deal or remain (for now). Those are the three options and the UK rejects all three. This is not a problem with the EU, this is the UK (SPQUK) acting like a baby throwing a tantrum because it cannot get something which is impossible and the grown ups are acting calmly and trying to explain.

Watch the excellent videos posted by apis.

And you consider Juncker, Tusk and Barnier as polite?  To be fair, Barnier isn't as bad as the other two.  What about Verhofstadt or the German Minister Michael Roth?  Macron?  About the only high level EU representative that hasn't trashed the UK is Merkel and she has her own problems.  Not least because she championed this Freedom of Movement deal.  What about Varadkar?

Then we have Spain and Pedro Sanchez.

I dislike Pedro Sanchez with passion. Please give me some proof of anything rude he has said about the UK or any of it leaders. I would love to see it. Again, you are not entitled to make up your own reality unless you are making up stuff just for the sake of trolling.  Have a look at this video and then show me similar acts by EU politicians.

As I posted earlier, it doesn't matter how Brexit works out, there is irreparable damage to the working relationships.  Nobody in the EU will ever trust the UK again and I suspect the UK feels the same.

They said that about Germany around 1940. Time heals everything. Hopefully. Future UK generations will look back at their grandparents and ask "WTF were they thinking?"

[Siwastaja]

The entire idea of universal basic income is nonsense!  Why does the .gov want to steal from me to give to somebody not inclined to get a job?  Why would I want to pay for it?  It failed in Finland - research it!

Basic income was never tested in Finland, in any meaningful way. (To be fair, it's difficult to test without major changes). Our government indeed did a project which was called "basic income test", with the only intention to just show that it's been tested now and it doesn't work, and "STFU". Clearly they succeeded, even on the international level.

It may be hard to see there, but our society throws a hugely massive amount of taxpayer cash into "social welfare" - but that social welfare being targeted at ridiculously oversized number of public officers running all the bureaucracy, and companies near corrupted politicians providing "welfare services" - such as totally bullshit courses you need to attend to receive the compensation.

Meanwhile, almost everyone is eligible to obtain handful of different kinds of transfer payments, and a lot of time is spent on doing your paperwork right to get the right benefits; even for the so-called middle class! The catch here is that the total taxpayer money spent is multiple times the total transfer payments obtained by their receivers, since it costs a lot to run this multi-organization public system (hence, it's social welfare for the officers).

Another catch is, while most of the people are eligible to receive at least several types of social compensation, there are always small groups that "fall through" and remain completely without any social security whatsoever. For example, choosing entrepreneurship automatically shuts down any possibility to many forms of social security access. (This is what I decided to go with, and while being an entrepreneur might be considered normal anywhere else, here it's a massive "WOW! You are CRAZY! OMG, what do you do if you get sick!?!??! YOU'LL DIE!" element.)

Currently, many social benefits are highly discriminating, since someone gets 2000€/month, some other gets 500€/month, and someone gets nothing, for doing exactly the same: being unemployed and applying for the unemployment benefit. At the same time, the system is specifically designed to keep unemployed people unemployed, through various nasty mechanisms which are out-of-scope here. This is because unemployment keeps the money flowing to: 1) social security workers, 2) "welfare service companies" close-by to the government.

The average compensation is stunningly high; almost any form of universal basic income would automatically and with 100% certainty both save a huge amount of taxpayer money, and at the same time, provide way better social security for those most vulnerable, and, finally, increase the real employment ratio (i.e., people actually employed by either private sector or themselves as entrepreneurs). But, this is no good for those who decide - and those who benefit from the current system.

I understand very well that you are against legally stealing and then redistributing the money. But that's what happening in most societies, at some scale. The purpose of basic income should be to greatly reduce the amount of stealing happening, and make this small amount redistribute more fairly. It might not work well in countries that already have very low social security costs, but in high social security cost countries (Scandinavian especially), it would be the best thing since sliced bread.

No one has actually been able to calculate the total taxation level in Finland, since the tax system is so complicated and has hidden taxes left and right, but for a typical median middle class citizen, it's easily somewhere around 60-80%. Income tax alone is around 50% (compare this to yours!), and VAT is 24%. There are cases in entrepreneurship where you may end up with tax levels over 1000% (i.e., you pay taxes based on approximations of value of your work, not real income), which of course means you are going under very quickly.

A large part of this tax jackpot goes to support the system I described. The percentage that ends up to actually benefit a poorer fellow citizen, is totally minuscule. Welcome to Finland.

[soldar]

Manufacturing is on sunset, but it doesn't mean other industries won't rise. Robots can replace humans in manufacturing, and R&D to certain extent, but the technology is still far from being able to give the human-like care to other human beings.

No. Contrary to what many misinformed people believe, industrial output in the world, in America, in Europe (not to mention some other countries) has risen steadily over the years. The issue is that *productivity* has also risen and it takes now fewer workers to produce more value. And that, I hope we can all agree, is a good thing as it frees workers to do other jobs.

More cars are being made and sold than ever before. Better cars than we have ever seen before. How many man-hours did it take to make a 1950s car? How many man-hours does it take to make a car today? 

Just like America and other countries are producing more food than ever with fewer workers than ever, which, again, is a good thing. It is not that agriculture is disappearing, not at all; it is that it employs a diminishing percentage of the workforce. Same thing happens with Industry. As it becomes more efficient it will employ a lower percentage of the workforce.

Industry and manufacturing are here to stay and grow.  Machines, robots, automation, mean they can grow faster with lower amount of work invested.

[soldar]

This whole thing should settle out to complete separation and WTO rules.  It's all very simple! 

Why do you think the Parliament of the UK is rejecting such a simple and obvious solution? How would you explain it? Or could it be that they see something you might be missing?

As Mencken said

There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong.

[Zero999]

To be fair to the EU, I believe the UK did sign up to various agreements promising to pay x amount for so long and suddenly reneging on them is wrong, hence the reason for the divorce bill. On the other hand it works the other way: the EU has also promised money to the UK, although it was the UK's decision to leave.

Yes there's been vitriol on both sides. I don't think the UK is acting in a childish manner at all, no more so than the EU. I agree that some of our politicians are immature a-holes and the same goes for the EU. The problem is when people voted for Brexit, they didn't all vote for the same thing and the same is true for our politicians. The division has impeded the ability for the UK to negotiate properly with the EU. On the other hand, the EU is united. As I said before, the only solution would have been another referendum on the type of Brexit deal (i.e. whether it involves single market/customs union membership). Then we would stand more of a chance, but that would have been too sensible.

Lots of people don't understand the consequences of Brexit. Let's put it from a USA centric perspective. Suppose a state, say California wants to leave the USA, for whatever reason. Unless a trade deal is struck with the USA there will be tariffs, a hard border with the US, including customs checks. One couldn't simply travel to and fro without a visa. Imagine how disruptive that would be. Who do you think would be worse off: the remaining US or California? It may be the most wealthy single state, but alone it would still be smaller and poorer, than the US. I admit it's an exaggeration, as the UK isn't tied to the EU as strongly, but you get the idea.

[apis]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45712670

[soldar]

Yes there's been vitriol on both sides. I don't think the UK is acting in a childish manner at all, no more so than the EU. I agree that some of our politicians are immature a-holes and the same goes for the EU.

I will start off by saying I always appreciate your posts on any topic.

"Childish" is a loaded word which I do not think anyone has used here. But I think the UK as a whole (and I am not talking of any particular individual) has been and is now acting in an unpredictable, irrational, way and I think the same cannot be said of the EU which has had from the very beginning a very stable and clear policy.

The UK has a choice to make and it seems it is not willing to make it. The EU has accepted the "backstop" solution which is just a way of kicking the (insolvable) Irish problem down the road. The EU could have said "look, just make up your mind for fux sake!" but the EU accepted this silly time-delaying, face-saving solution and yet the UK can't even get behind that.

The UK is a mess. The Goverment disagrees with the Parliament and the Parliament disagrees with the people.  Nobody knows who is in charge, if anybody. The EU is talking with a goverment that has no authority or capacity to act or implement anything. The UK needs to get its act together. Not the EU who have had their act together since day one.

The EU negotiating with Theresa May is a waste of time if she has no authority to bind the UK to anything. The EU authorities do not have this problem because they have the authority to make deals on behalf of the EU.

This is like the Middle East problem. Anyone can have any ideas on what side is in the right and what side is in the wrong but much above that there is a bigger problem. If you sign a deal with Israel you know you are dealing with an entity who can keep and enforce whatever deal they agree to but if you sign a deal with the Palestinian Authority you are signing a deal with one guy because the rest of Palestinians will do what they wish.

The problem is when people voted for Brexit, they didn't all vote for the same thing and the same is true for our politicians. The division has impeded the ability for the UK to negotiate properly with the EU. On the other hand, the EU is united.

Yes, pretty much the way I see it.  Division is lethal to any country or enterprise.
United we stand, divided we fall.

I always liked a story by Rudyard Kipling called "Her Majesty's Servants".

In 1885 Kipling was covering a meeting between the Viceroy of India, representing Queen Victoria, and the Amir of Afghanistan. He wrote a story about the (talking) animals serving in the army and the story itself is just one more story about animals but it has a very memorable ending. The British/Indian army put on a huge show of military maneuvering which greatly  impresses one of the Afghans who had come in the Afghan Emir's retinue.

The rain began to fall again, and for a while it was too misty to see what the troops were doing. They had made a big half-circle across the plain, and were spreading out into a line. That line grew and grew and grew till it was three-quarters of a mile long from wing to wing—one solid wall of men, horses, and guns. Then it came on straight toward the Viceroy and the Amir, and as it got nearer the ground began to shake, like the deck of a steamer when the engines are going fast.

Unless you have been there you cannot imagine what a frightening effect this steady come-down of troops has on the spectators, even when they know it is only a review. I looked at the Amir. Up till then he had not shown the shadow of a sign of astonishment or anything else; but now his eyes began to get bigger and bigger, and he picked up the reins on his horse’s neck and looked behind him. For a minute it seemed as though he were going to draw his sword and slash his way out through the English men and women in the carriages at the back. Then the advance stopped dead, the ground stood still, the whole line saluted, and thirty bands began to play all together. That was the end of the review, and the regiments went off to their camps in the rain;

Then I heard an old grizzled, long-haired Central Asian chief, who had come down with the Amir, asking questions of a native officer.

‘Now,’ said he, ‘in what manner was this wonderful thing done?’

And the officer answered, ‘There was an order, and they obeyed.’

‘But are the beasts as wise as the men?’ said the chief.

‘They obey, as the men do. Mule, horse, elephant, or bullock, he obeys his driver, and the driver his sergeant, and the sergeant his lieutenant, and the lieutenant his captain, and the captain his major, and the major his colonel, and the colonel his brigadier commanding three regiments, and the brigadier his general, who obeys the Viceroy, who is the servant of the Empress. Thus it is done.’

‘Would it were so in Afghanistan!’ said the chief; ‘for there we obey only our own wills.’

‘And for that reason,’ said the native officer, twirling his moustache, ‘your Amir whom you do not obey must come here and take orders from our Viceroy.’

A weak and divided UK will be taking orders from countries with stronger economies.

[rstofer]

Lots of people don't understand the consequences of Brexit. Let's put it from a USA centric perspective. Suppose a state, say California wants to leave the USA, for whatever reason. Unless a trade deal is struck with the USA there will be tariffs, a hard boarder with the US, including customs checks. One couldn't simply travel to and fro without a visa. Imagine how disruptive that would be. Who do you think would be worse off: the remaining US or California? It may be the most wealthy single state, but alone it would still be smaller and poorer, than the US. I admit it's an exaggeration, as the UK isn't tied to the EU as strongly, but you get the idea.

Careful with that analogy, there are Agricultural Inspection Stations along the major highways entering California that can, and do, inspect truck shipments as well as passenger vehicles.  Arguably, they are looking for illegal fruits and vegetables but if they run across guns and drugs, well, the Highway Patrol is right there.  Make no mistake, we have border control.  No visas but definitely border control.

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/pe/ExteriorExclusion/borders.html

Americans can travel to the EU without a visa (limited to 90 days with a process change in the works), why wouldn't the Brits, a close neighbor, have the same privileges?

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/us-citizens/

BTW, it's not clear what 'proof' of financial resources will be acceptable.  It appears this is left to the discretion of the agent.

Sovereign countries do have the right to control their borders regardless of how badly we do it in the US.

Also, do be careful with the California secession thing.  There are a LOT of voters who want that very badly.  We would still be the 5th largest economy in the world, just ahead of the UK, and in total control of our destiny.  If it is ever put to a vote, it would probably lose due to San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego counties but it is very popular and tied into the idea of dividing up the state into 6 distinct political entities.  Whether they become 'states' is very much a question.  The 'State of Jefferson' is a search term.  Actually seceding is a very complicated political process.  It's as though joining the union was a one way function, not reversible.

Apparently the game in Parliament today is to keep voting until they wear the members down.  Sort of like the multiple ROI votes on joining the EU.  Keep voting until people surrender because they're tired of hearing about it.

Hopefully we're coming to the end of the process and the beginning of a new era.  I have no idea what that's going to look like.

[SilverSolder]

Americans can travel to the EU without a visa (limited to 90 days with a process change in the works), why wouldn't the Brits, a close neighbor, have the same privileges?

Today, any EU citizen can move to any European country provided they have a job or run a business there.  It is an amazing privilege that goes way beyond a 90 day tourist visa.

It is really hard for an American to get a work permit in Europe, just like it is very hard for a European to get an American green card...

I hope that one day, this barrier too will give way!

[rstofer]

A weak and divided UK will be taking orders from countries with stronger economies.

The UK, by itself, is the 6th largest economy in the world, just behind California.  The important GDPs are:

US $19.4T
EU $15.9T after removing $2.6T for the UK
China $12.2T
California $2.7T
UK $2.6T

The UK isn't tied to the Eurozone and once the UK no longer contributes to the EU, it will be left to Germany to provide the finances for many failing economies.  I don't think the Germans are going to like that very much.  They already don't like all the immigration.

The UK is technically advanced and well beyond the small EU players.  I think they can do quite well for themselves on the world stage.  They're already a financial powerhouse!  And outposts in Frankfurt aren't going to change that!

I had really hoped everything would be settled by Mar 29th.  The parties had two YEARS to work this stuff out and now everybody is counting days without really knowing the end date.