EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[muddythefish]

The terminal decline is marked by the EU being monolithic and resistant to change. Most EU citizens want a referendum on membership. Most EU citizens think the UK's departure is bad for the EU.

Patently not true, in fact the exact opposite. This is no evidence whatsoever for "terminal decline"

http://time.com/4820283/european-union-poll-brexit/

https://www.ft.com/content/9cfdad52-ada7-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

https://euobserver.com/institutional/138670

 

[HSTEd]

Refurbishing the Houses of Parliament is estimated to cost billions and billions - more than enough to fund the cost of moving the govt out of London.

So you propose to demolish the Houses of Parliament or sell them for flats or what not?
If you don't do either of those the refurbishment bill still needs to be paid because the building is literally crumbling.
It will have to be stripped to the structure and built up again either way.

And I'm afraid the experience of the Scottish Parliament building, which is far smaller than a new UK Parliament building would have to be - indicates that it probably wouldn't be enough money.

We should start by moving govt departments and then parliament itself.

They could be spread across the north and poorer parts of the west - such as Plymouth.

Thus ensuring that departmental interactins are staid and restricted to the formal meeting setting (using teleconferencing gear) which is often not the most efficient way of actually developing ideas and policy?
I am afraid that the civil service has to be concentrated into a reltaively small number of sites or simply won't operate effectively.

Can you really have a minister at parliament in Oxford who's departmental staff is run out of Maryport, constantly shuttling between the two?

That is almost as absurd as the EU parliament packing up and going to Strasbourg for a few weeks a year.

No other major industrialised country is as centralised as the UK. No other major economy is as unequal as the UK's. England as a whole is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Go to Germany and you see equal wealth across a huge number of cities.

Which is why large parts of Germany also recieves funding under the convergence criteria?
Whilst they have no "less developed regions" the population of the regions with that characterisation in the UK is very small, something around two million people, mostly in South Wales - which is only three or four percent of the total population.

Addressing this inequality needs radical measures - not some tinkering with Northern Powerhouse schemes. We should start by moving the decision makers out of the capital. Wealth will follow.

A radical solution would be to build a new capital from scratch, not pretend you can scatter the government to the wind and not cause any serious negative consequences.

 

[AlterEgo]

Patently not true, in fact the exact opposite. This is no evidence whatsoever for "terminal decline"

http://time.com/4820283/european-union-poll-brexit/

https://www.ft.com/content/9cfdad52-ada7-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

https://euobserver.com/institutional/138670

The first source quotes from the Pew Report and lifts out the main headline - that EU membership is more popular now among member state citizens. If you read my post in full you'll see I pulled out other headlines from the same report, which I linked for convenience. I note you don't challenge any of the facts I posted, some of which highlight inherent weaknesses in the EU (I'll cover those later).

The second is behind a paywall and cannot be read.

Not sure about the reliability or neutrality of the third, or its source (can't open the full report) but I note from the data that of all the EU28, more respondents distrusted it than trusted it.

In any case, the idea that an institution is stable or not otherwise in terminal decline simply because its members say "hey, it's okay" doesn't hold much water. For example, the Roman Empire did not decline simply because its population lost faith in "the project", it declined based on a number of internal and external factors.

The factors which will ensure the decline of the EU are:

1) A lack of political accountability from its senior leadership.
2) Severe democratic defecit, particularly in relation to the European Commission
3) Excessively large, resistant to change, unable to address external threats
4) Flirting with Turkey, a large Muslim country
5) A resurgence in nationalism and civic nostalgia, with increasing awareness of national histories and cultures
6) Germany imposing its economic model on culturally different nations
7) Lack of border security at the EU perimeter
8) Severe mission creep - it was originally designed to bring together large and prosperous European countries, to defend against the spread of communism and buttress the Eurobloc from external impacts. It has has ended up incorporating a hotch-potch of smaller nations, each with their own agenda.
9) Unlimited free movement
10) Ever closer union is not wanted by many.

For these reasons, I say the EU is in terminal decline.

It is not as simple as asking people who live there if they like the EU.

 

[muddythefish]

So you propose to demolish the Houses of Parliament or sell them for flats or what not?

Sell it off to the private sector




I am afraid that the civil service has to be concentrated into a reltaively small number of sites or simply won't operate effectively.

No it doesn't. Other countries spread their admininstration

Can you really have a minister at parliament in Oxford who's departmental staff is run out of Maryport, constantly shuttling between the two?

Clearly a silly example



A radical solution would be to build a new capital from scratch, not pretend you can scatter the government to the wind and not cause any serious negative consequences

The Brasilia option. Not practical here, nor desirable. The positive effect of moving govt would far outweigh the negatives[/QUOTE]

 

[AlterEgo]

No other major industrialised country is as centralised as the UK. No other major economy is as unequal as the UK's. England as a whole is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Go to Germany and you see equal wealth across a huge number of cities.

But our geography has determined our economy and the location of wealth for a very long time - more than people realise. Germany's geography (and history!) is very different to the UK's. We are an island nation, for a start.

 

[muddythefish]

1) A lack of political accountability from its senior leadership.
2) Severe democratic defecit, particularly in relation to the European Commission
3) Excessively large, resistant to change, unable to address external threats
4) Flirting with Turkey, a large Muslim country
5) A resurgence in nationalism and civic nostalgia, with increasing awareness of national histories and cultures
6) Germany imposing its economic model on culturally different nations
7) Lack of border security at the EU perimeter
8) Severe mission creep - it was originally designed to bring together large and prosperous European countries, to defend against the spread of communism and buttress the Eurobloc from external impacts. It has has ended up incorporating a hotch-potch of smaller nations, each with their own agenda.
9) Unlimited free movement
10) Ever closer union is not wanted by many.

Even if they were true, none of those add up to an institution in "terminal decline".

 

[muddythefish]

But our geography has determined our economy and the location of wealth for a very long time - more than people realise. Germany's geography (and history!) is very different to the UK's. We are an island nation, for a start.

Wealth was more evenly spread across the UK 100 years ago. Since the financial crisis, living standards have actually fallen outside London and the south east.

The fact we're an island is irrelevant

 

[HSTEd]

Sell it off to the private sector

The idea of some tacky amusmeent park or oligarch flats in the palace that is the heart of the development of modern British democracy would be the ultimate humiliation in the eyes of much of the public though.

No it doesn't. Other countries spread their admininstration

Not to the extent you are suggesting.

Clearly a silly example

So you want to spread out government, but also think an example I give of how ministers could be far from their departmental staff is silly?
How exactly do you enisage this spread out working then?

The Brasilia option. Not practical here, nor desirable. The positive effect of moving govt would far outweigh the negatives[/QUOTE]

The vastly increased costs, reduce efficiencies and psychological damage from foreign oligarchs owning the emblem of British democracy as a bolt hole or turning it into a tacky amusement park for chinese tourists massively outweighs the supposed benefits. The Palace of Westminster would have to remain in public hands for political reasons.

And whats wrong with the Brasilia Option? Why is it not 'practical' - the UK has built effectively new cities before in living memory.
It worked for the US and for Australia?

 

[muddythefish]

The idea of some tacky amusmeent park or oligarch flats in the palace that is the heart of the development of modern British democracy would be the ultimate humiliation in the eyes of much of the public though.

Not in my eyes.

Not to the extent you are suggesting.

Deep seated problems need radical measures


So you want to spread out government, but also think an example I give of how ministers could be far from their departmental staff is silly?
How exactly do you enisage this spread out working then?

Technology



The vastly increased costs, reduce efficiencies and psychological damage from foreign oligarchs owning the emblem of British democracy as a bolt hole or turning it into a tacky amusement park for chinese tourists massively outweighs the supposed benefits. The Palace of Westminster would have to remain in public hands for political reasons.

Agreed. It could be developed for ordinary Londoners to live in


And whats wrong with the Brasilia Option? Why is it not 'practical' - the UK has built effectively new cities before in living memory.
It worked for the US and for Australia?


Because we are a small country with limited space. Where would you put this new capital?

 

[HSTEd]

Technology

It would be an unprecedented IT project, with enormous complexity.
And it would still not be able to replicate the working environment that comes from large numbers of public servants in close physical proximity.

Because we are a small country with limited space. Where would you put this new capital?

There are several options I have considered during my thoughts on this topic:

• Between Ingoldmells and the Humber, bounded by the edge of the Lincolnshire Wolds AONB and the Sea - this option has the advantage of low existing population density, flat land and relatively easy climate.
• The Island of Jura in the Western Isles - negligible existing population and in a part of the Union that is not England, good sea Access and plenty of room to expand. However it is more distant from extant infrastructure and would require much more new construction of long distance road and rail links to the rest of the country. It would move the capital closer to Northern Ireland and it is likely supporting infrastructure would include an Irish Sea Crossing via Kintyre
• One shore of Loch Ness - attractive setting and relatively sheltered unlike Jura, however likely to be more resistance to development from locals. Better infrastructure than Jura but still requiring major construction
• A location along one of the rivers of Powys, again advantage of low population density, but again requiring significant new construction - has the advantage of being in Wales

There are numerous other sites one could select.
But finding a few hundred square kilometres for a new capital is not particularily difficult.

 

[AlterEgo]

Even if they were true, none of those add up to an institution in "terminal decline".

Not surprised you think this if you believe the sum is as simple as "surveys say people are happy with the EU". The sum is not nearly as simple as that as any historian could attest. There are characteristic traits that befall all empires, superpowers and supranational political blocs and end in their demise, and the key is spotting them when they arise. The EU does not seem aware of its own limitations - much less address them - which only hastens the likely future speed of the decline.

 

[Senex]

Which is why large parts of Germany also recieves funding under the convergence criteria?

I think the large parts of Germany that receive convergence funding are essentially the Fünf neue Länder that were the former DDR. This was an area bled dry by the USSR in the years after WW2 and never really allowed to recover and invest properly. I don't think there's much convergence funding in the old West Germany.

In railway terms there's a very interesting comparison between Manchester and Leipzig. Both are old industrial cities now to a great extent de-industrialised, and both also have a long-standing and ongoing history of commerce, finance, education, and culture. Both are just over half a million in size and both are in the middle of their own metropolitan area (Manchester's much bigger than Leipzig's). Latest economic figures I've been able to find quickly are Gross Value Added for Manchester £16.107m and for Leipzig €16.570m. Manchester is getting the minimalist low-speed Ordsall Chord for £85 million (something like a tenth of the amount said to be going on London Waterloo) and there seems to be doubt over whether anything will be done with either Piccadilly or Oxford Road, which would bring the total spenmd up to about half a billion if fully done. There is no indication at all as to when the grand plans for the new station for HS2 will come about.

Leipzig now has its main-line-engineered cross-city tunnel, at a cost of €960 million, complete with non-conflicting junctions at both ends. It has a fully-modernised main line north to Berlin (and thence on to Hamburg) for speeds over most of the distance of 200 or 230 km/h respectively. And it has a new high-speed line that from this December will complete the high-speed route south to Munich.

No doubt which of two comparable provincial cities has received better and more future-proofed transport investment.

 

[AlterEgo]

Wealth was more evenly spread across the UK 100 years ago. Since the financial crisis, living standards have actually fallen outside London and the south east.

The fact we're an island is irrelevant

Okay, if geography isn't relevant to the question, perhaps we could imagine Great Britain lifted out of the sea and attached physically adjoining Italy and France in the Mediterranean, giving it significant land borders in Scotland with two states.

Do you think the capital would still have developed to be London, far away from any aggressor?

This is only a small part of considering how geography shapes a nation and its economy. Other factors include the physical lie of the land or water - London was a very important port, in a naval power - the free access to merchant shipping, bolstered by a world leading navy is why Britain became an empire and London became the locus of that empire.

Britain's physical location is extraordinarily favourable. London is where it is for a reason.

As for the question of decentralising - this, I very much agree with. I don't think taking the Parliament out of London is a very good solution though. The Westminster parliament and its buildings signify the rule of law, something we were able to nail down very early. Incidentally, one of the things that helped Britain sort this, and most of the other cornerstones of what we would now call western democracy, before most other countries was relative internal stability and freedom from invasion - no need to guess why!

 

[muddythefish]

I think the large parts of Germany that receive convergence funding are essentially the Fünf neue Länder that were the former DDR. This was an area bled dry by the USSR in the years after WW2 and never really allowed to recover and invest properly. I don't think there's much convergence funding in the old West Germany.

In railway terms there's a very interesting comparison between Manchester and Leipzig. Both are old industrial cities now to a great extent de-industrialised, and both also have a long-standing and ongoing history of commerce, finance, education, and culture. Both are just over half a million in size and both are in the middle of their own metropolitan area (Manchester's much bigger than Leipzig's). Latest economic figures I've been able to find quickly are Gross Value Added for Manchester £16.107m and for Leipzig €16.570m. Manchester is getting the minimalist low-speed Ordsall Chord for £85 million (something like a tenth of the amount said to be going on London Waterloo) and there seems to be doubt over whether anything will be done with either Piccadilly or Oxford Road, which would bring the total spenmd up to about half a billion if fully done. There is no indication at all as to when the grand plans for the new station for HS2 will come about.

Leipzig now has its main-line-engineered cross-city tunnel, at a cost of €960 million, complete with non-conflicting junctions at both ends. It has a fully-modernised main line north to Berlin (and thence on to Hamburg) for speeds over most of the distance of 200 or 230 km/h respectively. And it has a new high-speed line that from this December will complete the high-speed route south to Munich.

No doubt which of two comparable provincial cities has received better and more future-proofed transport investment.

Interesting. There has long been plans for a Manchester crossrail tunnel (Picc-Vic line) but they were shelved because money was poured into the tram system. If Manchester were in Germany of course, it would have both.

HS 2 and HS 3 should be planned in conjunction to pass through Manchester as through lines.

 

[Senex]

No other major industrialised country is as centralised as the UK. No other major economy is as unequal as the UK's. England as a whole is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Go to Germany and you see equal wealth across a huge number of cities.

Though it wasn't always so. In the nineteenth century there were great provincial centres, characterised by the presence not only by the presence of major industries but also by banking, cultural developments, and as social centres. London was already dominant, for sure, but it was nothing like as overwhlemingly dominant as it became during the twentieth century as pretty well all power and all wconomic and industral decision-making (and come to that much of the arts) all became centralised and in the hands of people only too willing for the most part to forget their provincial origins. And Londoners came to see it as their birthright be the centre of the world. How it might have been is shewn by Germany. Admittedly the history is quite different, but even after Unification cities like Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, etc always remained massive economic and cultural forces in their own right -- and still do!

 

[RichmondCommu]

No, it is better to not have to spend huge amounts of time at a job you hate to prevent the collapse into miserable penury.

The bounty of automation brings the day closer when people aren't forced into poorly renumerated jobs they hate just to avoid starvation/destitution.


Rural East MIdlands where all the jobs are essentially very low paid manufacturing or very low paid agricultural - unless you are lucky enough to get a public sector job in the NHS or council.

People who are unhappy with their jobs need to aspire to do something else. No one is stopping anyone from getting an education and moving on with their lives. Or indeed opening their eyes and exploring options for a better life.

 

[radamfi]

At the moment, London is fashionable and it is considered cool to live there. Well, at least for foreigners and young Brits. It hasn't always been like that, though. London lost millions of inhabitants over decades until bottoming out around 1990. The population of the other major conurbations also dropped significantly over that period.

 

[HSTEd]

Manchester is getting the minimalist low-speed Ordsall Chord for £85 million (something like a tenth of the amount said to be going on London Waterloo) and there seems to be doubt over whether anything will be done with either Piccadilly or Oxford Road, which would bring the total spenmd up to about half a billion if fully done. There is no indication at all as to when the grand plans for the new station for HS2 will come about.

Leipzig now has its main-line-engineered cross-city tunnel, at a cost of €960 million, complete with non-conflicting junctions at both ends. It has a fully-modernised main line north to Berlin (and thence on to Hamburg) for speeds over most of the distance of 200 or 230 km/h respectively. And it has a new high-speed line that from this December will complete the high-speed route south to Munich.

No doubt which of two comparable provincial cities has received better and more future-proofed transport investment.

Manchester Metrolink has expended several hundred million pounds in capital spend in the last decade or two. (Estimates as high as ~£700m for Phase 3?)
As far as I can tell the tram system in Leipzig has recieved no major expansions in at least 20 years.

Then there is the £122m or more on the Leigh busway.
And I'm not sure what you mean about the Manchester HS2 station - it is kind of required in time for HS2 Phase 2's completion.

And Manchester has a 200km/h dominated railway link to the capital.... its had it for a while now.

Its not really as imbalanced as you suggest.

 

[HSTEd]

People who are unhappy with their jobs need to aspire to do something else. No one is stopping anyone from getting an education and moving on with their lives.

And where will the magical supply of money come from?
It is incredibly difficult to study at a University, especially in a STEM subject with large amounts of contact time, without signiicant support from other monetary sources. Even the maximum maintenance grant will barely cover term time accomodation, let alone with food.

Or indeed opening their eyes and exploring options for a better life.

OPtions they can't take - because they can't take a chance as they are one missed payslip from the street or starvation or freezing in a cold winter.

Though it wasn't always so. In the nineteenth century there were great provincial centres, characterised by the presence not only by the presence of major industries but also by banking, cultural developments, and as social centres. London was already dominant, for sure, but it was nothing like as overwhlemingly dominant as it became during the twentieth century as pretty well all power and all wconomic and industral decision-making (and come to that much of the arts) all became centralised and in the hands of people only too willing for the most part to forget their provincial origins. And Londoners came to see it as their birthright be the centre of the world. How it might have been is shewn by Germany. Admittedly the history is quite different, but even after Unification cities like Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, etc always remained massive economic and cultural forces in their own right -- and still do!

However these regional centres only existed because of comparatively poor transport links throughout the country.
The population is massively more mobile now, and it is only natural that the regional centres should be replaced with more distant centres that have a greater magnetism.

The eventual result if this trend continues will be one 'city' covering the entire country.

 

[radamfi]

And where will the magical supply of money come from?
It is incredibly difficult to study at a University, especially in a STEM subject with large amounts of contact time, without signiicant support from other monetary sources. Even the maximum maintenance grant will barely cover term time accomodation, let alone with food.

Luckily, the UK is in the EU so British students can study abroad where fees are much lower. Maastricht university is a popular choice as they offer English speaking courses.

 

[muddythefish]

Though it wasn't always so. In the nineteenth century there were great provincial centres, characterised by the presence not only by the presence of major industries but also by banking, cultural developments, and as social centres. London was already dominant, for sure, but it was nothing like as overwhlemingly dominant as it became during the twentieth century as pretty well all power and all wconomic and industral decision-making (and come to that much of the arts) all became centralised and in the hands of people only too willing for the most part to forget their provincial origins. And Londoners came to see it as their birthright be the centre of the world. How it might have been is shewn by Germany. Admittedly the history is quite different, but even after Unification cities like Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, etc always remained massive economic and cultural forces in their own right -- and still do!

Yes, and could one reason be that Germany has a federal system of government ? Either way, the power that London extends over this country has to be reduced dramatically, either by moving politicians and civil servants out of the capital or by devolving serious power to the regions. Our centralised structure based around one dominant city needs breaking.

 

[muddythefish]

The eventual result if this trend continues will be one 'city' covering the entire country.

To be honest, I'm not sure what planet you inhabit

 

[HSTEd]

To be honest, I'm not sure what planet you inhabit

If transport average speeds continue to increase as they have done historically, eventually transit times will drop sufficiently low that one could commute from Scotland to London and back as people commute from Brighton to London today.

Cockfosters to Hatton Cross was once a journey of many hours on the road.
Grantham to London used to take days, now it takes under 80 minutes.

Yes, and could one reason be that Germany has a federal system of government ? Either way, the power that London extends over this country has to be reduced dramatically, either by moving politicians and civil servants out of the capital or by devolving serious power to the regions. Our centralised structure based around one dominant city needs breaking.

Why?
Noone has actually explained to me why these 'suffering' and 'underdeveloped' areas in the North of England and such are actually worth saving from the fate of fading into obscurity like St David's in Wales.
Why is London's dominance actually a bad thing?

Why should Bradford continue to be a major city and economic centre?
Cities have risen and fallen throughout the history of human civilisation.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And where will the magical supply of money come from?
It is incredibly difficult to study at a University, especially in a STEM subject with large amounts of contact time, without signiicant support from other monetary sources. Even the maximum maintenance grant will barely cover term time accomodation, let alone with food.

OPtions they can't take - because they can't take a chance as they are one missed payslip from the street or starvation or freezing in a cold winter.

Who mentioned university?

Resit your GCSE's / A levels to give yourself a leg up or take up a college course. Or get an apprenticeship with Toyota / Rolls Royce / JCB etc and see where it takes you.

Life is what you make of it. The feel good factor comes from earning your own salary. If the state is giving you money there is little reason to get out of bed in the morning.

 

[HSTEd]

It's a rare job that will get you a decent standard of living without a degree these days.
And I have learned from experience that there is little self esteem from knowing you are nothing but a cog in someone else's machine, to be cast aside when you are no longer convenient

 

[RichmondCommu]

It's a rare job that will get you a decent standard of living without a degree these days.
And I have learned from experience that there is little self esteem from knowing you are nothing but a cog in someone else's machine, to be cast aside when you are no longer convenient

Just about everyone in this country is a "cog in someone else's machine" but it hasn't stopped many of us from earning a lot of money.

If you take the East Midlands as an example there are still manufacturing jobs available that will pay you a decent wage (£25k to £30k) and none of those require applicants to have a degree. And many of those offer high class apprenticeships.

 

[radamfi]

Resit your GCSE's / A levels to give yourself a leg up or take up a college course. Or get an apprenticeship with Toyota / Rolls Royce / JCB etc and see where it takes you.

Or take advantage of our freedom to work or study elsewhere in Europe.

 

[fowler9]

And where will the magical supply of money come from?
It is incredibly difficult to study at a University, especially in a STEM subject with large amounts of contact time, without signiicant support from other monetary sources. Even the maximum maintenance grant will barely cover term time accomodation, let alone with food.

OPtions they can't take - because they can't take a chance as they are one missed payslip from the street or starvation or freezing in a cold winter.



However these regional centres only existed because of comparatively poor transport links throughout the country.
The population is massively more mobile now, and it is only natural that the regional centres should be replaced with more distant centres that have a greater magnetism.

The eventual result if this trend continues will be one 'city' covering the entire country.

Ask Theresa May where the magical supply of money will come from, she found £1bn for the DUP.

 

[najaB]

It's a rare job that will get you a decent standard of living without a degree these days.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'decent' but at both my previous and current employer there are many people earning c. £25-30K without benefit of a degree.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No other major industrialised country is as centralised as the UK.

France?

No other major economy is as unequal as the UK's. England as a whole is one of the poorest countries in Europe.

Evidence (for both assertions)?

Go to Germany and you see equal wealth across a huge number of cities.

May be relevant: From the Economist:

Germany's new divide

WHEN Helmut Kohl was buried on July 1st, Germans reflected approvingly on his legacy: the scars of the country’s east-west division are gradually healing. Yet as its longitudinal split closes, a latitudinal one is growing.

Imagine that Germany were sundered once more, this time into north and south.

(snip)

South Germany’s border with north Germany would track what linguists call the Uerdingen line separating “high” and “low” dialects of German.

Yet the new South Germany would have the better prospects of the two. For Germans in the southern states are doing better than those in northern ones (see chart 1). They go to better schools, get jobs more easily, earn more and live longer to enjoy it. Their governments have healthier finances, so they can invest more, sometimes five times as much per head. According to a recent study by the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), crime rates are “strikingly” lower in the south. To rub it in, the south even contains the country’s best football team, Bayern Munich.

(snip)

So pronounced is the overall trend that on some statistical maps it is now easier to spot the Uerdingen line than the former east-west border. The gap between the unemployment rates in north and south, for instance, will soon be wider than that between east and west

Still certain that the UK is somehow different from the rest of Europe in geographical inequalities?