Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Thankfully, there's a lot of goodwill on all sides to try and reach a solution to the Irish border problem, so it can be done.
Just don't ask me for details
That being said, and I'm no expert on this, Norway (non-EU) shares a long border with Sweden (EU member) and that seems to run smoothly.
Would it be possible to replicate the Norway/Sweden model?
How can someone who speaks at length very regularly on an internet forum about how all the Brexit naysayers are wrong not be familiar with the 'Norway model'? There are kids who've never read a paper that know Norway is a non-EU state with free movement and trade with the EU - it's been one of the most oft-cited examples, by both sides, for several years!
After much thought I think we should go with the option of having the boarder in the sea. I don't mind having to show my passport to go to England or Scotland. The only ones who would have a problem with this are hardcore unionists and they've been having their way for too long. You have to be flexible about these things. Also, this could bode well for Northern Ireland's fledging tv and film industry.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Thankfully, there's a lot of goodwill on all sides to try and reach a solution to the Irish border problem, so it can be done.
Just don't ask me for details
That being said, and I'm no expert on this, Norway (non-EU) shares a long border with Sweden (EU member) and that seems to run smoothly.
Would it be possible to replicate the Norway/Sweden model?
How can someone who speaks at length very regularly on an internet forum about how all the Brexit naysayers are wrong not be familiar with the 'Norway model'? There are kids who've never read a paper that know Norway is a non-EU state with free movement and trade with the EU - it's been one of the most oft-cited examples, by both sides, for several years!
I forgot
I made a mistake, I was distracted, by, er, something...somewhere...
Just to clarify, whilst I consider myself British (despite being a catholic from Northern Ireland) I fully understand the need for a frictionless boarder between the north and south. It's ok to break out the passports for going across the channel by plane or ferry but with land boarders it just becomes a hassle. They helped remove the boarder before the eu and we can continue to do so after the eu.
This would be an example of my hope for a more federal U.K. in the future. Four countries united together but able to handle their own business when the need arises. Since Northern Ireland is the only part of the uk with a land boarder it requires a special approach.
For any American, Canadian and Mexican dakkanaughts looking in, how do you guys deal with your land boarders?
Future War Cultist wrote: Just to clarify, whilst I consider myself British (despite being a catholic from Northern Ireland) I fully understand the need for a frictionless boarder between the north and south. It's ok to break out the passports for going across the channel by plane or ferry but with land boarders it just becomes a hassle. They helped remove the boarder before the eu and we can continue to do so after the eu.
The issue is for goods, rather than people. Would you economically isolate NI from the rest of the UK?
Because if there is a border for goods even passenger cars would have to be inspected (maybe not all of them, but a lot of them would have to).
...This [the new paper] is a welcome concession to reality, but it is predicated on an even bigger unreality: the assumption that the EU will agree to something quite extraordinary: that a 500km external EU border with more than 200 crossing points will be effectively unpoliced. People and goods will pass over it without let or hindrance. Smugglers, people traffickers and terrorists will go on their merry way unmolested. Small companies will not have to do customs checks at all; large ones will operate a charming honour system in which they retrospectively declare the goods they have moved and pay their duties...
It would mean economically decoupling NI from the rest of the UK, and I can't see that fly past the DUP and other unionists.
Having an open border for people but not goods is a feel-good measure. It just doesn't work in the real world unless you're willing to leave a massive backdoor wide open for abuse or worse.
I think there are some special considerations about the Irish border, though.
First is that 30,000 people a day commute to and fro to jobs. It isn't just a feel-good factor for them to have easy transit.
Second is that obviously there is a concern about smuggling or other such illegal activities getting from the UK into the EU through the back door of an open border with Eire. However, the UK is removed by sea from all neighbours and all its neighbours are EU members. This is a different situation to say Greece, a few miles from Turkey, or Spain, a few miles from Morocco, or even more open, the eastern European countries with hundreds of miles of land border with Russia and so on.
Under the sea frontier proposal, for illegal goods to get into the EU via Ireland, they would have to avoid customs inspection on arrival in the UK by sea or air, then avoid customs inspection on arrival in Northern Ireland by sea or air.
It a pity the DUP have already said they will oppose such a plan. Perhaps the government should bung them another £1 billion to change their minds.
Under the sea frontier proposal, for illegal goods to get into the EU via Ireland, they would have to avoid customs inspection on arrival in the UK by sea or air, then avoid customs inspection on arrival in Northern Ireland by sea or air.
Illegal goods is not the issue but things that might be legal in the UK thanks to new trade agreements but not in the EU.
American chlorinated chicken, Chinese steel outside the quotas, etc.
Under the sea frontier proposal, for illegal goods to get into the EU via Ireland, they would have to avoid customs inspection on arrival in the UK by sea or air, then avoid customs inspection on arrival in Northern Ireland by sea or air.
Not if it passes customs inspection on one side of the soft border and is illegal on the other. At least Eire isn't in Shengen or it'd be completely impossible.
Say you've got a chlorinated chicken from 2 posts up. You import it legally into the UK from the US. Then you pass through the UK/NI border legally - it's legal in NI. You carry it over the border into Eire; it's illegal but not checked. From there, you could take it to mainland Europe where there's no custom paperwork, it might be caught depending on how alert whatever officials you're passing are.
It works the other way round as well, so the UK would want a stricter check at the UK/NI border for stuff that shouldn't have made it from EU to NI, and the EU will want a stricter border check at the Eire/EU border (or ports) for stuff that shouldn't have made it from UK to Eire. That's a lot of additional checks for people/goods that shouldn't need them, and a lot of extra cost that's going to be paid for by someone.
Future War Cultist wrote: How does Australia and New Zealand do it? I know they don't share a land boarder but there could be some ideas to be had from there.
Goods are checked in customs, and there are customs on each designated port of entry (meaning all major ports and airports).
Most times there isn't actual physical goods inspection, just the documents, but there's always a chance of a yellow or red flag.
Future War Cultist wrote: How does Australia and New Zealand do it? I know they don't share a land boarder but there could be some ideas to be had from there.
They've got a fairly open border via a partnership between them - they don't need to do any of those checks.
I can't think of anywhere that has a hybrid soft border like we're proposing. I'd proposition it's because it doesn't make any sense; it has to either be a border or not a border.
Under the sea frontier proposal, for illegal goods to get into the EU via Ireland, they would have to avoid customs inspection on arrival in the UK by sea or air, then avoid customs inspection on arrival in Northern Ireland by sea or air.
Illegal goods is not the issue but things that might be legal in the UK thanks to new trade agreements but not in the EU.
American chlorinated chicken, Chinese steel outside the quotas, etc.
They also would have to go through customs to get from mainland UK to NI.
Future War Cultist wrote: How does Australia and New Zealand do it? I know they don't share a land boarder but there could be some ideas to be had from there.
They've got a fairly open border via a partnership between them - they don't need to do any of those checks.
I can't think of anywhere that has a hybrid soft border like we're proposing. I'd proposition it's because it doesn't make any sense; it has to either be a border or not a border.
The NAFTA borders are soft for exchange of goods, but not people, as I understand it.
Under the sea frontier proposal, for illegal goods to get into the EU via Ireland, they would have to avoid customs inspection on arrival in the UK by sea or air, then avoid customs inspection on arrival in Northern Ireland by sea or air.
Illegal goods is not the issue but things that might be legal in the UK thanks to new trade agreements but not in the EU.
American chlorinated chicken, Chinese steel outside the quotas, etc.
They also would have to go through customs to get from mainland UK to NI.
But that doesn't work. That leaves NI unable to have these things that are legal in the UK but not in the EU. Equally they have no say in how the EU is run, no access to EU support, but have to abide by EU law. It's the worst of both worlds then for NI.
I think the UK will continue to conform to EU rules about most things, because they are our biggest trading partner and we won't be able not to.
In the cases where there is a difference the NI will need to decide if they prefer a very open relationship with Eire to availability of chlorinated chickens.
The NAFTA borders are soft for exchange of goods, but not people, as I understand it.
NAFTA is nowhere near as comprehensive a free trade agreement as the EU.
At the ground level there's no difference between the long lines of lorries crossing from Mexico to the US than, say, Croatia and Serbia. Every commercial transport from Mexico to the US gets stopped, commercial papers and immigration status of the driver checked before being allowed to drive away.
Compare that to the thousands of lorries crossing between France and, say, Belgium nowadays without even having to stop.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The easiest solution to all this would be re-unification. It's a shame that this won't happen...
An even easier solution would be to cancel Brexit. Then we can all go on as before.
I was under the impression that the Republic of Ireland was an independent, sovereign nation.
I was also under the impression that Britain was an independent sovereign nation.
I like Ireland and the Irish, but I never overlook the fact that the Republic is a foreign nation.
Britain has made a democratic decision to leave the EU...and I don't want to say anymore for fear of being banned or offending anybody, but I hope people can join the dots and see where I'm going with this, hence my earlier point about re-unification....
You've made the "democratic decision" to vote on two alternatives that weren't even defined. It's a farce. A textbook example of how not to make a referendum.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You've made the "democratic decision" to vote on two alternatives that weren't even defined. It's a farce. A textbook example of how not to make a referendum.
An election where the alternatives are not clearly defined is a joke. You STILL haven't decided what "leave the EU!" means and it's over a year after the referendum.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: An election where the alternatives are not clearly defined is a joke. You STILL haven't decided what "leave the EU!" means and it's over a year after the referendum.
I know what I want, but I want doesn't matter as I'm clearly not in a position of influence to make the changes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The easiest solution to all this would be re-unification. It's a shame that this won't happen...
An even easier solution would be to cancel Brexit. Then we can all go on as before.
I was under the impression that the Republic of Ireland was an independent, sovereign nation.
I was also under the impression that Britain was an independent sovereign nation.
....
I was under the impression that one of the main reasons for voting Leave was because EU member states are not independent, sovereign nations, and you wanted to get sovereignty back. At any rate, though, I don't see what that has to do with the best solution for the border issue.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: An election where the alternatives are not clearly defined is a joke. You STILL haven't decided what "leave the EU!" means and it's over a year after the referendum.
I know what I want, but I want doesn't matter as I'm clearly not in a position of influence to make the changes.
You might know what you want, but who knows what all the other leave voters want? The referendum was a total farce by an incompetent government. If it was a choice of option A or option B we'd know what people voted for, but it wasn't. It was more like, do you want option A? Or not option A? Pathetic!
Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality.
clearly this is a great idea then ?!
and this particular idea
is totally beyond the pale.
You'll note he raves about how cheap we'll be as the £ drops but totally ignores the fact that as this happens everything we import will become more expensive.
Yeah, our imports will be more expensive, but on the other hand, British tourism is booming like never before because of the weak pound. That's creating new jobs in the restaurant and hotel sectors.
The weak pound might also be the catalyst to kick-start British manufacturing again.
People might disagree with my Leave stance, and I respect that, but I've never denied the first few years of Brexit would be plain sailing, as we disentangle ourselves from the EU.
It's like missing the last bus and walking 2-3 miles in the pouring rain. Not good, but you've got a warm house waiting for you at the end.
Removing all tariffs would be very niave, to put it mildly. I am in favour of lowering most of them after Brexit though, to show the world we are open for business.
The weak pound might also be the catalyst to kick-start British manufacturing again.
How? All the materials we need to manufacture those goods are now more expensive. We manufacture high-end goods, like scientific equipment, aircraft engines etc. These are not things which people go looking for bargain basement prices on as quality and reliability is of the utmost importance. As such making them cheaper has very little impact on how desirable they are within the market we are selling them in.
I thought the leave side were supposed to be the people who were anti-expert.
Describing this man as an expert is insulting to people who have actually carried out quality research and analysis.
It is akin to having an astrophysicist describe how the planets move and interact with each other and then turning to an astrologer for a rebuttal and giving their bollocks equal weighting when it comes to planning your manned mission to Mars.
Herzlos wrote: Isn't ignoring the will of the people of Northern Ireland exactly what we're doing
I don't know, ask DINLT. He's the brexit supporter who wants to give part of Britain to a foreign country.
Technically NI isn't part of Britain and in the context of the North the ROI isn't really a foreign country in the typical sense of the word. It wouldn't be like, for example a county of England becoming part of Scotland in which most of the original population would feel like they are joining a completely different country a large proportion of the country identify as and are Irish citizens.
Reading and listening to how un-organised the border issue is being handled is honestly terrifying for me, I live in Derry, a city that receives little to no help from Stormont and has suffered heavily throughout the years because of it, however the ability to easily trade and move across the border into the republic has been a life line for the city and the idea of this being cut off is terrible especially for an area that voted 78% to remain as pat of the EU.
Technically NI isn't part of Britain and in the context of the North the ROI isn't really a foreign country in the typical sense of the word. It wouldn't be like, for example a county of England becoming part of Scotland in which most of the original population would feel like they are joining a completely different country a large proportion of the country identify as and are Irish citizens.
You are right, I said Britain when I should have said UK. Sorry, I'm usually better than that in this subject.
However the fact is a far greater part of Northern Ireland identify as British than Irish. Ireland is a foreign country. There's a reason that unionists don't call for union referendums in NI - they would lose in a landslide.
The irony of the free trade proposal is that we are inside the world's largest, richest free trade zone right now, and we've decided that is a bad idea and we want to leave.
Kilkrazy wrote: The irony of the free trade proposal is that we are inside the world's largest, richest free trade zone right now, and we've decided that is a bad idea and we want to leave.
Nah, the trade was good. It was the organisation behind it that most people have a beef with.
It's because said free trade zone is effectively trying to annex us. Other countries will trade with us without trying to take over our day to day lives.
Future War Cultist wrote: It's because said free trade zone is effectively trying to annex us. Other countries will trade with us without trying to take over our day to day lives.
We had a deciding stake in the free trade zone. It did nothing without our approval. It was only "trying to annex us" either with our agreement or because we weren't turning up to the meetings.
About that; I said this earlier with regards the EU to doing things with 'our agreement' via the 'elected leaders':
Future War Cultist wrote: But those elected officials are so easy to butter up aren't they? Tony Blair (the PM with the srinking majority) would have had us join the euro had Brown not stopped him. Then Brown went ahead and signed us up to the eu constitution without asking us. Brown the unelected PM. All you have to do is ensure that they have cushy jobs in the eu after they leave their respective parliaments and you can get them to agree to anything.
This is one reason why I voted to leave. I was tired of our representatives passing the buck up to the eu whilst argeeing to everything they proposed without consenting us. For me the Lisbon treaty was the straw that broke the camels back.
The only reason we weren't dragged into the euro is because of brown. If you think Blair would have asked us if we wanted to join the euro you'd be dead wrong.
But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.
For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The easiest solution to all this would be re-unification. It's a shame that this won't happen...
Yes, it would be so much easier if we ignored the will of the people of Northern Ireland and they just did what they were told.
I'm not ignoring anybody's will. The future of Ireland is for the Irish people to decide, be they from the Republic, be they from Northern Ireland. I would always defend and respect that.
My own personal preference is for a united Ireland, but obviously, that's not for me to decide.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jadenim wrote: But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.
For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.
That's the EU bribing us with our own money.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The irony of the free trade proposal is that we are inside the world's largest, richest free trade zone right now, and we've decided that is a bad idea and we want to leave.
If it had stuck to being a common market, and had not started morphing into the United States of Europe, I would be the first to lead the charge to remain in the common market.
Jadenim wrote: But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.
For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.
You raise a very good point. Yes we do have hopelessly inept people in charge. But I think they get by because they can use the eu as a crutch. And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.
Jadenim wrote: But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.
For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.
You raise a very good point. Yes we do have hopelessly inept people in charge. But I think they get by because they can use the eu as a crutch. And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.
Assuming of course the money would be spent on thos things by Mr A without the involvement of Mr B.
Maybe it's the working class mill town in me, but I'm highly skeptical that would be the case. Perhaps in the 50's but not after the shift to the financial sector.
For example, apart from Common Agricultural grants, the UK receives payment from the EU for hosting the European Medical Agency. Another factor is that development grants to countries like Ireland and Spain helped improve their infrastructure and economy a lot, making them better trading partners and bigger contributors to the budget.
I'm not ignoring anybody's will. The future of Ireland is for the Irish people to decide, be they from the Republic, be they from Northern Ireland. I would always defend and respect that.
But the people of NI voted 78% (IIRC) not to Brexit, and you want them to Brexit anyway. There's no way you can twist it that you're respecting their will. Ditto for Scotland.
For England and Wales to get their 1.9% "Will of the people!" you need to completely ignore the will of 2 of the 4 countries in the bloc, whilst totally shafting them, whilst pretending it's for their own good and hoping they'll play along.
My own personal preference is for a united Ireland, but obviously, that's not for me to decide.
But by insisting on Brexit you're forcing the matter. The only outcome that will work from a logistics point of view is unification. You could always offer them another referendum: "UK or EU" and watch them leave whilst the Scots jump up and down demanding they get one too.
That's the EU bribing us with our own money.
Surely if they were bribing us with our money, they'd spend it on London?
I view it as a sensible larger body spending money that the smaller body can't be trusted to. Like how I buy clothes/toys for my toddler instead of handing him cash to do it himself.
Do you honestly thing London centric parties would spend any money outside of London if they had any say?
If it had stuck to being a common market, and had not started morphing into the United States of Europe, I would be the first to lead the charge to remain in the common market.
And the reason it didn't is because people we elected agreed to move it in a more coherent direction.
You keep blaming Europe for the failings of our politicians. You're going to be in for a huge disappointment when our politicians keep failing you after we've left, and they've got even less checks and bounds on them.
I'm not ignoring anybody's will. The future of Ireland is for the Irish people to decide, be they from the Republic, be they from Northern Ireland. I would always defend and respect that.
But the people of NI voted 78% (IIRC) not to Brexit, and you want them to Brexit anyway. There's no way you can twist it that you're respecting their will. Ditto for Scotland.
For England and Wales to get their 1.9% "Will of the people!" you need to completely ignore the will of 2 of the 4 countries in the bloc, whilst totally shafting them, whilst pretending it's for their own good and hoping they'll play along.
The people of Scotland voted to reject independence a year prior to Brexit, knowing that meant that future UK wide referenda applied to them for whatever the result of the whole country. The Brexit referendum was never offered to the parts of the UK individually, it was a whole nation vote. And immediately afterwards Scotland start crying that they aren't being treated as an independent nation, when they aren't independent and specifically voted not to be. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it.
Flip it the other way. Why should the whole nation be prevented from leaving because of a small number of people in Scotland? 62% of a 67% turnout from just under four million eligible voters? For some reason the Scots, despite being so up in arms about the brexit vote, didn't even match the national average voter turnout. Maybe Scotland is less enthusiastic for the EU than some want to claim.
The people of Scotland voted to reject independence a year prior to Brexit, knowing that meant that future UK wide referenda applied to them for whatever the result of the whole country. The Brexit referendum was never offered to the parts of the UK individually, it was a whole nation vote. And immediately afterwards Scotland start crying that they aren't being treated as an independent nation, when they aren't independent and specifically voted not to be. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it.
And they were told voting no was the only way to keep the EU. No one (even brexiters) actually expected Brexit to win. If you wanted to stay in and had to choose between definitely leaving and probably staying, which would you take?
Flip it the other way. Why should the whole nation be prevented from leaving because of a small number of people in Scotland? 62% of a 67% turnout from just under four million eligible voters? For some reason the Scots, despite being so up in arms about the brexit vote, didn't even match the national average voter turnout. Maybe Scotland is less enthusiastic for the EU than some want to claim.
I'd be happy for England and Wales to leave the EU and leave Scotland and NI in (and ideally scoop up all the banking jobs they want to throw away).
The larger point is that people only care about "the will of the people" when it suits them.
For example, apart from Common Agricultural grants, the UK receives payment from the EU for hosting the European Medical Agency. Another factor is that development grants to countries like Ireland and Spain helped improve their infrastructure and economy a lot, making them better trading partners and bigger contributors to the budget.
It isn't a simple money swapping exercise.
^
There's a ton of complexity behind these things and where the money comes from and what it does is more than just what accounts its swapping through.
Future War Cultist wrote: It's because said free trade zone is effectively trying to annex us. Other countries will trade with us without trying to take over our day to day lives.
Is it really annexation when you're one of the largest and most important members, with a ton of exceptions and deals, massive political influence, and probably the most powerful military of any member of the coalition? One might make the case that, in a hypothetical USE, that the UK might become part of a larger superstate, but that would really be a merger, not an annexation. *Very* different concepts.
Nobody is or ever was going to be marching in and taking over Britain in anything like could be described as an Annexation in the sense of Crimea, the Sudetenland, Tibet, Goa, the Golan heights, Hawaii, etc.
Maybe the SNP should have held off the independence vote, but they wanted it as soon as possible knowing brexit was yet to be settled, and now want to hold another referendum because they lost the first and Brexit doesn't suit them.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Maybe the SNP should have held off the independence vote, but they wanted it as soon as possible knowing brexit was yet to be settled, and now want to hold another referendum because they lost the first and Brexit doesn't suit them.
And we're elected with a large majority and a mandate to do exactly that.
I'd say at this rate a second vote is unavoidable. But only after the deal is secured so that we know what we're voting for. Three options: yes to deal and leave, no to deal and leave under wto rules and no to deal, stay in eu. But the third option has to win an overall majority.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.
Using something like Single Transferable Vote, rather than another referendum, right?
Could easily have the referendum be:
"Rank options in order of preference (1=highest, 3=lowest):
1. Accept deal and leave
2. Reject deal and leave under WTO terms
3. Remain in EU".
Future War Cultist wrote:And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.
So why bother? Because your example is way too simple. Germany also pays more into the EU than it gets back in money alone. But there are other benefits. People can easily move to another country (we got a bunch of apprentices from Spain some years ago as they were lacking in opportunities and Germany couldn't fill the demand). This creates more tax paying citizens (but you don't see those benefits if you just look at the money flowing from the UK into the EU and from the EU into the UK). Companies also can trade easier inside the EU, that means more revenue for the company (and taxes for the state, again like above) but things being easier also means fewer hurdles of you want too setup a company that can deal with the whole EU, quicker deals (on a business to business or business to consumer level, not government) and much easier access the big market (instead of having to deal with each country's specific regulation). Everybody can act quicker to adapt to the market. Companies need less overhead to access the whole market, either saving them some money or making it possible like for small companies that would otherwise just act in the local market (and would see international expansion as much more risky).
Future War Cultist wrote:And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.
So why bother? Because your example is way too simple. Germany also pays more into the EU than it gets back in money alone. But there are other benefits. People can easily move to another country (we got a bunch of apprentices from Spain some years ago as they were lacking in opportunities and Germany couldn't fill the demand). This creates more tax paying citizens (but you don't see those benefits if you just look at the money flowing from the UK into the EU and from the EU into the UK). Companies also can trade easier inside the EU, that means more revenue for the company (and taxes for the state, again like above) but things being easier also means fewer hurdles of you want too setup a company that can deal with the whole EU, quicker deals (on a business to business or business to consumer level, not government) and much easier access the big market (instead of having to deal with each country's specific regulation). Everybody can act quicker to adapt to the market. Companies need less overhead to access the whole market, either saving them some money or making it possible like for small companies that would otherwise just act in the local market (and would see international expansion as much more risky).
It's a bit like saying "New York is a net contributor. So why bother?" Just because you put more in tax dollars in than out doesn't mean you aren't getting greater benefits.
Those Spanish apprentices might not have needed to go to Germany if Spain's economy wasn't doing so poorly on account of the Euro. Youth unemployment in the Mediterranean countries is at what level? 20% average last time I checked.
You have some points though. I laugh when people say that the EU is a socialist racket, because it's actually a corporate racket.
Those Spanish apprentices might not have needed to go to Germany if Spain's economy wasn't doing so poorly on account of the Euro.
Spanish economy has systemic issues going back to the readjustment to a market economy after years of autarchy during the Franco dictatorship. It rose up steadily after Franco's death to over 20% on the mid-80s, even before it was allowed in the EEC (and the Euro was nothing but a distant project at the time).
You will notice that it's doing rather fine lately, though. With an almost 10-point drop of unemployment from the height of the crisis and being the fastest-growing "big" EU economy for a while now.
Future War Cultist wrote: Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely happy to hear that. But what about Greece, and Italy's ticking debt bomb?
Both countries have issues significantly more complicated than "it's the EU's fault".
What's more interesting, looking at Portugal and Spain tells you how to get good results using pretty much opposite policies. Spain being a tory-like center-right government using tory-like cuts and austerity while Portugal has the Communist party supporting the Socialists in power.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.
A solution so impractical as to be almost useless.
And to think you were accusing me of being a parody account!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely happy to hear that. But what about Greece, and Italy's ticking debt bomb?
Shhhh! That goes against the EU is perfect, and we'd all be dead without it, narrative!
To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, don't mention the Greeks!
Being in or out of the EU won't make a huge amount of difference as concerns the Italian situation, though on balance we will probably be worse off outside.
Italy are in the Euro, we are not, so our exposure to banking risk through the ECB is minimal.
We of course are still exposed to trading risks because the EU is our biggest trade partner and will remain so after Brexit. (Though reduced in value due to new trading barriers.)
We are likely to lose the advantage of being a major clearing centre in the Euro forex trade, though.
Finally, as outsiders we won't have any say in how to handle the crisis.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.
A solution so impractical as to be almost useless.
And to think you were accusing me of being a parody account!
Please, do go on. How is it impractical? Future War Cultist's suggestion has merit but assumes that people that people that vote for one Leave option would prefer the other Leave option over staying if their option doesn't win. It's essentially the same system France uses in its Presidential elections, it's hardly "impractical".
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.
A solution so impractical as to be almost useless.
And to think you were accusing me of being a parody account!
Please, do go on. How is it impractical? Future War Cultist's suggestion has merit but assumes that people that people that vote for one Leave option would prefer the other Leave option over staying if their option doesn't win. It's essentially the same system France uses in its Presidential elections, it's hardly "impractical".
But it is excessive and wont work due to voter fatigue. To my knowledge voter turnout has dropped slightly everytime we've had a major vote recently. If the public is told that they have to vote, and then vote again voter apathy will skew the result.
Lets be fair here apathy was the main reason that Brexit won. Voter apathy will tell against the leave voters who are fed up being labelled as racist and stupid and will probably be dissuaded from voting while the remainers will be motivated to continue voting to stay in the EU.
I seem to remember something about "lazy non-voters only have themselves to blame". Something about how we shouldn't care about what people that don't vote think, because they had their chance.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I seem to remember something about "lazy non-voters only have themselves to blame". Something about how we shouldn't care about what people that don't vote think, because they had their chance.
As opposed to ask7ng the same loaded question until you get the answer you want? The UK,rightly or wrongly, voted to leave the EU. If you can figure out a way to allow a vote where staying is not an option....
How is the question "loaded", exactly? You're assuming complete homogenity in opinion of people who voted Leave when the entire problem is that what constitutes "Leave" hasn't been defined.
GoatboyBeta wrote: "Would you like to stay in this plane or go for a skydive?"
"Well skydiving sounds cool."
"Ok here's the door out you go."
"What about the parachute?"
"Oh you have to make one on the way down"
"Waaaaaiiittt"
I'd put it more like:
"Would you like to stay in this plane or go for a skydive?"
"Well skydiving sounds cool."
"Ok, and do you want to hold the 10 kilo weight or the 50 kilo weight?"
"What? Why do I need to hold a weight?"
"Oh you have to hold a weight, weren't you told?"
"No! Okay, I want to stay on the plane."
"Sorry, that's not an option. Here you go, 50 kilo weight for not making your mind up."
*Sound effect of a boot meeting backside*
"AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!"
Future War Cultist wrote:I laugh when people say that the EU is a socialist racket, because it's actually a corporate racket.
Well, the economic union bits benefit the corporations the most (because they already have more money and power than us) but at least there are some bits for the citizens. I would love some sort of tax system that would make it harder (so much harder) to push taxes around until you end up paying nearly nothing. And the EU has been pushing back against some practices of big internet companies (privacy concerns). The big problem is (like this thread, and similar ones have shown) that people assume the EU is some sort of quasi-dictatorship instead of actually being a form of government you can vote for to influence its agenda (and that perception being widespread leads to interests getting more attention that don't necessarily overlap with what the population wants). I still think the EU is (at the moment) humanity's best bulwark against corporate interest taking over even more, due to still being capable of being influenced by actual voters (in the other big trading blocks citizens seem to have less influence than other actors do) and being able to effect change due to it's size/power. Of course that means we need people to be more informed and active in that regard or the EU will just end up helping corporate interests instead of being there for actual people who live inside its borders.
The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.
Howard A Treesong wrote: The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.
What difference does this make at this scale?
The rules the EU vote on are broad general themes that all states should comply with. As such you need a voting system that provides a broad view of the populace as a whole. For example on air pollution. From a voter perspective you vote in EU votes on the basis of whether you want greater or less control on air pollution. How it is controlled is then implemented by the individual government. Fear of losing control is just nonsense made up by anti EU propaganda. As an individual you get more control as you get to vote on general principles and then more specific ones (which also happens in the uk with mp, council, parish elections and so on). Take the green agenda. In the uk your vote for the greens may mean nothing in parliament as there is never enough votes to grow their MPs. Yet in a European election that 3% of the vote across all countries can build to provide a louder voice to the green agenda than would ever be achievable under smaller elections.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: How is the question "loaded", exactly? You're assuming complete homogenity in opinion of people who voted Leave when the entire problem is that what constitutes "Leave" hasn't been defined.
How is the question not loaded? Just look through most of the posts and news items about brexit. Just about everyone who voted for Brexit has been labelled 'racist' 'small minded' or 'xenophobic' in some manner. Now I'm not denying that some of the people voting they way they did are exactly that. However the majority of people who voted for Brexit did so because of other reasons. For example the original vote in the 70s was for entering the single market. That was it. And somehow that simple question has led to open borders, the superiority of the ECJ, the loss of the fishing fleet (not that the fishing wars was anything to be happy about) and a few other things.
But because of all the furore over the racist angle people who voted leave will now be dissuaded from voting because they don't want that label. Because rather than accept that leavers have valid reasons, remainers have to demonise them in order to validate their position of staying in the EU.
I had hoped that the negotiations would have shown a willingness on both sides to try and make this process as painless as possible, but it seems that that is going to be a fruitless wish as the EU side has simply refused all proposals from the UK side.
tbh it looks as if it truly will be a hard brexit, as there is no way in hell that the voting public, after voting for brexit, will accept even stricter regulations for some half assed deal than they had under the previous full membership.
People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.
On the subject of EU negotiations, I've been watching a lot youtube videos on what Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, has to say on Brexit and the EU.
He has a lot of good things to say about the EU, and a lot of bad things. Well worth the watch and recommended to anybody.
Two conclusions can be drawn from his dealings with Brussels and what he has to say about them:
1. Do not trust the EU an inch. Not one inch. They will leak, lie, and distort during these Brexit negotiations.
2. The EU are not interested in negotiations. They will pretend to negotiate, there will be the illusion of negotiations, but no actual negotiations will take place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.
People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.
Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.
The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.
People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.
Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.
The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.
Then your argument is wrong. If the plane was never meant for skydiving then Article 52 would never have been written into the constitution. We got onto that plane knowing that we could skydive.
And whether you consider the proposals as delusional, they are a starting point to which the EU response has been no. In this particular case the EU is playing to the remain crowd by saying no, they the remainers get to say look the UK has no plan. Sorry I think you may find that the leavers aren't that bothered and are quite prepared to accept the hard brexit option.
Let's assume that a vote is called where you get to choose between one of the three alternatives below. Whether the winner is decided in a second run-off between the two top alternatives, through single transferrable vote or something else is irrelevant for your accusations of loading the quesion.
The UK should accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union.
The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union.
The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and remain in the European Union
Where is the loaded question? Bear in mind that a loaded question is a question like "have you stopped beating your wife?" that makes unwarranted assumptions in such a manner that the respondee have to agree to something that isn't the subject of the question. Where am I doing that?
I had an analogy for the eu and us involving a car. Britain was a car, the British people it's legal owner and the British government was our dopey 18 year old who just got their R plates and are named on the insurance. First our kid signs us up this 'automobile association' that provides cheap insurance and breakdown cover. And we argee to it because why the hell not? But then over time the insurance premiums start to rise, and then they're demanding that the car can only be serviced at one of their approved garages, which charge a fortune for suspect work. Then we discover that our kid has been lending the car out to other people and using it as an uber mobile on the side, and when we complain to these people they say 'oh but we signed a contract with your kid so it's all perfectly legal so if you don't drive us to the supermarket we'll sue you'. And when we do put a stop to it all, not only are they trying to sue us, but they're also threatening to slash the tyres and put a brick through the windscreen.
People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.
Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.
The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.
Then your argument is wrong. If the plane was never meant for skydiving then Article 52 would never have been written into the constitution. We got onto that plane knowing that we could skydive.
And whether you consider the proposals as delusional, they are a starting point to which the EU response has been no. In this particular case the EU is playing to the remain crowd by saying no, they the remainers get to say look the UK has no plan. Sorry I think you may find that the leavers aren't that bothered and are quite prepared to accept the hard brexit option.
Cheers
Andrew
The problem was Article 52 was an emergency parachute intended for the possibly of throwing a rogue state out, not for countries wanting to jump ship. There was never any intention that it would involve a nice soothe gentle landing, which is why we are in the situation we are in.
There is a legitimate concern about the neo-liberal economic policies and tendencies of the EU in its current format. There is a legitimate concern that amalgamating into larger and more opaque forms of government dilutes the democratic power of the average voter. There is a legitimate concern about the EU's track record for consistently voting itself greater powers and slipping them past negligent or complicit national governments. And so on.
These problems exist whether one considers the EU inclusive or exclusive of Brexit. They concern a large number of people in many different countries spread across the EU. Unfortunately, they are also worries which the EU has systematically consistently failed to address.
The EU is, on an structural level, a tangled mess of cross-jurisdictions and private/commercial/national interests. One which, despite all of its grandiosely titled bodies and split domains of responsibility, appears to have very little in the way of strategic oversight, checks, and balances.
For me, these issues alone were sufficient of a reason to vote to leave. I suspect that blind nationalism tipped the vote in my favour. But then again, judging by what I have read in this thread alone, there is sufficient blind nationalistic style faith in the EU itself that it is not a one sided affair in that regard. The EU's consistent effort to instill a sense of 'European' identity has borne considerable fruit, it would seem. Which is interesting.
Beyond that, there doesn't really appear to be much more to discuss that hasn't already been chewed over at least five times. The thread seems to have devolved for the most part into point scoring.
On that basis, looking at other contemporary political going ons, apparently the UK operational deficit is down to 46 billion pounds a year now from 121 billion in 2012.
It's bigger than trade deals, the ECJ, the European commission, the Irish border etc etc
It's who we are as an island, a nation, a people...it cuts right to the heart of our identity.
It's a golden thread, a chain, that links to the Suffragettes, the Chartists, the Levellers, and even as far back as Magna Carta.
It's a continuation of that desire and yearning for freedom, for liberty, and justice.
There is a radical backbone to the nation's psyche, and that's why voting for Brexit, against a tidal wave of propaganda, was the radical thing to do.
As an old school libertarian and progressive, I almost wept at the sight of so called 'progressives' standing shoulder to shoulder with big banks and business, as they urged us to Remain.
But the working classes of Britain, God bless them, held fast, and sent the EU packing.
June 24th was one of the proudest days of my life...
It's bigger than trade deals, the ECJ, the European commission, the Irish border etc etc
It's who we are as an island, a nation, a people...it cuts right to the heart of our identity.
It's a golden thread, a chain, that links to the Suffragettes, the Chartists, the Levellers, and even as far back as Magna Carta.
It's a continuation of that desire and yearning for freedom, for liberty, and justice.
There is a radical backbone to the nation's psyche, and that's why voting for Brexit, against a tidal wave of propaganda, was the radical thing to do.
As an old school libertarian and progressive, I almost wept at the sight of so called 'progressives' standing shoulder to shoulder with big banks and business, as they urged us to Remain.
But the working classes of Britain, God bless them, held fast, and sent the EU packing.
June 24th was one of the proudest days of my life...
I'm sorry, but you're claiming that Remain was the side pouring out the tidal wave of propaganda? Not the gutter press like The Sun and Daily Mail and their ilk who have been consistently making up absolute bollocks about the EU for decades?
That the working class of britain have been persuaded to vote against their best interest (let's face it, the Tories aren't going to put the burden of the UK's economic difficulties post-Brexit on themselves and their financiers) is nothing to be proud of. It is akin to the poor americans who vote for Republicans so they don't get socialised healthcare.
The rest of this post is just the usual meaningless prattle which you seem to be spouting in every other post. For someone constantly decrying that the UK lacks any coherent vision or substantial plan for the future you certainly don't mind constantly posting absolutely meaningless drivel which sounds nice but has absolutely no substance. You are effectively doing the same thing as Theresa May when she was vomiting out "Red, white and blue brexit" whenever asked what her actual plan was.
It's bigger than trade deals, the ECJ, the European commission, the Irish border etc etc
It's who we are as an island, a nation, a people...it cuts right to the heart of our identity.
It's a golden thread, a chain, that links to the Suffragettes, the Chartists, the Levellers, and even as far back as Magna Carta.
It's a continuation of that desire and yearning for freedom, for liberty, and justice.
There is a radical backbone to the nation's psyche, and that's why voting for Brexit, against a tidal wave of propaganda, was the radical thing to do.
As an old school libertarian and progressive, I almost wept at the sight of so called 'progressives' standing shoulder to shoulder with big banks and business, as they urged us to Remain.
But the working classes of Britain, God bless them, held fast, and sent the EU packing.
June 24th was one of the proudest days of my life...
Careful, if you salute any harder you may strain something.
Why the Government believes the UK’s continued membership of a reformed European Union makes us a safer and more secure country
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
On 23 June 2016 the British people will make a historic choice - whether to remain a member of a reformed European Union (EU) on the terms agreed at the February 2016 European Council or to leave. Irrespective of the outcome, this country will continue to face serious challenges and threats to our security and our way of life from a range of sources across the globe, as well as closer to home. This document sets out the Government’s view that the best way to safeguard the safety and security of the UK and British citizens is for the UK to remain a member of a reformed EU, continuing to control its national borders as today and cooperating with EU partners where it is in the national interest to do so.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the subject of EU negotiations, I've been watching a lot youtube videos on what Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, has to say on Brexit and the EU.
He has a lot of good things to say about the EU, and a lot of bad things. Well worth the watch and recommended to anybody.
Two conclusions can be drawn from his dealings with Brussels and what he has to say about them:
1. Do not trust the EU an inch. Not one inch. They will leak, lie, and distort during these Brexit negotiations.
2. The EU are not interested in negotiations. They will pretend to negotiate, there will be the illusion of negotiations, but no actual negotiations will take place.
And yet despite his knowledge of the EU's worst aspects Varoufakis strongly backed Remain...
People here have used a skydiving metaphor for this, and if I was to look at it that way, the EU is the plane, the UK want to get off and its the EU who is refusing us the parachute to make the exit as painless/easy as possible.
Following that metaphor through, I woudl argue that the plane in question was never intended to be for skydiving, the UK is stood at the door screaming that it wants to jump out, with the EU trying to stop them causing catastrophic depressurization, but the UK is continuing to scream "This plane is going to Madrid! I wanted to go to Barcelona! Give me a parachute. I'm leaving anyway!" Whilst the EU tries to explain that you can get an onward journey to Barcelona, but the UK is the drunk passenger that won't accept this and says they will jump anyway if the EU refuses to land where they want.
The proposals from the UK side in general have been delusional, and mostly playing to the UK leave crowd, knowing they have no plan.
Then your argument is wrong. If the plane was never meant for skydiving then Article 52 would never have been written into the constitution. We got onto that plane knowing that we could skydive.
And whether you consider the proposals as delusional, they are a starting point to which the EU response has been no. In this particular case the EU is playing to the remain crowd by saying no, they the remainers get to say look the UK has no plan. Sorry I think you may find that the leavers aren't that bothered and are quite prepared to accept the hard brexit option.
Cheers
Andrew
The problem was Article 52 was an emergency parachute intended for the possibly of throwing a rogue state out, not for countries wanting to jump ship. There was never any intention that it would involve a nice soothe gentle landing, which is why we are in the situation we are in.
So basically...The EU was never supposed to be an organisation that you can voluntarily withdraw from, once a member state you're expected to ALWAYS be a member state and the EU didn't even bother to plan and design mechanisms for the possibility of a member state withdrawal.
Lovely...Its starting to sound like a protection racket.
It's bigger than trade deals, the ECJ, the European commission, the Irish border etc etc
It's who we are as an island, a nation, a people...it cuts right to the heart of our identity.
It's a golden thread, a chain, that links to the Suffragettes, the Chartists, the Levellers, and even as far back as Magna Carta.
It's a continuation of that desire and yearning for freedom, for liberty, and justice.
There is a radical backbone to the nation's psyche, and that's why voting for Brexit, against a tidal wave of propaganda, was the radical thing to do.
As an old school libertarian and progressive, I almost wept at the sight of so called 'progressives' standing shoulder to shoulder with big banks and business, as they urged us to Remain.
But the working classes of Britain, God bless them, held fast, and sent the EU packing.
June 24th was one of the proudest days of my life...
I'm sorry, but you're claiming that Remain was the side pouring out the tidal wave of propaganda? Not the gutter press like The Sun and Daily Mail and their ilk who have been consistently making up absolute bollocks about the EU for decades?
That the working class of britain have been persuaded to vote against their best interest (let's face it, the Tories aren't going to put the burden of the UK's economic difficulties post-Brexit on themselves and their financiers) is nothing to be proud of. It is akin to the poor americans who vote for Republicans so they don't get socialised healthcare.
The rest of this post is just the usual meaningless prattle which you seem to be spouting in every other post. For someone constantly decrying that the UK lacks any coherent vision or substantial plan for the future you certainly don't mind constantly posting absolutely meaningless drivel which sounds nice but has absolutely no substance. You are effectively doing the same thing as Theresa May when she was vomiting out "Red, white and blue brexit" whenever asked what her actual plan was.
Oh look here we go again...
most leavers didnt know what they vote for
leavers are stupid
leavers are ignorant
etc etc etc
Let's assume that a vote is called where you get to choose between one of the three alternatives below. Whether the winner is decided in a second run-off between the two top alternatives, through single transferrable vote or something else is irrelevant for your accusations of loading the quesion.
The UK should accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union. and be labelled a small minded bigoted racist
The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union. and be labelled a small minded bigoted racist
The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and remain in the European Union. and be labelled a fair minded liberal progressive and wonderful person
Where is the loaded question? Bear in mind that a loaded question is a question like "have you stopped beating your wife?" that makes unwarranted assumptions in such a manner that the respondee have to agree to something that isn't the subject of the question. Where am I doing that?
I've amended your questions to show how they are loaded. I tried telling you earlier, but for some reason it seem to have been missed. Whether or not you consider the questions to be open and fair minded they would be subverted via the press and social media into the above format.
Steve, Article 50 was never a parachute for ejecting a rogue state. That should have been obvious when it can only be triggered by the state in question.
Kerr imagined that the exit procedure might be triggered after an authoritarian leader took power in a member country and the EU responded by suspending that country’s right to vote on EU decisions.
“It seemed to me very likely that a dictatorial regime would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out. And to have a procedure for storming out seemed to be quite a sensible thing to do — to avoid the legal chaos of going with no agreement,”
Kerr imagined that the exit procedure might be triggered after an authoritarian leader took power in a member country and the EU responded by suspending that country’s right to vote on EU decisions.
“It seemed to me very likely that a dictatorial regime would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out. And to have a procedure for storming out seemed to be quite a sensible thing to do — to avoid the legal chaos of going with no agreement,”
Lord Kerr, author of article 50.
You did read that? Article 50 has nothing to do with throwing someone out and everything to do with someone leaving.
AndrewC wrote: Firstly let me apologise, I have no idea where it came from but we should be referring to Article 50 and not Article 52. Sorry about that.
Let's assume that a vote is called where you get to choose between one of the three alternatives below. Whether the winner is decided in a second run-off between the two top alternatives, through single transferrable vote or something else is irrelevant for your accusations of loading the quesion.
The UK should accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union. and be labelled a small minded bigoted racist
The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and leave the European Union. and be labelled a small minded bigoted racist
The UK should not accept [insert name of EU deal here] and remain in the European Union. and be labelled a fair minded liberal progressive and wonderful person
Where is the loaded question? Bear in mind that a loaded question is a question like "have you stopped beating your wife?" that makes unwarranted assumptions in such a manner that the respondee have to agree to something that isn't the subject of the question. Where am I doing that?
I've amended your questions to show how they are loaded. I tried telling you earlier, but for some reason it seem to have been missed. Whether or not you consider the questions to be open and fair minded they would be subverted via the press and social media into the above format.
Steve, Article 50 was never a parachute for ejecting a rogue state. That should have been obvious when it can only be triggered by the state in question.
Cheers
Andrew
So the questions actually aren't loaded at all then, you're just adding stuff in your mind to make them so?
Kilkrazy wrote: Even though there is an element of truth in that, it's very unfair to characterise all Leave voters that way.
You're one to talk, you're one of the biggest proponents of the "Leavers are stupid" angle. Remember all those stats and surveys you were posting saying that Leave voters are uneducated?
Kerr imagined that the exit procedure might be triggered after an authoritarian leader took power in a member country and the EU responded by suspending that country’s right to vote on EU decisions.
“It seemed to me very likely that a dictatorial regime would then, in high dudgeon, want to storm out. And to have a procedure for storming out seemed to be quite a sensible thing to do — to avoid the legal chaos of going with no agreement,”
Lord Kerr, author of article 50.
You did read that? Article 50 has nothing to do with throwing someone out and everything to do with someone leaving.
Cheers
Andrew
Thrown/pushed. Potato/potato. Put in a position where they would have no other option as all rights would be suspended. What it's not for, as was my point, as you well know, was for countries to decide they no longer wish to be part of the club and leave gracefully and cleanly.
It's clear you have no interest in reasoned discourse, only in points scoring and going over the same old same old, so I cannot be bothered any more.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: So the questions actually aren't loaded at all then, you're just adding stuff in your mind to make them so?
You're not listening are you? Everything to do with Brexit has become toxic within the UK. It doesn't matter what stance or position you take, you will be labelled in context.
It may be that because you're in Sweden you don't see the levels of hostility that can be raised with this subject or are hoping for a level of maturity in the UK. But questions, such as these, always have context. And the context of Brexit has become racism.
It doesn't matter how hard you try racism will come into it. Pro brexit are anti immigration racist bigoted members of the national front. Pro remainers are the holy people seeking the promised land cast out by the unbelievers. I thought the Scottish had the persecution complex to a fine art when it came to the English and independence, but we are amateurs compared to what's going on with leaving the EU.
Once you understand that, then any question becomes loaded.
I hope that makes the my position a little clearer as to why the original proposal was met with dismissal.
Steve steveson wrote: Thrown/pushed. Potato/potato. Put in a position where they would have no other option as all rights would be suspended. What it's not for, as was my point, as you well know, was for countries to decide they no longer wish to be part of the club and leave gracefully and cleanly.
It's clear you have no interest in reasoned discourse, only in points scoring and going over the same old same old, so I cannot be bothered any more.
I have every interest in a reasoned discussion, but I also like to be certain on the points of discussion. If article 50 is not the process for someone who wants to leave the EU, then what is? Lord Kerr has stated that it was put in to allow someone to voluntarily leave the EU of their own volition, because if there wasn't then it was impossible to leave.
Cheers
Andrew
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If any question about Brexit is loaded you're fethed. Simple as that.
Quoted for truth!
Do you have a spare room? I may want to visit for an extended period.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The more people a government rules over, the more diluted the voice of the individual. I saw Mario's post last night and thought that it concerns primarily the well being and convenience of companies and governments, not people and workers. As power is consolidated into larger forms of government located more distantly, it is the wealthy and corporations which benefit, the power of the individual is diminished.
That's both true and false at the same time. Sure, the more people you have the more diluted one vote is but it also give you economies of scale to make things possible that just don't work on a small scale. If you have a really local government then it's easier to govern a town/city but that same government will have a hard time creating a national rail or highway system. You need government to work at an useful scale. For example the same local government is really bad at making companies pay their taxes while some theoretical world government could make tax avoidance impossible (although the question of "would they do it?" is another topic).
And when it comes to big scale governments (those concerned with hundreds of millions of people) then it looks to me like the EU is actually one of the better ones when it comes to working for the people (and not just for corporations). Of course I would have liked the EU to not feth up the 2008 recession recover with their austerity agenda, I would love it if they could make it harder for big companies to avoid taxes inside the EU just by pushing everything around, and I would love it if the EU were to offer a better safety net and more support for its citizens (and higher taxes for the rich) but I also prefer it to the US system (that's much more driven by lobbying) or the Chinese system (however that totalitarian-communist-capitalist hybrid works). In the end the scale doesn't matter too much because the main question is if the system works well for its citizens. I think the EU is one of the okay ones when it comes to actually doing something against some corporate abuse (just read about the Apple, Google, or Facebook fanboys whining about how the EU is abusing their favourite corporate overlord) but it could still do better.
It's bigger than trade deals, the ECJ, the European commission, the Irish border etc etc
It's who we are as an island, a nation, a people...it cuts right to the heart of our identity.
It's a golden thread, a chain, that links to the Suffragettes, the Chartists, the Levellers, and even as far back as Magna Carta.
It's a continuation of that desire and yearning for freedom, for liberty, and justice.
There is a radical backbone to the nation's psyche, and that's why voting for Brexit, against a tidal wave of propaganda, was the radical thing to do.
As an old school libertarian and progressive, I almost wept at the sight of so called 'progressives' standing shoulder to shoulder with big banks and business, as they urged us to Remain.
But the working classes of Britain, God bless them, held fast, and sent the EU packing.
June 24th was one of the proudest days of my life...
I'm sorry, but you're claiming that Remain was the side pouring out the tidal wave of propaganda? Not the gutter press like The Sun and Daily Mail and their ilk who have been consistently making up absolute bollocks about the EU for decades?
That the working class of britain have been persuaded to vote against their best interest (let's face it, the Tories aren't going to put the burden of the UK's economic difficulties post-Brexit on themselves and their financiers) is nothing to be proud of. It is akin to the poor americans who vote for Republicans so they don't get socialised healthcare.
The rest of this post is just the usual meaningless prattle which you seem to be spouting in every other post. For someone constantly decrying that the UK lacks any coherent vision or substantial plan for the future you certainly don't mind constantly posting absolutely meaningless drivel which sounds nice but has absolutely no substance. You are effectively doing the same thing as Theresa May when she was vomiting out "Red, white and blue brexit" whenever asked what her actual plan was.
Oh look here we go again...
most leavers didnt know what they vote for
To be fair, aside from just simply "not part of the EU", that's a perfectly accurate statement, because there wasn't any vision, proposal, roadmap, or plan for what removing the UK from the EU would entail or lead to...
Kilkrazy wrote: Even though there is an element of truth in that, it's very unfair to characterise all Leave voters that way.
You're one to talk, you're one of the biggest proponents of the "Leavers are stupid" angle. Remember all those stats and surveys you were posting saying that Leave voters are uneducated?
No one has ever said that. This comment is however stupid. All surveys indicate that those with higher education levels support remaining in the EU and that by doing so will benefit the UK. They do not explain why this is the case however. It could be that as individuals those with higher qualifications see greater potential in being able to work anywhere in the EU and the freedom that brings to generate new relationships and not be limited by populist government idiot notions and "not from round here" sentiments. It could be argued that these same benefits are not seen by less educated people as they, for example, are less able to benefit from these opportunities (such as only understanding English). A lower education level does not however mean someone is stupid, yet some seem to infer that is the case. At worst it can perhaps be described that lower education limits an individual's ability to make the most of their intelligence as they have less training in how to apply it. However I repeat mixing the concept of cleverness and education *is* a stupid thing to do as it either willfully or unknowingly confusing two different concepts.
It doesn't matter how hard you try racism will come into it. Pro brexit are anti immigration racist bigoted members of the national front. Pro remainers are the holy people seeking the promised land cast out by the unbelievers. I thought the Scottish had the persecution complex to a fine art when it came to the English and independence, but we are amateurs compared to what's going on with leaving the EU.
This is just emotional tripe. There are significant concerns that the decision to leave was swayed by those with anti immigration sentiments. You only have to look at UKIPs posters on Brexit to see that they tried to influence those with such feelings. The anti immigration vote almost certainly swayed the result, but that doesn't mean everyone is. However it does appear to 'galvanised' certain groups and that for some has emboldened them to express bigotry and racism in ways that previously would have been classified as such (those that grumbled about is quietly are now more open and so on). It does not mean they are all members of the national front. I can point to examples in my own family where they didn't want to use a lawyers firm as to quote "they were all Asians" that even a couple of years ago wouldn't have been expressed. You can daily browse the BBC comments to find similar views. In some ways Brexit has become anti immigration rhetoric because simply these people are the ones shouting loudest (and those opposed to it are therefore fighting back as they do not trust the government) because we have a Tory government actively promoting anti immigration policies whilst trying to tell people not to follow their example.
In some ways the Brexit vote was in itself bigoted because it excluded about 3% of the population from voting - which are now being offered settled rights. On day one of leaving the EU another referendum would give the opposite result simply as those given settled rights would then be allowed to vote on the issue. Yet despite this such people will never get a say if the current government continues.
Finally I'd point out that whilst in Canada and the US I've had some anecodotal views of the U.K. And it's direction and the message is clear. The opinion we are giving people around the world is that we have become a petty self centred bigoted nation. This is likely to be unfair for a large proportion of the population, but many of those loudly supporting Brexit are bigots and racists and is giving the impression that the uk is no longer friendly or welcoming. The nation is in effect being tarnished by what the country has let Brexit become about.
Also a) if voting leave is such an unpopular, shameful thing, why did so many do it? Your assertion that people won't vote to leave is demonstrably false, as the arguments haven't changed since last year.
b) your portrayal of remain voters being seen as the "good" side is also false. We are frequently and vocally branded as spineless, wishy-washy, liberal traitors. The judges who ruled that our government had to obey our own laws were branded as "enemies of the state" FFS!
Whirlwind, I'm not sure whether your contradicting me or agreeing with me. You start of calling it tripe and then perfectly illustrating the point that the situation is no longer logic but emotion at this stage.
Jadenim. Firstly I don't think anyone thought that leave would win, and a lot of it was a protest vote. This labelling of voters has only really come about after the results. Name calling if you like because some people didn't like the results and so wanted to belittle the opposition to explain why they lost. Yes my portrayal of one side good other side bad is a little on the extreme side, but it better illustrated what I was trying to get across. The insults are passing both ways.
I wonder how many people voted Leave as a protest and would vote Remain if given the chance of a second referendum, now that the difficulties associated with leaving are more apparent.
Radio 4 had an interesting piece this morning with Jon Snow, who did a major speech last night about how the mainstream media is out of touch with "ordinary people".
But we've still got our Nationalistic Pride and "Sovereignty" to give control to unaccountable oligarchs.... Rule Brittania, Leading the way to the bottom.
It's bigger than trade deals, the ECJ, the European commission, the Irish border etc etc
It's who we are as an island, a nation, a people...it cuts right to the heart of our identity.
It's a golden thread, a chain, that links to the Suffragettes, the Chartists, the Levellers, and even as far back as Magna Carta.
It's a continuation of that desire and yearning for freedom, for liberty, and justice.
There is a radical backbone to the nation's psyche, and that's why voting for Brexit, against a tidal wave of propaganda, was the radical thing to do.
As an old school libertarian and progressive, I almost wept at the sight of so called 'progressives' standing shoulder to shoulder with big banks and business, as they urged us to Remain.
But the working classes of Britain, God bless them, held fast, and sent the EU packing.
June 24th was one of the proudest days of my life...
Long time lurker in the thread here - just a curious question to DINLT: Are you, by chance, planning to run for local government at some point? Because, to be honest, the last few weeks sometimes sounded like you're trying out different forms of patriotic, catchy phrases to convince citizens to vote for your side.
Witzkatz wrote: Long time lurker in the thread here - just a curious question to DINLT: Are you, by chance, planning to run for local government at some point? Because, to be honest, the last few weeks sometimes sounded like you're trying out different forms of patriotic, catchy phrases to convince citizens to vote for your side.
Why do I always get these questions?
I have no interest in running for political office.
Just because I'm anti-EU, doesn't make me anti-European. The EU and Europe are not one and the same, and as I've said before, the EU deserves some credit for convincing people that the line between the two is blurred. It's a masterful propaganda exercise on the EU's part.
I love Europe, I've travelled all over, and have some wonderful memories of a great continent, and it's because I love Europe so much that I'm opposed to the EU.
If you isolate ordinary people from those leaders and institutions that rule them, and block them off with extra layers (ECJ, commisions this, comissions that) then people become bitter and detached from the decision making process.
It's everywhere, and it's been going on for years. People like Trump and Farage are symptoms of this. Sadly, the EU elite, and the elite in each nation cannot see this, so the resentment boils, and boils, and boils, and will burst one day...
Hopefully, it will be quick like the downfall of the Soviet Union, but with the EU? I don't know.
I don't want trouble or violence in Europe. Never! And I don't doubt the good intentions of the original founders. Who can argue against peace in Europe? Not I.
But the EU is going down a path that I fear will lead to trouble. The people that run the EU are fools, but sadly, they are the worst type of fools: fools with good intentions, and that will make it worse.
Post 2017/08/24 19:59:51 Subject: Re:The UK General Election
Witzkatz wrote:
Long time lurker in the thread here - just a curious question to DINLT: Are you, by chance, planning to run for local government at some point? Because, to be honest, the last few weeks sometimes sounded like you're trying out different forms of patriotic, catchy phrases to convince citizens to vote for your side.
Why do I always get these questions?
I have no interest in running for political office.
Just because I'm anti-EU, doesn't make me anti-European. The EU and Europe are not one and the same, and as I've said before, the EU deserves some credit for convincing people that the line between the two is blurred. It's a masterful propaganda exercise on the EU's part.
I love Europe, I've travelled all over, and have some wonderful memories of a great continent, and it's because I love Europe so much that I'm opposed to the EU.
If you isolate ordinary people from those leaders and institutions that rule them, and block them off with extra layers (ECJ, commisions this, comissions that) then people become bitter and detached from the decision making process.
It's everywhere, and it's been going on for years. People like Trump and Farage are symptoms of this. Sadly, the EU elite, and the elite in each nation cannot see this, so the resentment boils, and boils, and boils, and will burst one day...
Hopefully, it will be quick like the downfall of the Soviet Union, but with the EU? I don't know.
I don't want trouble or violence in Europe. Never! And I don't doubt the good intentions of the original founders. Who can argue against peace in Europe? Not I.
But the EU is going down a path that I fear will lead to trouble. The people that run the EU are fools, but sadly, they are the worst type of fools: fools with good intentions, and that will make it worse.
I understand and agree that the more levels and hurdles you put between the citizen and the highest levels of government, there will be feelings of detachment. I'm much more inclined myself to bother with the problems of my home town and my state, less with German national politics, to be honest - I think it's a tribal part of human nature.
However, if the world is supposed to continue developing not only on a technological level, but also on a political level, I think the concept of a more united Europe does not HAVE to be a bad thing from the get go. I see that it can be viewed as such, and I see the problems with the EU. What I'm trying to say is, I think it's worth giving a try, and not every try has to be foolish or foolhardy. Some EU officials might be in it for money, cronyism and power; others, though, might be in it because they genuinely try to steer our little continent through the trials of the next century. Instead of wishing for its downfall, I'd prefer to make the effort and try to identify and vote in those people who seem like the most competent and trustworthy and stabilize this thing.
(I don't think I have to add that I'd have preferred the UK to stay in the EU and try to solve issues WITH it from within instead of leaving the rest of its members to do or die after this post eh )
Not many of us have a problem with a more unified Europe.
But many of us have issues with the EU, how it was formed and the way it is going.
It's a massive project that needs work from the ground up. Yet the EU leaders are quite content to ignore the issues and carry on like everything is fine and dandy, gradually absorbing more and more power and making it harder for the EU to actually be effective at anything (see the refugee crisis and the Ukraine for examples.)
However, if the world is supposed to continue developing not only on a technological level,
What a curious statement. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining what you mean by it? (no sarcasm)
Perhaps it was a bit too short to carry a lot of meaning, sorry for that.
What I was trying to say - we are getting closer to reliable spacefaring technology, genetic engineering, large stepping stones that will hopefully be able to serve humanity well in the coming centuries. However, there's also immense potential for differences in tech level and wealth to divide people on a local and a global basis, in my opinion. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing everywhere as well.
So, in the widest sense, I think at some point mankind must reach the point where there is more cooperation than mistrust, more working towards a shared goal than gritty competition. I am absoutely aware that this is a grandiose vision for the far future, but there have to be small starting points. One of those starting points would be a more united Europe, in my opinon - if that happens via the EU or some other peaceful process, I don't care. But from my lens, the EU is not beyond being saved as something that's doing something positive, and not just detrimental, for the continent.
I know this could be interpreted as trying to "homogenize Europe" and "eradicating differences in cultures" and so on. I have no intention of promoting that, I'm just looking for more cooperation than strife.
Edit: To maybe put it in one sentence: If we want to survive on this rock and getting off it, I think we need less of our tribal nature and more of "Federation of Planets".
Perhaps it was a bit too short to carry a lot of meaning, sorry for that.
What I was trying to say - we are getting closer to reliable spacefaring technology, genetic engineering, large stepping stones that will hopefully be able to serve humanity well in the coming centuries. However, there's also immense potential for differences in tech level and wealth to divide people on a local and a global basis, in my opinion. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing everywhere as well.
So, in the widest sense, I think at some point mankind must reach the point where there is more cooperation than mistrust, more working towards a shared goal than gritty competition. I am absoutely aware that this is a grandiose vision for the far future, but there have to be small starting points. One of those starting points would be a more united Europe, in my opinon - if that happens via the EU or some other peaceful process, I don't care. But from my lens, the EU is not beyond being saved as something that's doing something positive, and not just detrimental, for the continent.
I know this could be interpreted as trying to "homogenize Europe" and "eradicating differences in cultures" and so on. I have no intention of promoting that, I'm just looking for more cooperation than strife.
Edit: To maybe put it in one sentence: If we want to survive on this rock and getting off it, I think we need less of our tribal nature and more of "Federation of Planets".
Thank you for your explanation. I find it very interesting (on a complete academic sidenote) to hear what people perceive the definition of technology to be and its place in the world.
However, if the world is supposed to continue developing not only on a technological level,
What a curious statement. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining what you mean by it? (no sarcasm)
Perhaps it was a bit too short to carry a lot of meaning, sorry for that.
Spoiler:
What I was trying to say - we are getting closer to reliable spacefaring technology, genetic engineering, large stepping stones that will hopefully be able to serve humanity well in the coming centuries. However, there's also immense potential for differences in tech level and wealth to divide people on a local and a global basis, in my opinion. The gap between rich and poor seems to be growing everywhere as well.
So, in the widest sense, I think at some point mankind must reach the point where there is more cooperation than mistrust, more working towards a shared goal than gritty competition. I am absoutely aware that this is a grandiose vision for the far future, but there have to be small starting points. One of those starting points would be a more united Europe, in my opinon - if that happens via the EU or some other peaceful process, I don't care. But from my lens, the EU is not beyond being saved as something that's doing something positive, and not just detrimental, for the continent.
I know this could be interpreted as trying to "homogenize Europe" and "eradicating differences in cultures" and so on. I have no intention of promoting that, I'm just looking for more cooperation than strife.
Edit: To maybe put it in one sentence: If we want to survive on this rock and getting off it, I think we need less of our tribal nature and more of "Federation of Planets".
Or in other words:
“You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.”― Edgar D. Mitchell
It's a massive project that needs work from the ground up. Yet the EU leaders are quite content to ignore the issues and carry on like everything is fine and dandy, gradually absorbing more and more power and making it harder for the EU to actually be effective at anything (see the refugee crisis and the Ukraine for examples.)
That's curious. The EU was blamed as ineffective when during the Balkan conflict, then immediately pretty much the same people said it was overreaching when the common foreign and defence policy was instated as a reaction to that. Some EU members like Spain had been calling the EU border agency to be properly funded and operated for decades now (it exists in its present form only for a few years actually), but all the time the small-minded central governments said "overreaching" and "too expensive, not with my money", until of course it exploded in everyone's face.
You can sure criticise how the EU is reactive rather than proactive (most governments work that way) but you can't have it both ways. Either it's too overreaching or not effective enough.
OK, I have a slightly complex/radical idea to share, so bear with me as I try to get this down:
I'm going to call this the min/max concept; in this "minimum" means that you want local government to be as small and close to people as possible, to ensure that it is accountable and responsive to people's needs. Maximum references the fact that in the modern, globalised world, you need the maximum level of resources and cooperation/coordination available to deal with issues (be that climate change, controlling huge multinational corporations or countering belligerent individuals such as Mr Putin).
Essentially our current national governments are a bloated middle management that are getting in the way of this; they are too big to be responsive to the needs of all of their people, but too small and fractious to coordinate effectively on the really big issues.
I think the ideal end-point for Europe would be a true US-style federal model, with a lot of much smaller states (think Wales, Scotland, Nothern Ireland in size and composition), with a relatively high level of devolved power (again Scotland vs UK is probably in the right ballpark) and then straight up to a federal European government with proportional representation from each state, based on population.
The federal government would be responsible for the obvious stuff like foreign policy, defence, interstate "federal" crimes and boring stuff like product safety standards, environmental regulations, etc.
Local states would deal with health, welfare, education (you know, the stuff that most people actually care about and vote on).
There's a debate to be had over funding; i.e. whether you have funding parcelled out to each state based on population and development status, or whether you just let each state raise taxes as they see fit. I initially was thinking the former, but the more I think about it, the second option seems to fit the concept of local accountability better.
So that's my idea/vision. I think we have enough common history and culture in Europe to make it work and it would allow us to face up to the big challenges and players of the 21st century, but how we would get from here to there would be a tricky road. Not least because you'd be asking powerful national politicians to put themselves out of a job...
So that's my idea/vision. I think we have enough common history and culture in Europe to make it work and it would allow us to face up to the big challenges and players of the 21st century, but how we would get from here to there would be a tricky road. Not least because you'd be asking powerful national politicians to put themselves out of a job...
I generally like the overall approach you mention, but yeah, to be realistic - I think it'll take many decades before something like this would be feasible, and a myriad of problems to face along the way. Especially the finances, like you mentioned, could get very tricky. The EU and the economical and financial gaps between member countries illustrate this already to a certain degree, unfortunate as that is. Furthermore, I think you'd see more of the "local" politicians using methods and phrases like some Eastern European states have been using the last years - rallying against the evil EU, proclaiming to stand up to tyranny, while (in some cases) quietly cashing in all that sweet EU funding for their own economy and infrastructure.
A little bit like some politicians in the US like to cry havoc in face of their federal government, I guess? Maybe this is something that is unavoidable to a certain degree.
A little bit like some politicians in the US like to cry havoc in face of their federal government, I guess? Maybe this is something that is unavoidable to a certain degree.
I think it's unavoidable, unfortunately, just human nature.
And yes, at the moment it looks like it would take a long time, but I think having the idea is an important part (if not the most important part). As others have commented in this thread, a major problem with politics at the moment, locally, nationally and internationally is that no-one seems to have a vision. Everyone knows there are problems with the way things are, but mainstream politicians are so middle-of-the-road, focus group driven "players" that they're unwilling, possibly incapable of sticking their neck out and suggesting something different. I think that was a big driver behind Macron's recent success (and Trump); at least they're something different.
You can sure criticise how the EU is reactive rather than proactive (most governments work that way) but you can't have it both ways. Either it's too overreaching or not effective enough.
One can quite easily have it both ways, in the same way one could say that the Euro is both a vast project that's plugged extensively into the European economy yet still has considerable fiscal issues that derive from not being powerful enough. In other words, what's being complained about is essentially a structural flaw, an issue with the way things are currently set up. It's the mismatch between what the EU says it does on the tin, what it actually attempts to do, and what it can in fact do.
And that is very much an issue the EU currently possesses as an organisation, irrelevant of Brexit. They've literally admitted it in the Parliament, it's not some over-fertile imagining of a Brexiter.
Right here and now, we have the EU Commission, the EU parliament, the European Court of Justice, half a dozen 'top' EU positions, and innumerable quangos. Each is appointed by a different process (many of which are somewhat opaque), each represents different interests, and few have any form of oversight. That's without even considering the involvement of the national governments and personnel, like Frau Merkel.
The only thing that most of these different factions have in common is a tendency towards building larger EU. Entirely aside from any ideology, bureaucracies and governmental structures have an internationally well charted habit of expanding continuously unless checked by executive oversight and personal accountability. It requires, in other words, a hand on the helm, a person or party to guide it to function effectively.
In a national format,that direction is provided by the government of the day; who is democratically elected, publishes a manifesto, wields executive power, and is held directly accountable/responsible. But in the EU, fear of the populace, a desire not to disrupt the gravy train, and the meddling of the national governments means that no high ranking European official is willing to stand up and begin an honest democratic or legislative process to begin federalising the EU.
Yet for many of them, they crave some form of unification. There's an ideology, a creed, that we are all better together in whatever flawed corrupt form than separate. It may even be correct (that's for your personal judgement). They hope that by slowly absorbing power, they can gradually reach the ideal end goal (the United States of Europe) over time whilst circumventing those three things mentioned above.
Problematically, the absorption of power leads to expectations. If you set up a national currency (to use the example from earlier) that crosses national boundaries, people expect it to function like any other currency. After all, it's there in their hand, and every other currency works a certain way. They expect this one to work that way too. Unfortunately, only half the relevant powers for controlling that currency have been taken on board by Europe. This creates a situation where the currency is neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red herring. It's stuck in a halfway house in the middle of a veiled transition process, with nobody willing to (or possible even capable of) taking executive control.
So the problem just sits there. Nobody will own it, or even attempt to. This is the situation with many other problems, like immigration, foreign policy, or even the matter of structural reform within the EU. Sufficient power has been absorbed to create the haze of an executive shaped space at the top, the need for someone to start directing that power and being accountable for it. Yet not enough power has been absorbed that anyone is willing to step into that haze, because the only effective way of wielding it directly would initially require absorbing considerably more power. Which would risk incurring the three factors mentioned before (national governments, breaking the gravy train, and public backlash)
That's why Europe is a mess. That's why these problems carry on, day in, day out. That's why Brexit ultimately happened. The EU is in the middle of a somewhat dishonest, and undemocratic transitory process which renders both it and the national governments which comprise it ineffectual. The buck has been passed around so much nobody even remembers who last held it. Maybe some great and noble government will pop out the other end in forty years. Then again, maybe not.
It's a massive project that needs work from the ground up. Yet the EU leaders are quite content to ignore the issues and carry on like everything is fine and dandy, gradually absorbing more and more power and making it harder for the EU to actually be effective at anything (see the refugee crisis and the Ukraine for examples.)
That's curious. The EU was blamed as ineffective when during the Balkan conflict, then immediately pretty much the same people said it was overreaching when the common foreign and defence policy was instated as a reaction to that. Some EU members like Spain had been calling the EU border agency to be properly funded and operated for decades now (it exists in its present form only for a few years actually), but all the time the small-minded central governments said "overreaching" and "too expensive, not with my money", until of course it exploded in everyone's face.
You can sure criticise how the EU is reactive rather than proactive (most governments work that way) but you can't have it both ways. Either it's too overreaching or not effective enough.
That's exactly my point.
Some people see the EU as overreaching, and others see it as not doing enough because no one actual knows exactly what the EU is supposed to be doing.
The EU shouldn't have put It's nose into the Balkans, yet it did. Because it needed to do something because it's neighbour was going through a civil war. But on what right does the EU have to conduct foreign affairs? Does it have the right or does it not have the right? No one really knows for sure, which is why it needs replacing with something that actually understand.
The EU shouldn't have put It's nose into the Balkans, yet it did. Because it needed to do something because it's neighbour was going through a civil war. But on what right does the EU have to conduct foreign affairs? Does it have the right or does it not have the right? No one really knows for sure, which is why it needs replacing with something that actually understand.
But why the focus on first crashing and removing it before replacing it with something new - which, in politics, might take a decade and end up an even more opaque project than before - instead of trying to repair the issues with the current organization, the EU? I mean, I understand that a clean slate sounds refreshing, but I'm not sure if there will ever be something like a clean slate in the intermingled politics of a whole continent with dozens of nations.
It's a stretch of a comparison, I know, but it sounds a bit like the US Republican focus on "repealing and replacing" Obamacare - something that might have genuine issues, but trying to improve it instead of crashing it down and then making something new from scratch seems like it might be even more difficult and prone to new issues.
Concerning the rights or non-rights of the EU in conducting foreign affairs, that is something that could be figured out, certainly. Yes, the current politicians don't seem to do much about it, and yes, the bureaucracy of the EU looks overwhelming, but I don't see the how that is so much different from many national governments anyway.
It requires, in other words, a hand on the helm, a person or party to guide it to function effectively.
Another excellent post, Ketara. Sums up my feelings very well.
I've quoted that line in particular, because IMO, it cuts right to the heart of the matter.
Only two countries are capable of controlling the 'helm' of the EU:
Germany and the UK.
For obvious historical reasons, Germany can't be seen to 'dominate' Europe ever again.
So that leaves Britain, and there in lies the tragedy. Instead of taking our place at the heart of Europe, we were caught in this 1940 timewarp which regarded anybody east of Kent as suspect.
Add that to the chasing the special relationship bollocks by hanging onto America's coat tails, and it's clear we missed a golden opportunity to drive the EU into a better place.
Britain's leaving and Germany can't run the show...
what a mess.
And yeah, I know I voted leave, but playing devil's advocate here, I know my countrymen and women very well. Even if the EU was benign, and even if I were a Remain supporter, I still doubt if the British people would buy into Europe.
You can't in a day overturn centuries of stock assumptions and stereotypes about the French and Germans.
welshhoppo wrote: Well I believe that the EU will shove its fingers in its ears and refuse any reform that will mean things change.
And I'd like to see it go back to an international trade agreement anyway.
Fair enough, I think nobody has any illusions about this being an easy goal to reach, and not in a short time. Before dropping the point, I can't help but to add that the UK would've been one of the most influential countries in any push for change, being very much at the top when it comes to MEPs representing it:
Britain has profited from relatively substantial influence in the Parliament. This power is the result of several factors. First, its size – with 73 MEPs (9% of the incoming Parliament), the UK is tied with Italy for the greatest representation after Germany (96 MEPs) and France (74 MEPs). Second, the UK delegation always brings large groups of MEPs from the same party, since the British political system has a comparatively small number of successful parties, compared to other EU states. Having substantial blocs of MEPs allows UK parties to have a significant say in their groups.
But why the focus on first crashing and removing it before replacing it with something new - which, in politics, might take a decade and end up an even more opaque project than before - instead of trying to repair the issues with the current organization, the EU? I mean, I understand that a clean slate sounds refreshing, but I'm not sure if there will ever be something like a clean slate in the intermingled politics of a whole continent with dozens of nations.
It ultimately comes down, I suspect, to your personal political priorities. You mention 'crashing and removing it', but ultimately, the EU is still there regardless of Brexit. If they manage to fix everything up at a later date, and sort themselves out, well. Whirlwind and several others have expressed hope that changing demographic shifts and European development will end up with us rejoining. If the Europeans manage to put their house in order and put a simple honest plan for a federalised Europe on the table to the British public in thirty years, I'd certainly consider the offer with an open and willing mind.
I have no intrinisic objection to the concept you see, it's just the methodology for trying to build it I disagree with. Some people might say, 'well, so long as it gets us there, surely the methodology doesn't matter?' And if it was a guaranteed thing, I'd be inclined to agree. My issue I suppose, is that I don't see a shiny happy people utopian European ideal as a guaranteed end point. Too many supposedly noble projects failed or gone terribly wrong throughout history.
Another issue I see is that with all these powers and authority having been transferred (ineffectually) to Europe, it has begun to have a knock-on effect on my own government. Too many politicians pass the buck, can't respond to the desires of the electorate because of European law, and so forth. It's a bit like having the head of your department give half of his responsibilities/powers away to someone in a completely different department who's never in the office. The first manager denies all knowledge, power, and culpability and passes the buck to second one. And when you finally pin the second one down in their coffee break, they tell you that you don't understand the needs of their department and that they can't do what you need before you get the signatures of at least three other heads of department, none of which have the power to actually sign off on anything without getting the opinions of an external consulting body. Inevitably, nothing happens.
So to me, I'd rather retract those powers that have been absorbed by the European factions, and just put them back into the system which I know and have a far greater control over. That is to say, my own government. I believe that will improve the efficiency and accountability of whatever administration is power. So I'm not so much focused on 'repealing' without replacing Witzkatz, as I am trying to revert to what I thought was a more democratic and effective form of governance. I'm tired of this ineffectual, poorly structured halfway house between a federalised system and a set of national government.
I accept that this may not be sufficient reason for other voters, and respect that. The world would be a boring place if we all thought the same. But I personally have grown rather bored of the whole Brexit thing, a bit like Scottish independence, or Tory budget cuts. You can only read people raging about the same thing so many times over before becoming desensitized and moving on to other interests.
welshhoppo wrote: Well I believe that the EU will shove its fingers in its ears and refuse any reform that will mean things change.
And I'd like to see it go back to an international trade agreement anyway.
Fair enough, I think nobody has any illusions about this being an easy goal to reach, and not in a short time. Before dropping the point, I can't help but to add that the UK would've been one of the most influential countries in any push for change, being very much at the top when it comes to MEPs representing it:
Britain has profited from relatively substantial influence in the Parliament. This power is the result of several factors. First, its size – with 73 MEPs (9% of the incoming Parliament), the UK is tied with Italy for the greatest representation after Germany (96 MEPs) and France (74 MEPs). Second, the UK delegation always brings large groups of MEPs from the same party, since the British political system has a comparatively small number of successful parties, compared to other EU states. Having substantial blocs of MEPs allows UK parties to have a significant say in their groups.
It could have been, but a lot of people in Britain feel like we got shoe horned into the EU, and voters aren't the most reliable of people anyway, and then you have a huge chunk of voter resentment on top of voter negligence too.
For several months, doubts have been growing about student emigration data produced by the Office for National Statistics’ passenger survey. The Financial Times revealed last November that the survey, which runs from 6am to 10pm at ports and airports, was potentially failing to count foreign students returning home on night flights.
The Office for Statistics Regulation, the statistics watchdog, warned last month that the estimate of around 100,000 foreign students overstaying their visas each year should be downgraded to an “experimental figure” because problems in the survey sampling could lead to “potentially misleading results”.
On Thursday, when the Home Office published new “exit check” data for the first time, it emerged that the real number of foreign student overstayers was 4,600 last year.
Always amazes me how one can fail upwards in politics.
Meanwhile, concerns have escalated about the Home Office’s ability to administer an entirely new visa regime from 2019, with many people’s worries seemingly confirmed earlier this week by the department’s erroneous attempt to deport EU nationals.
Against a background of personnel cuts, the department will have to issue settlement documents to more than 3m EU nationals currently living in the UK, as well as deal with work permit and study visa requests from new EU arrivals who will no longer be granted automatic entry under free movement.
Ketara wrote: It ultimately comes down, I suspect, to your personal political priorities. You mention 'crashing and removing it', but ultimately, the EU is still there regardless of Brexit. If they manage to fix everything up at a later date, and sort themselves out, well. Whirlwind and several others have expressed hope that changing demographic shifts and European development will end up with us rejoining. If the Europeans manage to put their house in order and put a simple honest plan for a federalised Europe on the table to the British public in thirty years, I'd certainly consider the offer with an open and willing mind.
Feel free to believe anyone in the EU is ever going to want you guys back.
Feel free to believe anyone in the EU is ever going to want you guys back.
Most of the EU officials have already stated that they'd be all over us rejoining later on.
Unless you're referring to the general population, in which case I daresay 95% couldn't give two figs one way or the other, and there's as many ardent federal unionists who would see it as starry eyed destiny as there are ones who act like jilted lovers. You have to be a special kind of person to get personally offended by a foreign country withdrawing from a treaty agreement, after all. And that's right now. Give it forty years and see how many people care one way or the other when Britain leaving happened ten years before they were born.
In all honesty? I could, but I can't be bothered. Such headlines have been in the papers several times with various EU officials, including Juncker IIRC. You can probably find them without too much hassle through google if you're really interested.
In all honesty? I could, but I can't be bothered. Such headlines have been in the papers several times with various EU officials, including Juncker IIRC. You can probably find them without too much hassle through google if you're really interested.
Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.
Remember that the UK only got in the EEC over De Gaulle's dead political body, and Brexit will create a few more.
Back to the Balkans thing peace and stability is the reason the EU was formed in the first place. Of course the EU is going to be there. And look at them now, two countries are already in, the rest waiting to join in.
Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.
No. I've no idea why this is such an interesting topic, but since more than one person seems to care, here are a few quotes:
Juncker said ' “I don’t like Brexit because I would like to be in the same boat as the British. The day will come when the British will re-enter the boat, I hope.”
Verhofstadt said "“The relationship between Britain and Europe was never a love affair and certainly not wild passion. It was more a marriage of convenience. But it wasn’t a failure. Not for Europe and certainly not for Britain. I am 100% sure that one day there will be a young man or woman who will try again, who will lead Britain into the European family once again.”
There are others, easily locatable through google if you want to find them. If the British decide to get involved again in thirty years, with the EU having realised all the hopes that many have for it, I doubt that some vague grudge held by a handful of people three decades beforehand will prevent it.
Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.
Remember that the UK only got in the EEC over De Gaulle's dead political body, and Brexit will create a few more.
Back to the Balkans thing peace and stability is the reason the EU was formed in the first place. Of course the EU is going to be there. And look at them now, two countries are already in, the rest waiting to join in.
A lot might depend on status of the UK in future as to how willing the EU will accept the UK back in. If we continue to have similar government as now where they become more authoritarian and stripping the public of their rights so they can spy on them to control the publics view of the world (whilst noting it's all to protect us) then the EU may not accept a country until they improve our human rights/environment etc. policies. They might not also allow us back in if we again become the "sick man of Europe" noting it was only 40 years ago when we in such a state. With an aging population, ridiculous immigration targets and so on then we may find that our economy flounders relatively and the EU will see less reason to have us in. On the other hand we may be faced with the question of Europe again way before 40 years. As the older population moves on and a more pro-EU, less closed population develops (as the surveys indicate) then the desire to return to the EU may get much louder and once we lose the older dead weight politicians like May, Davis, Fox, Johnson and so on then the newer younger politicians may be more inclined to ask the question sooner. As I've also pointed out before, if the leave the EU and the UK provides 'settled' rights to EU citizens then all of a sudden you have 2-3 million people that can vote in UK referendums that will also be supportive of re-joining the EU as well which would easily swing the result.
My personal hope is that even if we leave the EU that they do allow those in the UK that wish to retain EU citizenship can do so (and retain the benefits of being in the EU to some extent).
As for the Balkans, it could be argued that the EU are only trying to stabilise regions in a manner that fits their ideals. At the same time Russia is doing the same. This is just about two political battles between types of regimes. The EU could have decided not to get involved but then that would effectively give Russia a free hand in their influence. So the question about the Balkans is whether you would prefer Russian or EU influenced region? There is a risk however that where these two regions mix there will be conflict of one form or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AndrewC wrote: Whirlwind, I'm not sure whether your contradicting me or agreeing with me. You start of calling it tripe and then perfectly illustrating the point that the situation is no longer logic but emotion at this stage.
Cheers
Andrew
No they were different. The first was saying that [sic] Leavers were all bigots and Remainers were all saints is an emotional response because it isn't true and is disingenuous on both parties. The statements are used however generally to try and end debate - so when the immigration argument comes up some people will provide a statement that all Leavers are bigots because it is an attempt to distract from the discussion by trying to turn a large group of people against the person or group positing the argument. However it is not unreasonable to state that the rhetoric against "anyone not the from round here" has increased since the vote (some of which is racist). It does not however mean that this applies to all 'Leavers' and for those that might now be more willing to express bigoted (such as immigrants are taking all our jobs) or racist views aren't necessarily supportive of national front type groups.
However a lot of the people that are still 'loud' about Wrexit primarily focus on immigration as an issue and it is both giving the perspective that a) the UK is hostile to people coming to the country and b) that those that support Wrexit are bigoted or racist because in the majority they are the loudest voices being heard (and conversely this then makes some of those that argue against them vehemently a halo mentality).
The whole situation is not helped by the Tory (aka newUKIP) government who spend a lot of time focussing on immigration and figures as an agenda to persuade certain groups of the population to vote for them rather than UKIP or similar parties. They could of course just come out now and state whatever happens free movement around the UK and EU would remain (but newUKIP knows that would split the right wing vote and give Labour the next government by a mile)
Those officials were talking about reverting Brexit before it's finalised not a hazy some time in the future.
Remember that the UK only got in the EEC over De Gaulle's dead political body, and Brexit will create a few more.
Back to the Balkans thing peace and stability is the reason the EU was formed in the first place. Of course the EU is going to be there. And look at them now, two countries are already in, the rest waiting to join in.
A lot might depend on status of the UK in future as to how willing the EU will accept the UK back in. If we continue to have similar government as now where they become more authoritarian and stripping the public of their rights so they can spy on them to control the publics view of the world (whilst noting it's all to protect us) then the EU may not accept a country until they improve our human rights/environment etc. policies. They might not also allow us back in if we again become the "sick man of Europe" noting it was only 40 years ago when we in such a state.
Economy is not the issue. The EU has taken basket case economies before.
It's the fool me twice, shame on me aspect of it. There were key voices predicting the UK would be a disruptive partner in the EU, not just De Gaulle, and it turned out to be quite true.
At the very least, a future EU will be much less accomodating of any special treatment.
I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.
By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.
However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.
By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.
However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
If we ever did apply to re-join the EU, they'd probably lay down the law to us: no rebates, opt-outs, special treatment, adopting the Euro is mandatory etc etc
I suspect if it did happen, we'd end up doing something more the lines of Norway's relationship, where about 20% of EU law applies and we join the trade zone.
Ketara wrote: I suspect if it did happen, we'd end up doing something more the lines of Norway's relationship, where about 20% of EU law applies and we join the trade zone.
I wouldn't mind that trillion pound oil fund the Norwegians have stashed away.
As I've said to you once before, and let's forget Scottish independence here for a minute,
The UK government's mismanagement of North sea oil has to be the greatest act of criminality ever inflicted on the British public.
Has there ever been such a gross mismanagement of a valuable resource on this scale?
Ketara wrote: I suspect if it did happen, we'd end up doing something more the lines of Norway's relationship, where about 20% of EU law applies and we join the trade zone.
I wouldn't mind that trillion pound oil fund the Norwegians have stashed away.
As I've said to you once before, and let's forget Scottish independence here for a minute,
The UK government's mismanagement of North sea oil has to be the greatest act of criminality ever inflicted on the British public.
Has there ever been such a gross mismanagement of a valuable resource on this scale?
Yes. If we're going to talk about mismanagement of oil revenues, practically every Middle-Eastern, African, and South American country with oil trumps us by a mile. Adding the revenue into the standard expenditure of the day may be short termist, but it's hardly an act of 'criminality'. It just paid for health services, education, and so forth in a different way.
If not investing money for a long term basis was an act of criminality, I daresay we'd all be guilty.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.
By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.
However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
If we ever did apply to re-join the EU, they'd probably lay down the law to us: no rebates, opt-outs, special treatment, adopting the Euro is mandatory etc etc
I doubt that the British public would buy it.
For better or for worse, there is no going back.
I imagine the way it will happen is this:
Have a vote of whether or not we want to join.
None of the parties will outline their plans of how to join.
Join will win by a small minority (because it could be so much more awesome!).
After several years of arsing about and political ineptitude we will join under a really bad deal with no subsequent referendum.
This join deal will be carried out even though once the electorate know the details of joining lots of them won't want it anymore.
GB continues to Hoakey Coakey in and out of the EU every 20 years, each time getting worse and worse deals both inside and out.
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
If we ever did apply to re-join the EU, they'd probably lay down the law to us: no rebates, opt-outs, special treatment, adopting the Euro is mandatory etc etc
I doubt that the British public would buy it.
For better or for worse, there is no going back.
The state of the £ may be equivalent or worse to the Euro by that point anyway given the current direction so joining might then be seen as a good thing to stabilise the currency...
A lot will depend on what the UK by that point has to offer the UK. If things have gone steadily south, the economy is ailing given an aging population with reduced output etc then there would be no need to offer any incentive to join as the UK populace is likely to readily accept it. In the unlikely event that we do not weaken then the EU may continue to offer incentives to join if overall that benefits the UK.
However I'm unsure whether the younger generation are so worried about losing things like the pound and so on compared to the current middle age/older generation as they are more open to exploring the world and not having to pay 3%-5% on exchange rate fees every time they use their credit card or change currency - joining the Euro might be seen as a good thing, with the £ all over the place! And it's not like a fair percentage of the new £ coins were mis-stamped anyway, we could do with a properly made coin! . The idea that the queens head should be on the £ is an aging one, and the younger generation I've met are less happy to have people simply born into power and privilege. The only benefit I see from a royal family is the tourism they bring in.
I'd make the case that people would come to see Buckingham Palace and whatnot without the Royal family, Versailles (probably spelling, but on my phone) seems to bring in enough people, but maybe that's because of guillotines and such.
Something something Cromwell was right, ban all fun and especially Christmas something something.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.
By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.
However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.
By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.
However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
...
The EU will do what it thinks is best for the populace of the EU at the time of the question. If the UK economy crashes or declines and continues to grow its debt (or maintain it) then it may be wary of letting the UK back in until that issue is resolved. Everyone blames the EU for Greece's woes, but the reality is that Greece 'adjusted' their books to get into the EU and didn't then resolve the issues it had; metaphorically they spent massively on the credit card and now the EU is bailing them out. The EU is not likely to make that mistake again and will ensure any joining countries finances are in order first. To think that EU politicians will hold a 'grudge' for leaving is highly unlikely (and they have allready noted that the door is still open).
I think they will, so your point is rebutted.
Still at least we now know where the money promised for the NHS during the referendum has gone (or £315m of it)...to paying the extra interest because of the devaluation of the £. I wonder who will be benefiting from that expenditure....??? Definitely not the populace....
Ketara wrote: I suspect if it did happen, we'd end up doing something more the lines of Norway's relationship, where about 20% of EU law applies and we join the trade zone.
I wouldn't mind that trillion pound oil fund the Norwegians have stashed away.
As I've said to you once before, and let's forget Scottish independence here for a minute,
The UK government's mismanagement of North sea oil has to be the greatest act of criminality ever inflicted on the British public.
Has there ever been such a gross mismanagement of a valuable resource on this scale?
Yes. If we're going to talk about mismanagement of oil revenues, practically every Middle-Eastern, African, and South American country with oil trumps us by a mile. Adding the revenue into the standard expenditure of the day may be short termist, but it's hardly an act of 'criminality'. It just paid for health services, education, and so forth in a different way.
If not investing money for a long term basis was an act of criminality, I daresay we'd all be guilty.
Yeah, but as you're fond of pointing out, government money is not run like household budgets.
We know from the records that Mrs T wasn't using the oil money to build a hospital in Bolton, or fill in some pot holes in East Anglia.
No, that was money was used to fund tax cuts to win a General Election.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the opportunity for re-application to the EU will not occur for 10 or 20 years.
By then, a lot of things probably will have changed. The EU may have collapsed, or it may be going stronger than ever. The UK may have collapsed, or Brexit may have proved the golden wonderland of international trade that Leavers believe. The older part of the population, who voted more strongly to Leave will have died off, but the younger population may have forgotten the reasons why they preferred Remain. Everyone's ideas will be influenced by these factors.
However, assuming that the EU is going well, and the UK's population have become more pro-EU, another referendum could be held and if the popular vote is to join, it's fairly unlikely the EU would refuse on the basis of "those bloody Brits again!"
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
...
I think they will, so your point is rebutted.
Fair enough.
But I think there's more chance of me being appointed president of the European commision than the UK re-joining the EU.
But I think there's more chance of me being appointed president of the European commision than the UK re-joining the EU.
I think it's almost certain we'll rejoin the EU within a 10-20 year time frame, without most of the consessions we currently enjoy. I'd put money on it.
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
If we ever did apply to re-join the EU, they'd probably lay down the law to us: no rebates, opt-outs, special treatment, adopting the Euro is mandatory etc etc
So, exactly the same membership criteria as every other new nation who wants to join? That's no bad thing, if anything the EU pandered to the British too much. We aren't some special snowflake, we're the same as any other European nation, and it's about time we started bloody acting like it. The sooner this weird superiority complex gets beaten out of us, the better.
Brexit will be the ice cold splash in the face that many people need, unfortunately we stand to lose the hard fought special position we had secured ourselves to prove it.
But I think there's more chance of me being appointed president of the European commision than the UK re-joining the EU.
I think it's almost certain we'll rejoin the EU within a 10-20 year time frame, without most of the consessions we currently enjoy. I'd put money on it.
If Britain re-joined the EU, and had to go back cap in hand, it would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since the fall of Singapore or the lose of America.
I think the British people would sooner go down with the ship than ever consent to that.
Valid points, but are the EU likely to forgive and forget in such a scenario? I don't think so.
If we ever did apply to re-join the EU, they'd probably lay down the law to us: no rebates, opt-outs, special treatment, adopting the Euro is mandatory etc etc
So, exactly the same membership criteria as every other new nation who wants to join? That's no bad thing, if anything the EU pandered to the British too much. We aren't some special snowflake, we're the same as any other European nation, and it's about time we started bloody acting like it. The sooner this weird superiority complex gets beaten out of us, the better.
Brexit will be the ice cold splash in the face that many people need, unfortunately we stand to lose the hard fought special position we had secured ourselves to prove it.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
Agreed. The man is a complete and utter buffoon. As bad as the British Empire was, at least people like Bojo could be exiled to some remote jungle outpost to count the paperclips or something.
That buffoon was one of the principle proponents of Prexit.
When May appointed him Foreign Secretary I opined that her objective was to allow him to gather enough rope to hang himself, but I think now that she was short of talent, and now after the election disaster hasn't got the power within the party to get rid of him..
If we leave, I can't see us returning. Partially because I can't see the EU surviving the next decade and also because any position we would return on will be far far far worse off than we're currently on. Join the euro and Schengen? feth that.
Future War Cultist wrote: If we leave, I can't see us returning. Partially because I can't see the EU surviving the next decade and also because any position we would return on will be far far far worse off than we're currently on. Join the euro and Schengen? feth that.
What would be so bad about joining the euro? At the moment they're basically identical in worth anyway
Future War Cultist wrote: If we leave, I can't see us returning. Partially because I can't see the EU surviving the next decade and also because any position we would return on will be far far far worse off than we're currently on. Join the euro and Schengen? feth that.
It's hardly surprising that people who want to get out of the EU don't want to join it and also think they won't want to rejoin in the future.
However, you've got to consider the possibility that joining again in 20 years may be a lot better than where the UK might be in 10 years time although it's worse than now. For a lot of Remainers, too, the Euro and Schengen are not deal-breakers anyway.
The main argument against Brexit has always been economic. (There is a secondary argument about international prestige and soft power.)
We know for certain there are a lot of downside risks to leaving and that the possible advantages are uncertain. E.g. Theresa May is in Japan now, and wants to talk about a post-Brexit trade deal. The Japanese government are far more concerned about limiting the coming damage from Brexit and then making a deal with the EU rather than with the post-EU-UK.
If that pattern repeats itself for the next 10 years, you are likely to see the UK sink further into the mire while the EU accelerates faster away from us.
Theresa May is set for disappointment on her visit to Tokyo this week after Japanese officials signalled they would not rush into free trade talks with Britain.
The British prime minister, who is hungry for new trade agreements to show the benefits of Brexit, is expected to discuss a UK-Japan version of the deal Tokyo agreed in principle with the EU last month when she meets her Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe.
But Japanese officials say their priority is completing the deal with Brussels, while negotiations with Britain will be difficult until there is clarity about its future relationship with the EU.
“I don’t think there will be substantial progress,” said one Japanese trade official. “We haven’t finished [free trade] negotiations with the EU, just agreed at the political level, and many issues still remain.”
The official said the UK side was being “quite aggressive” in pushing for a commitment on a future trade deal with the world’s fourth-largest economy. Mrs May will argue that such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial.
“We were big supporters of the EU-Japan trade deal and were engaged in negotiating it,” said one of Mrs May’s allies. “It would make sense for that deal to be replicated for us.”
But Yoshiji Nogami, president of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, and a former ambassador to the UK, said: “We can’t negotiate until Britain is out of the EU. I think what Mr Abe wants to hear from the prime minister is where she hopes to land on Brexit.”
Mrs May’s two-day visit, where she will be accompanied by a business delegation, comes as more Japanese companies begin discussions about moving their European headquarters from the UK to continental Europe.
The first wave of moves involved Japan’s financial institutions, most of which have opted to establish hubs in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
But as negotiations between the UK and Europe take shape, other Japanese trading houses and industrial companies have opened talks with European governments about shifting their bases from the UK, say lawyers and other advisers.
“Now that the banks have worked out their strategies, there is a second wave of Japanese companies with European HQs in the UK currently looking carefully at their options elsewhere,” said one person familiar with the discussions of two major Japanese companies.
Japanese companies are encountering strong inducements from rival European countries. Hitachi Rail, which took a controlling stake in the Italian rail group Ansaldo STS in 2015, is under pressure from Rome to move its European headquarters from the UK to Italy, according to Italian officials.
Mrs May’s team believe that a transitional period between Brexit in 2019 and the entry into force of a new EU/UK trade deal would provide a period of up to three years in which to agree a new trade deal with Tokyo.
In private, Mr Abe will urge Mrs May to minimise disruption for Japanese companies in the UK. They are growing increasingly concerned about Britain’s plans to leave the EU customs union and single market.
“We need transition arrangements so business has time to plan,” said a senior official of Keidanren, Japan’s biggest business organisation. “We want both sides to show flexibility, but in particular, we’d encourage the UK to recalibrate its basic position.”
Many Japanese companies were encouraged to use the UK as a base to sell into the European single market by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. British ministers have been anxious to reassure them they are seeking to minimise the impact of Brexit.
One minister said Japanese companies in Britain were treated as “home companies” and were fully involved in discussions about Brexit; companies including Honda, Nissan and Toyota have signalled their commitment to the UK in recent months.
Nissan, which operates a large plant in Sunderland, was given personal assurances by Mrs May in October that the factory would not be affected by Brexit.
As out relentless journey towards project : reality check continues.
TBF to May there appears to be every chance that they'll have to rewrite the headline replacing " for disappointment" with "to arrive in the middle of nuclear war".
So we've got the potential for armegeddon in our favour.
Kilkrazy wrote: That buffoon was one of the principle proponents of Prexit.
When May appointed him Foreign Secretary I opined that her objective was to allow him to gather enough rope to hang himself, but I think now that she was short of talent, and now after the election disaster hasn't got the power within the party to get rid of him..
I have a harsher view. She views him as a threat to her leadership. Appointing him Foreign Secretary keeps him under tabs and under control. She's thrown him a bone to keep him placated. She's keeping her enemies close, putting her own personal political interests ahead of the national interest.
I think, TBF, it's also to placate the Redwood and other hardcore -- as opposed to hard Brexit -- anti-EU elements in her party, but we're splitting the difference here really.
Bosses of the UK's 100 biggest listed firms earned £4.5m on average last year, and typically took home 129 times more than the average employee at those firms.
The Conservatives had promised in their manifesto that executive pay should be approved by an annual vote of shareholders.
However, the new measures instead propose that those public companies who face a shareholder revolt on pay will be named on a register overseen by the Investment Association.
Hail the new chief, remarkably similar to the old chief.
But I think there's more chance of me being appointed president of the European commision than the UK re-joining the EU.
I think it's almost certain we'll rejoin the EU within a 10-20 year time frame, without most of the consessions we currently enjoy. I'd put money on it.
If Britain re-joined the EU, and had to go back cap in hand, it would be a national humiliation on a scale not seen since the fall of Singapore or the lose of America.
I think the British people would sooner go down with the ship than ever consent to that.
It's that pointless pig headedness that got us into this mess in the first place.
Hopefully enough of us will be willing to eat humble pay and admit our predecessors gakked us over to rejoin. If things go as badly as they look like they might, then we'll be willing to rejoin the EU at any cost.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41026575 Frankfurt is winning the battle for Brexit spoils (Apologies if this was already posted, I didnt see it when briefly browsing the thread).
Not sure what this says about the UK, but it seems that Germany is certainly clawing its way back to the world preeminence it dreamed of a century ago at the UK's expense, albeit off the battlefield.
It'll be interesting to see where all the EU stuff formerly based in the UK will end up and where the new paradigm shifts to and who the winners and losers will be. It may be radically different than anyone thought, it may be exactlt what everyone thought. It certainly looks like Germany is going to reap some rewards however.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
That'll be why Merkel has said that Europe can't rely on us and has to take measures to assure self reliance.
Given how little threat we made to the Russian fleet the other month, I'm not sure what we have to offer Europe beyond a couple if empty aircraft carriers and a couple of nuclear subs that can't fire in the correct direction.
Theresa May is set for disappointment on her visit to Tokyo this week after Japanese officials signalled they would not rush into free trade talks with Britain.
The British prime minister, who is hungry for new trade agreements to show the benefits of Brexit, is expected to discuss a UK-Japan version of the deal Tokyo agreed in principle with the EU last month when she meets her Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe.
But Japanese officials say their priority is completing the deal with Brussels, while negotiations with Britain will be difficult until there is clarity about its future relationship with the EU.
“I don’t think there will be substantial progress,” said one Japanese trade official. “We haven’t finished [free trade] negotiations with the EU, just agreed at the political level, and many issues still remain.”
The official said the UK side was being “quite aggressive” in pushing for a commitment on a future trade deal with the world’s fourth-largest economy. Mrs May will argue that such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial.
“We were big supporters of the EU-Japan trade deal and were engaged in negotiating it,” said one of Mrs May’s allies. “It would make sense for that deal to be replicated for us.”
But Yoshiji Nogami, president of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, and a former ambassador to the UK, said: “We can’t negotiate until Britain is out of the EU. I think what Mr Abe wants to hear from the prime minister is where she hopes to land on Brexit.”
Mrs May’s two-day visit, where she will be accompanied by a business delegation, comes as more Japanese companies begin discussions about moving their European headquarters from the UK to continental Europe.
The first wave of moves involved Japan’s financial institutions, most of which have opted to establish hubs in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
But as negotiations between the UK and Europe take shape, other Japanese trading houses and industrial companies have opened talks with European governments about shifting their bases from the UK, say lawyers and other advisers.
“Now that the banks have worked out their strategies, there is a second wave of Japanese companies with European HQs in the UK currently looking carefully at their options elsewhere,” said one person familiar with the discussions of two major Japanese companies.
Japanese companies are encountering strong inducements from rival European countries. Hitachi Rail, which took a controlling stake in the Italian rail group Ansaldo STS in 2015, is under pressure from Rome to move its European headquarters from the UK to Italy, according to Italian officials.
Mrs May’s team believe that a transitional period between Brexit in 2019 and the entry into force of a new EU/UK trade deal would provide a period of up to three years in which to agree a new trade deal with Tokyo.
In private, Mr Abe will urge Mrs May to minimise disruption for Japanese companies in the UK. They are growing increasingly concerned about Britain’s plans to leave the EU customs union and single market.
“We need transition arrangements so business has time to plan,” said a senior official of Keidanren, Japan’s biggest business organisation. “We want both sides to show flexibility, but in particular, we’d encourage the UK to recalibrate its basic position.”
Many Japanese companies were encouraged to use the UK as a base to sell into the European single market by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. British ministers have been anxious to reassure them they are seeking to minimise the impact of Brexit.
One minister said Japanese companies in Britain were treated as “home companies” and were fully involved in discussions about Brexit; companies including Honda, Nissan and Toyota have signalled their commitment to the UK in recent months.
Nissan, which operates a large plant in Sunderland, was given personal assurances by Mrs May in October that the factory would not be affected by Brexit.
As out relentless journey towards project : reality check continues.
TBF to May there appears to be every chance that they'll have to rewrite the headline replacing " for disappointment" with "to arrive in the middle of nuclear war".
So we've got the potential for armegeddon in our favour.
The way things are going with North Korea, there may not be a Japan left to trade with.
Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
More to the point, Russia does not have the means to launch a protracted conventional ground war deep into Europe, and any such conflict would go nuclear...very quickly, in which case all of this would be moot.
Theresa May is set for disappointment on her visit to Tokyo this week after Japanese officials signalled they would not rush into free trade talks with Britain.
The British prime minister, who is hungry for new trade agreements to show the benefits of Brexit, is expected to discuss a UK-Japan version of the deal Tokyo agreed in principle with the EU last month when she meets her Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe.
But Japanese officials say their priority is completing the deal with Brussels, while negotiations with Britain will be difficult until there is clarity about its future relationship with the EU.
“I don’t think there will be substantial progress,” said one Japanese trade official. “We haven’t finished [free trade] negotiations with the EU, just agreed at the political level, and many issues still remain.”
The official said the UK side was being “quite aggressive” in pushing for a commitment on a future trade deal with the world’s fourth-largest economy. Mrs May will argue that such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial.
“We were big supporters of the EU-Japan trade deal and were engaged in negotiating it,” said one of Mrs May’s allies. “It would make sense for that deal to be replicated for us.”
But Yoshiji Nogami, president of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, and a former ambassador to the UK, said: “We can’t negotiate until Britain is out of the EU. I think what Mr Abe wants to hear from the prime minister is where she hopes to land on Brexit.”
Mrs May’s two-day visit, where she will be accompanied by a business delegation, comes as more Japanese companies begin discussions about moving their European headquarters from the UK to continental Europe.
The first wave of moves involved Japan’s financial institutions, most of which have opted to establish hubs in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
But as negotiations between the UK and Europe take shape, other Japanese trading houses and industrial companies have opened talks with European governments about shifting their bases from the UK, say lawyers and other advisers.
“Now that the banks have worked out their strategies, there is a second wave of Japanese companies with European HQs in the UK currently looking carefully at their options elsewhere,” said one person familiar with the discussions of two major Japanese companies.
Japanese companies are encountering strong inducements from rival European countries. Hitachi Rail, which took a controlling stake in the Italian rail group Ansaldo STS in 2015, is under pressure from Rome to move its European headquarters from the UK to Italy, according to Italian officials.
Mrs May’s team believe that a transitional period between Brexit in 2019 and the entry into force of a new EU/UK trade deal would provide a period of up to three years in which to agree a new trade deal with Tokyo.
In private, Mr Abe will urge Mrs May to minimise disruption for Japanese companies in the UK. They are growing increasingly concerned about Britain’s plans to leave the EU customs union and single market.
“We need transition arrangements so business has time to plan,” said a senior official of Keidanren, Japan’s biggest business organisation. “We want both sides to show flexibility, but in particular, we’d encourage the UK to recalibrate its basic position.”
Many Japanese companies were encouraged to use the UK as a base to sell into the European single market by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. British ministers have been anxious to reassure them they are seeking to minimise the impact of Brexit.
One minister said Japanese companies in Britain were treated as “home companies” and were fully involved in discussions about Brexit; companies including Honda, Nissan and Toyota have signalled their commitment to the UK in recent months.
Nissan, which operates a large plant in Sunderland, was given personal assurances by Mrs May in October that the factory would not be affected by Brexit.
As out relentless journey towards project : reality check continues.
TBF to May there appears to be every chance that they'll have to rewrite the headline replacing " for disappointment" with "to arrive in the middle of nuclear war".
So we've got the potential for armegeddon in our favour.
The way things are going with North Korea, there may not be a Japan left to trade with.
Vaktathi wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41026575
Frankfurt is winning the battle for Brexit spoils (Apologies if this was already posted, I didnt see it when briefly browsing the thread).
Not sure what this says about the UK, but it seems that Germany is certainly clawing its way back to the world preeminence it dreamed of a century ago at the UK's expense, albeit off the battlefield.
It'll be interesting to see where all the EU stuff formerly based in the UK will end up and where the new paradigm shifts to and who the winners and losers will be. It may be radically different than anyone thought, it may be exactlt what everyone thought. It certainly looks like Germany is going to reap some rewards however.
On the plus side, your president has promised us some magic beans, so that's good enough for me. I'll sleep easy at nights
Theresa May is set for disappointment on her visit to Tokyo this week after Japanese officials signalled they would not rush into free trade talks with Britain.
The British prime minister, who is hungry for new trade agreements to show the benefits of Brexit, is expected to discuss a UK-Japan version of the deal Tokyo agreed in principle with the EU last month when she meets her Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe.
But Japanese officials say their priority is completing the deal with Brussels, while negotiations with Britain will be difficult until there is clarity about its future relationship with the EU.
“I don’t think there will be substantial progress,” said one Japanese trade official. “We haven’t finished [free trade] negotiations with the EU, just agreed at the political level, and many issues still remain.”
The official said the UK side was being “quite aggressive” in pushing for a commitment on a future trade deal with the world’s fourth-largest economy. Mrs May will argue that such an arrangement would be mutually beneficial.
“We were big supporters of the EU-Japan trade deal and were engaged in negotiating it,” said one of Mrs May’s allies. “It would make sense for that deal to be replicated for us.”
But Yoshiji Nogami, president of the Japan Institute of International Affairs, and a former ambassador to the UK, said: “We can’t negotiate until Britain is out of the EU. I think what Mr Abe wants to hear from the prime minister is where she hopes to land on Brexit.”
Mrs May’s two-day visit, where she will be accompanied by a business delegation, comes as more Japanese companies begin discussions about moving their European headquarters from the UK to continental Europe.
The first wave of moves involved Japan’s financial institutions, most of which have opted to establish hubs in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.
But as negotiations between the UK and Europe take shape, other Japanese trading houses and industrial companies have opened talks with European governments about shifting their bases from the UK, say lawyers and other advisers.
“Now that the banks have worked out their strategies, there is a second wave of Japanese companies with European HQs in the UK currently looking carefully at their options elsewhere,” said one person familiar with the discussions of two major Japanese companies.
Japanese companies are encountering strong inducements from rival European countries. Hitachi Rail, which took a controlling stake in the Italian rail group Ansaldo STS in 2015, is under pressure from Rome to move its European headquarters from the UK to Italy, according to Italian officials.
Mrs May’s team believe that a transitional period between Brexit in 2019 and the entry into force of a new EU/UK trade deal would provide a period of up to three years in which to agree a new trade deal with Tokyo.
In private, Mr Abe will urge Mrs May to minimise disruption for Japanese companies in the UK. They are growing increasingly concerned about Britain’s plans to leave the EU customs union and single market.
“We need transition arrangements so business has time to plan,” said a senior official of Keidanren, Japan’s biggest business organisation. “We want both sides to show flexibility, but in particular, we’d encourage the UK to recalibrate its basic position.”
Many Japanese companies were encouraged to use the UK as a base to sell into the European single market by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. British ministers have been anxious to reassure them they are seeking to minimise the impact of Brexit.
One minister said Japanese companies in Britain were treated as “home companies” and were fully involved in discussions about Brexit; companies including Honda, Nissan and Toyota have signalled their commitment to the UK in recent months.
Nissan, which operates a large plant in Sunderland, was given personal assurances by Mrs May in October that the factory would not be affected by Brexit.
As out relentless journey towards project : reality check continues.
TBF to May there appears to be every chance that they'll have to rewrite the headline replacing " for disappointment" with "to arrive in the middle of nuclear war".
So we've got the potential for armegeddon in our favour.
The way things are going with North Korea, there may not be a Japan left to trade with.
I thought they backed down last week?
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
That'll be why Merkel has said that Europe can't rely on us and has to take measures to assure self reliance.
Given how little threat we made to the Russian fleet the other month, I'm not sure what we have to offer Europe beyond a couple if empty aircraft carriers and a couple of nuclear subs that can't fire in the correct direction.
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
Vaktathi wrote: Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
More to the point, Russia does not have the means to launch a protracted conventional ground war deep into Europe, and any such conflict would go nuclear...very quickly, in which case all of this would be moot.
I doubt if either side would be daft enough to use nuclear weapons, especially if it's another Crimea style smash and grab by the Russians.
I know you guys have some troops and jets in Europe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of your military is obviously in the USA.
How long would it take the US military to send in the cavalry? 2-3 days for a decent sized force to assemble and get to Europe?
Britain and France, especially Britain (as we have troops in Estonia) would have to hold the fort until them.
Could be all over by the time the US military gets there...
Vaktathi wrote: Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
That's not really fair.
Our PM would also get wheeled out to stand next to your POTUS like an extra artificial limb that no one really wants.
Then we all laugh as it turns out they use the same brand of toothpaste ! --- what are the odds ?!
-- shortly before hundreds of thousands of people die.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
Vaktathi wrote: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41026575
Frankfurt is winning the battle for Brexit spoils (Apologies if this was already posted, I didnt see it when briefly browsing the thread).
Not sure what this says about the UK, but it seems that Germany is certainly clawing its way back to the world preeminence it dreamed of a century ago at the UK's expense, albeit off the battlefield.
It'll be interesting to see where all the EU stuff formerly based in the UK will end up and where the new paradigm shifts to and who the winners and losers will be. It may be radically different than anyone thought, it may be exactlt what everyone thought. It certainly looks like Germany is going to reap some rewards however.
On the plus side, your president has promised us some magic beans, so that's good enough for me. I'll sleep easy at nights
If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
That might well be due to that whole NATO thing as opposed to the EU.
We might be leaving the EU, but Britain is still a major component of the backbone of European defence. In that regard, Brussels are not going to cast us into the wilderness. We'll still be good friends and allies.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
That's the thing though, we can't. Not even the US has that capability.
If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash.
That might well be due to that whole NATO thing as opposed to the EU.
We might be leaving the EU, but Britain is still a major component of the backbone of European defence. In that regard, Brussels are not going to cast us into the wilderness. We'll still be good friends and allies.
No we won't. They'll happily throw us under the bus when convenient, and then come crawling back begging for help when they need it.
They'll screw us over today, and expect our help tomorrow.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
That's the thing though, we can't. Not even the US has that capability.
If only the US had finished the star wars defense program.
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
No, it would be won or lost in the air. You cannot move your forces (ground or naval) without effective control of the skies.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash
.
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
What is it about then? A stamp of random persons head?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Also, to be blunt about it, I imagine that the UK's most important part to play in such a conflict would be as a base for US forces should such come to pass.
More to the point, Russia does not have the means to launch a protracted conventional ground war deep into Europe, and any such conflict would go nuclear...very quickly, in which case all of this would be moot.
I've pointed out this before, if things went South then the UK is not going to be some knight in shining armour. At best we can expect a load of radioactive feral ghouls running around - at worst the UK is likely to be a burnt, uninhabitable cinder. I've posted this before but this is a good idea of what would happen to the UK if we ever did get into a large scale conflict we are talking about here...
If only the US had finished the star wars defense program.
There never was a real star wars program. It was a bluff to persuade the USSR that it was outmatched technologically. If they had progressed it in any serious way the US would not be investing in things like the the THAAD missile defence systems.
No it's the ability to devalue when needed, or print it when needed. In short, the ability to actually control it as much as you can in a free market system. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
Speculation here, but no point; one missile is highly unlikely to be an attack and if you did shoot it down you've a) revealed your defence capabilities and b) given NK publicity ammunition, as it's technically their property that you've destroyed. Worse still you could miss and that's all kinds of embarrassing and encouraging to NK.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash
.
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
Finland is an EU member, but not a NATO member. If, for argument's sake, the Russians menace Finland, and let's not forget they do share a border, who's the EU gonna call?
I'd lay long odds that the UK would be near the top of Brussels' list of important phone calls to make.
For the record, I'm a Brexit supporter, but I would welcome close military links with the EU after Brexit. It's in both our interests.
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
No, it would be won or lost in the air. You cannot move your forces (ground or naval) without effective control of the skies.
You can still conduct ground operations without control of the air. Yeah, it ain't easy, and of course, most modern militaries do have some AA units for their armies, but ISIL still move around in Syria and Iraq, despite air strikes against them, and they've never had an air force to the best of my knowledge.
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash
.
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
Finland is an EU member, but not a NATO member. If, for argument's sake, the Russians menace Finland, and let's not forget they do share a border, who's the EU gonna call?
I'd lay long odds that the UK would be near the top of Brussels' list of important phone calls to make.
For the record, I'm a Brexit supporter, but I would welcome close military links with the EU after Brexit. It's in both our interests.
Finland has a mutual self-assistance MoU with NATO and had taken part in NATO exercises and the Baltic air policing.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
Speculation here, but no point; one missile is highly unlikely to be an attack and if you did shoot it down you've a) revealed your defence capabilities and b) given NK publicity ammunition, as it's technically their property that you've destroyed. Worse still you could miss and that's all kinds of embarrassing and encouraging to NK.
If that missle had ran out of fuel, or the engine had cut out, and it hit a civilian area, it would be a whole different ball game, regardless of it being only one missle...
You overlook the fact that Britain is not a normal European nation. It is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN security council. Only France matches us in this regard. France and the UK are Europe's foremost military powers. If the gak ever hit the fan in Europe e.g Russia, the EU would phone London so fast, they'd probably get whiplash .
Europe doesn't have to call anyone, if there is any external aggression NATO kicks in.
Which works both ways, I'm sure the UK will appreciate having the French, German, italians, etc on their side if Russia decides to annex the Orkneys or something.
Finland is an EU member, but not a NATO member. If, for argument's sake, the Russians menace Finland, and let's not forget they do share a border, who's the EU gonna call?
NATO, due to the fact that Finland is a major supporter of NATO (despite technically not being a NATO member), both in providing training to NATO forces but also participating in NATO-led operations. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49594.htm
Forget carriers. A potential conflict with Russia would be won or lost on the ground. Britain could probably have 50,000 troops ready to go in 48hrs. Germany could match the numbers, but have little combat experience compared to Britain. It would be Britain and France doing the heavy lifting until the Americans rode to the resuce.
No, it would be won or lost in the air. You cannot move your forces (ground or naval) without effective control of the skies.
You can still conduct ground operations without control of the air. Yeah, it ain't easy, and of course, most modern militaries do have some AA units for their armies, but ISIL still move around in Syria and Iraq, despite air strikes against them, and they've never had an air force to the best of my knowledge.
And ISIS is losing. Massively. Take from that what you will as to the importance of air superiority when you want to move large quantities of men and material around.
Without air superiority you can carry out small manoeuvres and deployments which are difficult to detect and stop. Russia invading eastern europe would not be small manoeuvres and deployments. It would require large mobilisations of infantry and armour which would be instantly picked up by the intelligence communities. And when those forces are on the move, they are vulnerable unless you can give them air cover.
Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player.
You've got an unpredictable POTUS, and if the gak hit the fan, Finland's lack of NATO membership could be a sticking point.
The UK is different, as we're closer to Finland, so any theoretical Russian aggression towards Finland would have to provoke a UK reaction.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player.
You've got an unpredictable POTUS, and if the gak hit the fan, Finland's lack of NATO membership could be a sticking point.
The UK is different, as we're closer to Finland, so any theoretical Russian aggression towards Finland would have to provoke a UK reaction.
The US POTUS has generals in his leadership team. Primarily Chief of Staff Kelly, NSA McMaster and Sec of Defense Mattis.
If there's one constant about the POTUS, is that he seriously considers his general's input... all you have to do is look at the US' re-engagement of war in Afghanistan.
So, if Finland asks for help, I'd bet that the US will be there to prevent another Crimea event.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player..
Finland might not be a starter but it sure is a player.
But in any case we're so deep in the if game to be a moot point. Kuwait wasn't a member of anything and still a coalition was formed when Saddam went there for a walk.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Being a NATO supporter is not the same as being a NATO member, in the same way that being a Manchester United supporter doesn't make you a Manchester United player.
You've got an unpredictable POTUS, and if the gak hit the fan, Finland's lack of NATO membership could be a sticking point.
The UK is different, as we're closer to Finland, so any theoretical Russian aggression towards Finland would have to provoke a UK reaction.
The US POTUS has generals in his leadership team. Primarily Chief of Staff Kelly, NSA McMaster and Sec of Defense Mattis.
If there's one constant about the POTUS, is that he seriously considers his general's input... all you have to do is look at the US' re-engagement of war in Afghanistan.
So, if Finland asks for help, I'd bet that the US will be there to prevent another Crimea event.
I'd bet good money that Trump probably has a golf course in Finland, so yeah, I suppose you could argue self-interest on Trump's part.
Kilkrazy wrote: That buffoon was one of the principle proponents of Prexit.
When May appointed him Foreign Secretary I opined that her objective was to allow him to gather enough rope to hang himself, but I think now that she was short of talent, and now after the election disaster hasn't got the power within the party to get rid of him..
I have a harsher view. She views him as a threat to her leadership. Appointing him Foreign Secretary keeps him under tabs and under control. She's thrown him a bone to keep him placated. She's keeping her enemies close, putting her own personal political interests ahead of the national interest.
I don't believe you think Bozza would make a good PM. He's made of pig's ear of everything else he's done apart from writing anti-EU lies for the right-wing press.
No it's the ability to devalue when needed, or print it when needed. In short, the ability to actually control it as much as you can in a free market system. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Of course the City of London as the world's foremost financial centre for foreign exchange, particularly the Euro (soon to be the world's fourth foremost) would have nothing to say in regards to valuation of the Euro and stuff.
Kilkrazy wrote: That buffoon was one of the principle proponents of Prexit.
When May appointed him Foreign Secretary I opined that her objective was to allow him to gather enough rope to hang himself, but I think now that she was short of talent, and now after the election disaster hasn't got the power within the party to get rid of him..
I have a harsher view. She views him as a threat to her leadership. Appointing him Foreign Secretary keeps him under tabs and under control. She's thrown him a bone to keep him placated. She's keeping her enemies close, putting her own personal political interests ahead of the national interest.
I don't believe you think Bozza would make a good PM. He's made of pig's ear of everything else he's done apart from writing anti-EU lies for the right-wing press.
Which made him rich.
Well no gak, of course I don't think he'd make a good PM, I think he's an utter gakker. When have I ever indicated otherwise?
But that doesn't mean he's not still a rival and potential threat to Theresa May's leadership. And worse gakkers than Boris Johnson have been elected into positions of power, you just need to look across the Pond to see that.
My point is that May suppressing Bozza is in the country's interest because the guy is a clown.
It may be in her interest too, of course, though remember that Bozza notably failed to impress in the real Tory leadership race that followed Cameron's abrupt departure and got May into the hot seat.
The key question is how much damage Bozza is doing as Foreign Secretary and why May can't eject him now. The answer appears to be "some or lots, depending," and "because he's pro-Brexit."
Is there anyone who would genuinely say Bozza is a great Foreign Secretary? Traditionally, Home Secretary is the poisoned chalice that PMs allocate to their enemies.
Kilkrazy wrote: Of course the City of London as the world's foremost financial centre for foreign exchange, particularly the Euro (soon to be the world's fourth foremost) would have nothing to say in regards to valuation of the Euro and stuff.
I'd rather have the currency under the control of our own government and central bank and not a third party who answer to nobody but themselves.
No it's the ability to devalue when needed, or print it when needed. In short, the ability to actually control it as much as you can in a free market system. But I'm sure you already knew that.
Not if we leave and then came back, which would require us to adopt the euro, which would be out of our control. That's the point I was trying to make.
Have you not seen the news? NK launched another missle, and this time it flew over Japan!
Holy feth! Why was it not shot down?
The answers you seek are all on the NK thread.
In all honesty, I don't know why they didn't shoot it down.
After a provocative stunt like that (shooting missiles over Japanese airspace) the US, Japan and Korea should be enacting a policy of shooting down ALL missiles from now.
That's the thing though, we can't. Not even the US has that capability.
They do, its called THAAD, and the ROK is pretty divided over the thing, though I don't know if Japan has access to it.
Its a Catch 22. Shoot it down and you spark a race to develop a missile that can't be shot down.
Fail to shoot it down and NK laughs at you.
By not shooting it down its a calculated risk. It was probably obvious it wasn't aimed at Japan, but obviously these thinks have malfunctioned before and it could have caused damage by just going wrong.
Future War Cultist wrote: Not if we leave and then came back, which would require us to adopt the euro, which would be out of our control. That's the point I was trying to make.
Of course the flaw in this argument is that there are plenty of other EU countries that are part of the EU and have only joined relatively recently and don't have the Euro...
This is just fearmongering as to why we would never rejoin the EU, but the argument is unsound. If every new country that joined the EU had to take on the Euro then the list above wouldn't exist....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: ... so you're against capitalism then, good to know.
I can imagine the conversation in Downing Street now...
Theresa May (TM): Liam how are you doing
Liam Fox (LF): Good, thanks, why did you call me in?
TM: Well...I made some promises to maintain my own power at the expense of the country.
LF: Yes, and what an excellent choice that was (whilst nose extends in length and turns a dark brown at the same time)
TM: Definitely, we couldn't lets those Marxists in! They would undo all our good work, give people more rights and cost us and our allies money!
LF: Yeah my portfolio manager was a bit worried when she thought they could get in; the value dropped quite sharply. And there's definitely not a magic money tree where my money is concerned!
TM: Hmmm...right...yes....[pause]
TM: Still I need to ask you to make some savings from your department.
LF: OK, how much
TM: £1000
LF: £1000 saving, that's fine I'll sack my ass licker
TM: Erh, no I want your department to have a budget of £1000
LF: What? How am I meant to sell the UK with that much money? I can't even afford my boot licker for that!
TM: Be imaginative?
LF: Well I suppose we do have a stand at the Eurostar terminal for free for the next 6 months...
TM: That's the idea
LF: Some leaflets etc, not sure who we can employ for that little though.
TM: I've checked your employment contract...see this at the bottom where it says "any other duties required"
LF:....erh are you suggesting....
TM:...See you in about 6 months, I'm counting on you Liam.... bye...
Note: I have absolutely no internal contacts with the EU, Her Majesty’s Government or anyone else involved in the Brexit negotiations so this article is speculation based on public documents and news articles.
With that disclaimer out of the way, let me cut to the chase. I’m 99% sure the Brexit negotiations are going to collapse and the UK will thus be entirely separate from the EU. In the medium term that will be a good thing, but in the short term it will cause chaos for the UK, Ireland and probably much of Europe.
Why do I think this? because the EU leadership want to punish the UK for having the temerity to
hold a referendum on the EU
actually follow the popular wishes expressed in said referendum
Other nations have in the past had referenda on various parts of EU membership – France, Ireland and Holland come to mind as ones who have voted against the EU at various times. Whenever the vote has been against the EU, the population has either been told to do it again and this time get the “right” answer or the EU and national governments have simply ignored the vote and pressed on anyway.
The EU elites are simply in denial that a government would not do the same but the Conservatives are absolutely united on the principle that “Out means out” and that therefore the UK will be leaving.
Right now the argument is about the “non-negotiable” cost of leaving, which, as Tim Worstall points out, is really the cost of staying. The EU insists this has to be resolved before anything else and the lead EU negotiator has been really snarky about the UK position. He is of course wrong, only an idiot or a Eurocrat (but I repeat myself) would think it sensible to first agree the price and then haggle on what you get for the money.
A sane EU would first go for the obvious win-win points get them out of the way and then go for the trickier ones. For example no one wants a European version of Indian partition to take place across the English Channel so it is obvious that a) visitors who are non-workers and not entitled to benefits/healthcare etc. will be allowed to enter and live as freely as they do now and that b) current residents as of some defined date like the day the UK formally submitted its leave notification will also be allowed to work etc. etc. Then you’d work on other easy things such as the academic research funding (the UK wants this and has stated its willingness to continue to contribute to it) before moving onto slightly trickier points like, say, the Irish border, customs inspections and how to avoid them by doing the paperwork properly and so on. Only once you’ve got the obvious stuff knocked out do you go to the contentious issues like payment, tariffs and so on.
In my opinion the fact that the EU is attempting to do the whole thing bass ackwards is a strong indication that they want it to fail unless the UK is humiliated. I’m fairly sure that HMG is not keen on the humiliation idea so therefore I expect they will prefer a hard Brexit with no agreement to some kind of deal where the UK pays a huge amount to not really escape the tentacles of Brussels other than in a few meaningless areas. This might also explain why Jean Claude Druncker spouts utter bollocks regarding the negotiations. On the other hand it is possible that this bass ackwards approach is because the payment issue is the most important thing for the Eurocrats personally. If the UK pays nothing then the EU budget will take a big hit and the generous Eurocrat lifestyle may have to go on a bit of a diet, not that the Eurocrat perks will likely suffer much, after all some of the top ones have nice lucrative side jobs, more likely there will just be less pork to spread around and thus the EU will become less popular with the populace. Either way the UK clearly needs to play hardball on the contribution issue and work on contingency plans for when the EU stomps off in a huff because it isn’t getting the money is wants.
The crudest response is to simply and unilaterally declare that the UK will allow tariff free entry of goods from the entire world and that it will look at ways to strengthen its position as a financial center. The former is obviously just a UK benefit, the latter part is potentially a weapon to wield in a war against the EU
For example the UK might, say, declare that it will not share tax information with countries with which it does not have a free trade deal in place or in the works. Since it is highly likely that it will have deals nearly ready to sign with much of the Anglosphere (as well as some of Asia) this will effectively mean the only developed nations that it won’t share tax information with are EU ones. This would make London a tax haven for EU entities which means that if EU citizens/companies want to stash their loot in London to avoid paying local taxes on it (because you can be fairly sure that the UK tax rates will be lower) the UK will not tell the EU tax authorities how much capital and income is involved. At this point you can watch a giant money vacuum appear in London that sucks liquidity from all sorts of EU financial institutions and associated nations leading to their economies going titsup.com.
This is of course speculative but it’s an interesting thought experiment to continue with. I don’t know exactly what a continent-wide bank run would look like but it wouldn’t be nice and the only way to stop it would be to implement capital controls and other similar rules from the economic boom times (ha ha) of the 1970s. Now while those capital controls might stop the outflow in the extremely short term they will also trash the EU economy even more, slash imports of just about everything from Russian natural gas to African bananas and eliminate inward investment (see how this has worked in places like Argentina or Venezuela). As a result they will be intensely unpopular and (see Argentina and Venezuela again) they won’t work because people will find ways to get their cash out and required goods in anyway. Worse, they’ll devote more energy to that than to doing productive work and so the economy will suffer even more.
Now this won’t be all smoothness and light for the UK. The EU nations, the French particularly, might decide to try and play hardball back and cut exports of electricity and food to the UK. In the longer term this won’t work as tariff free imports of food from places like New Zealand, Canada and the US will easily replace the EU sourced food in a fairly short time and the UK can get serious about fracking and build gas-powered generators to make up the energy shortfall but it would be painful in the short term. Of course cutting exports of food and power to the UK will also hurt the French economy badly and French farmers are not known for their restraint when it comes to seeing their incomes cut, so the French and/or EU authorities will have to spend even more money they don’t have propping up the sectors that are no longer making money by export to the UK and thereby destabilize their economies even more.
The Irish, assuming that the UK decides to not inspect traffic across that border, will undoubtedly continue to trade with the UK because they have to and indeed an adroit information campaign would make the Irish population extremely anti-EU when they then discover that they too are embargoed from trade with the rest of Europe as a result. Note that if they aren’t embargoed then all the exports that formerly went direct to the UK will simply take the indirect route via Ireland as will lots and lots of UK exports to the rest of the EU. For goods that might add a bit to the cost, but there will also be all sorts of more immaterial trade that will go via Dublin electronically for a pretty nominal fee.
Of course it is not clear that Mrs May will have the spine for this, but based on her actions to date I suspect she will turn out to once it becomes clear that the EU is negotiating in bad faith – which probably won’t take very long the way things appear right now. The EU appears to think that it can back Mrs May and her government into a corner and that they will be forced to capitulate. I think this is a serious misreading of Mrs May and the UK in general. In fact if HMG has sense it is already wargaming and simulating potential actions once the negotiations fail and, if I were in their shoes, I’d be spending a lot more time on that than I would on trying to negotiate with the blockheads from Brussels.
...eh... seems hard brexit is the worst option and hope cooler heads prevails...
I would bet money that if we tried to return to the EU, they'd force the euro on us as a condition of re-entry.
Why? As I've pointed out it is not an essential requirement of being in the EU. Why should it be any different, what evidence do you have to suggest this is the case (other than your desire to attack the EU and try and dissuade people from considering rejoining?)
On an aside I've heard the Europeans are happy to see that there will be a trade stand. It will give them something to laugh at when they walk by...
Because from what I'm seeing from them in the negotiations is that they're a shower of vindictive bastards.
No they are doing their best to protect the interests of the EU which we are leaving. They have no reason to go for anything that doesn't meet that requirement. The UK chose to leave and we will have to pay the consequences (well you might, I'm trying to leave the sinking ship). We can't whine that we are no longer going to benefit from a hard nosed, well practiced negotiating team compared to a bunch of incompetents that can barely understand the difference between their ass and their elbow. We benefited from this experience whilst in the EU. You wanted to leave, whining that the EU no longer supports the UK and is being tough in the negotiations isn't being "vindictive bastards" but rather your misconceptions that we could leave whilst dancing off into the distance into a flowery meadow beyond and that everything was going to be perfect...not going to happen, and never was going to happen. Of course this was warned about but....
Because from what I'm seeing from them in the negotiations is that they're a shower of vindictive bastards.
All of this comes down to the circular argument that you think we are right to leave the EU because you think they won't let us back in on the terms that you want because they wouldn't let us stay in on the terms you want even though you never wanted to be in in the first place.
You haven't presented a shred of evidence to support any of your views, and everything you have said has been easily and completely refuted.
You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases.
Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
Future War Cultist wrote: Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
Well the first sentence in itself is an inarguable prejudice and bias. You've stated it's a bad idea and we'll lose the concessions we currently have. Yet you have not provided any evidence for this, only statements calling the EU "vindictive bastards" which is not evidence. However statements you have said have been argued against with evidence (for example your statement that UK would have to take the Euro is questionable given that not all EU countries have the Euro; hence having the Euro is not a mandatory requirement for joining the EU). Your arguments lack substance and anything to back them up. You are just reiterating the same thing over and over in an attempt to win an argument with emotional and unsubstantiated statements as 'fact'.
Future War Cultist wrote: Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
Future War Cultist wrote: Not if we leave and then came back, which would require us to adopt the euro, which would be out of our control. That's the point I was trying to make.
That leaving in the first place is a gakking idiotic idea, because we'd lose our unique privileges? I agree entirely!
Future War Cultist wrote: Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
"You don't have positions to debate, you have inarguable prejudices and biases."
at me again.
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
I'd go further; an example where the EU overstepped bounds, and the UKs objection was ignored.
If the UK agreed with it, then it's as responsible as the EU.
Whirlwind wrote: Your arguments lack substance and anything to back them up. You are just reiterating the same thing over and over in an attempt to win an argument with emotional and unsubstantiated statements as 'fact'.
So, 100% consistent and on-brand with the rest of the leave campaign?
Future War Cultist wrote: Back up a bit. I (like many others) felt that the eu had long overstepped it's bounds with regards to control and that a line had been crossed, which meant either leaving it now and becoming an idependant nation again or forever staying within it and ceasing to be an independent nation. And I think that having left it, trying to return to it a later date would be a very bad idea. Because any concessions we have at present will have been lost and will not be returned. It's not a circular argument.
Oh and Kilkrazy? You yourself said that I had a fair point regarding how the Lisbon treaty was handled, so don't throw accusations like this:
...
I think that's a fair point. We may not have got to the stage of having the Brexit referendum if the government had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
In terms of the concept of independency, there is a philosophical difference between your view of it and mine. I don't believe total national sovereignty is practical in the modern world, and even if it was, I also don't believe it's an excellent goal in itself.
I think that's a fair point. We may not have got to the stage of having the Brexit referendum if the government had held a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
In terms of the concept of independency, there is a philosophical difference between your view of it and mine. I don't believe total national sovereignty is practical in the modern world, and even if it was, I also don't believe it's an excellent goal in itself.
I don't think anyone is arguing for 'total national sovereignty' so much as a reversion to the same relationship with the EU as many other nations already practice. That is to say, a tailored trade deal and cross-counter interaction on clearly laid out and defined areas (ala Canada, Japan, Turkey, and so on). Which really isn't entirely objectionable as a concept.
The only question is whether or not it is worth the short term economic pain to get there. To which the answer is dependent upon your personal views of our relationship of the EU and general life philosophy. Much like most things in politics.
Regarding the Brexit current negotiations, there's been a lot of shifting in the various government ministries and negotiations that isn't entirely obvious from the headlines. Davis appears to have consolidated his grip on the process and cut Fox/Bojo out altogether. Hence their somewhat ridiculous attempts of late to try and show that they're 'still in the loop' and relevant (seriously, a stand in Brussels?!). In terms of strategy, he's carried on with the minimal press briefing/poker face approach, likely because a lot of the cock-handed stuff in earlier electoral/cross-ministry confusion gave away more than he would have liked. The Europeans have noted the shift and begun redirecting their pr pieces accordingly. You'll note Fox and Boris rarely feature in their attempts to discredit the British negotiating team anymore.
This is a good thing, because the less those two have to do with anything, the better.
In terms of the negotiations themselves, the British team appear to have adopted a strategy of chicken, and point blank refused some of the more ludicrous demands from Barnier. They've begun preparing plans for a hard Brexit, not because they want it, but because all the kerfuffle earlier which revealed their lack of planning in that direction. It gave their hand (that they don't want hard brexit) away too early, which now in turn means that they have to convince the lot in Brussels that they are willing to go that far or be at a serious disadvantage. Ironically, had the Press not picked up on that and run with it so hard, they would have been more likely to fold earlier, now they have to accommodate hard brexit as an actual potential alternative or not get taken seriously by the opposition.
The EU negotiating team is starting to get nervous though. For all the bluffing and pretending that all pressure is entirely on the British side, they have various people who need answers on their own. The Irish are getting particularly antsy, and the Visegrad group less and less amused by the media antics of the Eurocrats. Barnier overplayed his own hand with regards to his demands for European legal pre-eminence in Britain, and Juncker's continued dropping of blown up figures has only exacerbated things. They over-extended because of perceived British weakness, and now that the opposition has rallied and got their house more in order, the EU team's been left with lines arbitrarily drawn in the sand that they're finding it difficult to withdraw from back to more reasonable grounds.
So now we're in a game of chicken, to an extent. The Europeans are floundering slightly, because they weren't expecting the British team to get it together. The question now is whether or not Barnier and co. will get told to wind their necks in and get to actual negotiating instead of newspaper briefings, or whether pride will prevent that. As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options. And Ireland and co. know it and are not amused.
Things are actually starting to get interesting. I wish we'd been in this position six months ago, but internal politics threw a massive spanner in the works. May's election was a massive screw-up. Hopefully, all will work out in the end.
From a legal basis, Britain might not have to pay the EU that much by the sounds of it.
I've always said that we have a duty to honour our treaty obligations and pay what we owe, but that only goes so far. Not a penny more, not a penny less.
If it were me, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it. Final offer.
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
This approach by the British government is partly why Brexit succeeded, because they too have stabbed the public in the back too often (The way the government did nothing in the EU to support the blocking of cheap Chinese steel flooding our markets which then killed off our steel industry is an example. Just whose side are they on?)
Too long the government of the day, labour or tory, have been signing away independence and making closer ties to Europe, without really explaining what these treaties were doing or how it would affect us. Almost no one knows when we are following EU or UK instruction. No one in power asked the British people if they wanted all these treaties being signed, Lisbon or Maastrict. Brown didn't even show his face for the public signing of Lisbon, he knew it wasn't what a lot of people wanted and wasn't proud to be seen signing it. If he knew people didn't like it, why wasn't there more debate or involvement of the British public? Had Brexit been rejected, it would likely be the last time anyone got asked about decisions in Europe again, the assumption being that voices opposing EU integration would now be legitimately ignorable.
That's why I think Brexit succeeded. People haven't been able to input into he decisions being made for so long, that as soon as they get a choice, effectively being told, get off now or stay on the ride forever, they jumped off however damaging it is. Lots of people were happy with the Europe of twenty years ago, but the EU demands constant expansion and power. Where the EU will be in ten or twenty years concerns me, because it won't stand still.
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
I think you'll find that the UK members on here would disagree with you. as to who is always saying no to proposals. And if, as is reported, that the EU position of the divorce bill was a 4 page document running to billions of pounds with no explanation of how they got there anyone would say no. As it stands, the EU will not negotiate until the divorce bill is sorted, but they haven't explained how they have their figures calculated, Junker and Barnier keep contradicting each other as to how much it will be, and as in every divorce assets have to be divided as well, but are refusing to admit the existence of EU assets.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
You may not be aware of this, but the British Government has published fairly large documents this past week or two on most aspects of Britain leaving the EU. They are somewhat open-ended in several regards, but that's to be expected. If you go in for specific proposals at this stage without leaving room for flexibility or alternative suggestions, it's not much of a negotiation.
The EU, on the flip side, has roundly disdained most of what is in these documents as impractical, but proffered no alternatives for the most part. And those few that they have are along the lines of those ridiculous proposals of ECJ pre-eminence over people in the UK. In other words, they are in the position now of being on the back foot. They now need to produce what they think should happen, and get on with negotiating. The reason they haven't so far seems to be a mixture of confusion (for all the talk of a solid front, there is little consensus on what the EU actually wants), and surprise that the Brits got their stuff together (they assumed the prior state of confusion would last indefinitely).
Accordingly, you couldn't link me to the EU's proposed solution on say, the Irish border right now. Primarily because it doesn't exist.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
That was on a specific issue, namely the exit bill. That's one of the few points the Brits have deliberately left openended. And frankly, as a negotiating tactic, I'd leave it open too. As the Guardian article linked above points out, the EU cash demand right now is a bunch of vaguely assorted overarching titles on a 4 page document.
I mean, seriously? I just signed a loan agreement ten times that length and that's a personal loan, not an international agreement. They want us to sign it on 'general principles' with no detail so that they can crowbar as much stuff in as possible. In effect, they're trying to pressure us into signing a blank cheque. If you're going to point that for an example of how the British are unprepared and the Europeans willing, you really need to pick a better example.
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
You've literally just described the European negotiating position so far. I mean, have you not seen all their veiled comments about clocks?
Barnier and co. expected the British confusion to last until we were four months away from running out of time, and that they could ride it out to that point by offering blanket denials, lots of negative pr briefings against the British, and a general lack of co-operation. Then in that last three months, we'd be forced to sign whatever they put in front of us, because we wouldn't be willing to do a hard Brexit. That was the European negotiating strategy. And you know? Objectively speaking, it wasn't a bad one.
Now though? They can carry it on like that if they like, but given that the British side has actually gotten their crap together now, the longer they play for time, the more obvious it will be to Irish and Visegrad governments who do need an agreement. What's more, if the British actually are getting prepared seriously for a hard Brexit now, that's not their desired outcome either. So Barnier now needs to re-assess the situation and come up with a fresh approach.
Hopefully, everything will work out now. But the ball is very much back in the European court now, and everyone knows it.
Cite an example of control that you felt overstepped the bounds. The Lisbon treaty is not an example, that was ratified by the UK parliament and so, could certainly not be an example of the EU overstepping its bounds but rather the UK choosing to extend its bounds.
This approach by the British government is partly why Brexit succeeded, because they too have stabbed the public in the back too often (The way the government did nothing in the EU to support the blocking of cheap Chinese steel flooding our markets which then killed off our steel industry is an example. Just whose side are they on?)
Too long the government of the day, labour or tory, have been signing away independence and making closer ties to Europe, without really explaining what these treaties were doing or how it would affect us. Almost no one knows when we are following EU or UK instruction. No one in power asked the British people if they wanted all these treaties being signed, Lisbon or Maastrict. Brown didn't even show his face for the public signing of Lisbon, he knew it wasn't what a lot of people wanted and wasn't proud to be seen signing it. If he knew people didn't like it, why wasn't there more debate or involvement of the British public? Had Brexit been rejected, it would likely be the last time anyone got asked about decisions in Europe again, the assumption being that voices opposing EU integration would now be legitimately ignorable.
That's why I think Brexit succeeded. People haven't been able to input into he decisions being made for so long, that as soon as they get a choice, effectively being told, get off now or stay on the ride forever, they jumped off however damaging it is. Lots of people were happy with the Europe of twenty years ago, but the EU demands constant expansion and power. Where the EU will be in ten or twenty years concerns me, because it won't stand still.
Then none of that is an EU issue, it's a British government issue.
You can't blame the EU for our government signing us up to a bunch of EU stuff without asking us, besides it's not like we hadn't had an impact on those things with our MEP's (those that turned up) and whatnot.
And I didn't blame the EU, I blame the UK government for its failure to protect our industries and take a stronger role in the EU in situations when the opportunity was there.
I can't handle the cognitive dissonance on Brexit anymore. There's clearly 2 completely different and utterly incompatible views on everything and I can't see how they'll ever be rationalized.
To me, the news from today reads that the UK is still woefully underprepared and the EU is getting frustrated by it. I'm starting to suspect it's just a case of the UK deliberately wasting time in the hope that a solution will appear. But some people (not just on here) are taking the same news as some sort of evidence that the UK is running rings round the EU by wasting time.
On one side, the UK is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise, on the other, the EU is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise.
Is this all just about setting up blame for when negotiations fail miserably?
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
I think you'll find that the UK members on here would disagree with you. as to who is always saying no to proposals.
A lot of UK members on here agree with him. Everyone seems pretty well split on the matter.
Whirlwind wrote: Your arguments lack substance and anything to back them up. You are just reiterating the same thing over and over in an attempt to win an argument with emotional and unsubstantiated statements as 'fact'.
So, 100% consistent and on-brand with the rest of the leave campaign?
To be balanced, it wasn't like the Remain camp was any better. Rather than having an intelligent debate on the EU we had stupid and unrealistic soundbites (or when it came to UKIP just plain bigoted messages). The Tories being Tories played project Fear to the max on both sides and none of the benefits that we see by being in the EU were ever detailed or given a reasoned chance to debate the points (BBC/ITV/SKY/Daily Fail/Sunday Distress/Scum) were all guilty of this.
Ketara wrote:As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options.
It's rather the other way around. All the UK has done is a collection of noes followed by a lot of empty talk about creative solutions, and being open minded.
Take yesterday's round for example. It doesn't help that you say "no, I won't pay this" at each item in the shopping list if at the same time you don't propose your way of working things out. A negotiation is a process where both parties state their respective position, and then worm their way towards a middle point.
As Barnier put it yesterday: “To be flexible you need two points – ours and theirs, we need to know their point and then I can be flexible.”
But again, if the whole thing is a half-baked ruse to get the EU to agree to negotiate everything on the table because time is running out I don't think they'll get what they asked for.
I think you'll find that the UK members on here would disagree with you. as to who is always saying no to proposals. And if, as is reported, that the EU position of the divorce bill was a 4 page document running to billions of pounds with no explanation of how they got there anyone would say no
The document is publicly available and doesn't have any number on it. Barnier is asking the UK for their own list not a number.
Something both sides can start working with.
@Ketara. From what I've seen published so far all UK documents are deliberately vague in key issues. You may not agree with what the EU has published but they're several degrees of magnitude more to the point. They don't require imagination or a creative mind to interpret things like "seamless goods movement" or magic-eye borders.
I'm sure my customers would never sign a deal with me if I used the kind of words the UK team puts on their documents. International trade is done on specifications, not buzzwords.
On a cui bono analysis sure, I would definitely think it's in the EU interests to stall negotiations, but everything else points at the other side of the table.
Ketara wrote: things. They over-extended because of perceived British weakness, and now that the opposition has rallied and got their house more in order, the EU team's been left with lines arbitrarily drawn in the sand that they're finding it difficult to withdraw from back to more reasonable grounds.
So now we're in a game of chicken, to an extent. The Europeans are floundering slightly, because they weren't expecting the British team to get it together. The question now is whether or not Barnier and co. will get told to wind their necks in and get to actual negotiating instead of newspaper briefings, or whether pride will prevent that. As things stand, the European end of things has done virtually nothing in the way of proposing potential resolutions, they've simply poo-poohed the British submissions. Which looks great in the media briefing room, but produces little in the way of concrete results. Now that the ball is back on the EU side of the court, what's being highlighted is the lack of effort on Barnier's side to produce workable options. And Ireland and co. know it and are not amused.
On what basis are we assuming the UK has got its act together. All they've produced is a lot of position statements rather than anything concrete that we have seen. A shopping list if you want. However you can't build a contract out of a shopping list. I can imagine the EU's frustration that the UK turned up 3 months ago told them what they want, the EU go away work out how much it's going to cost and when they table it the UK balk at the cost which I think is a more likely scenario. The likelihood is that the 4 page summary was the a summary of the costs the UK would have to pay from what they asked to continue to be a part of after we leave. The EU are much more experienced at negotiating than the bunch of buffoons we have sent of which our response has simply been "we won't pay". However they are unwilling to detail how much they are willing to pay so the EU can work out which things the UK won't have access to in the future after they have stripped it down to what we already have committed to. The worrying thing is that this is the easy part. They haven't even started the complex detailed negotiations...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: I can't handle the cognitive dissonance on Brexit anymore. There's clearly 2 completely different and utterly incompatible views on everything and I can't see how they'll ever be rationalized.
Civil War? If the government armed each side and then let them get on with we might get a more conclusive forward direction; and the undertakers would be happy too. Seriously though the idea that the UK government has that the country is coming together is far from reality. Either the government is seriously deluded or sticking its head in the sand and hoping the populace will forgive and forget completely screwing the country over.
Basically work for free for a business or we won't give you any allowances...its effectively hugely subsided cheap workforce so businesses don't have to pay the minimum wage.
Herzlos wrote: I can't handle the cognitive dissonance on Brexit anymore. There's clearly 2 completely different and utterly incompatible views on everything and I can't see how they'll ever be rationalized
To me, the news from today reads that the UK is still woefully underprepared and the EU is getting frustrated by it. I'm starting to suspect it's just a case of the UK deliberately wasting time in the hope that a solution will appear. But some people (not just on here) are taking the same news as some sort of evidence that the UK is running rings round the EU by wasting time.
On one side, the UK is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise, on the other, the EU is out of it's depth and unwilling to compromise.
Is this all just about setting up blame for when negotiations fail miserably?
How you choose to interpret the news ultimately comes down to both what media you digest, how sceptically you treat the sources, and a dozen other factors. As someone who very begrudgingly voted to leave, I like to think that I'm reasonably impartial. I know my beliefs, preferences, and biases, and do my level best to account for them in my analyses.
Up until extremely recently (aka, the last month or so, I'd say), the Government has been utterly cack-handed with the whole thing. Internal politics, priorities, and divisions were the name of the game, and that only got amplified/extended by the decision to hold a general election. At the same time, there's been a fairly consistent wave of negative media and leaks emanating from Brussels doing their best to make that cack-handedness visible across Britain, and to exaggerate it even if possible(.I think it is possible to assert both of those things with reasonable reliability. Because:
(i)The actions of the UK government over the last six months in focusing on internal matters is more or less a matter of public record. To an extent, I think it was inevitable. They didn't have the negotiating staff, a new department had to be spun out of thin air, and there was a lot of legwork to do. All the backbiting and knives coming out has exacerbated and prolonged that matter considerably though.
(ii) Again, the EU's media strategy is something of public record. We have the daft things like the Davis 'no documents' photo doing the round, 'leaks' coming off Juncker's desk three hours after phone calls, conversation with Juncker about the power he believes the British press have over the government, and so forth.
Taking both of those things as a given (anyone is welcome to debate them with me, but some sourcework will be needed to convince me otherwise), we can turn to look at the actions of the past few weeks.
The first thing that is noticeable is that the British Government has finally published a fat stack of documents on the direction they would like many issues to go in. Much is unrealistic, more is idealistic. But it does what the EU has been pressuring the British Government to do for months; which is lay out what Britain is after at the negotiating table. It lays out some ideas to explore, some more to be shot down, and generally gives a starting point for negotiations. Anyone who looks at that and decrys it as being pointless does not, I think, comprehend how international agreements (or indeed, any kind of more complex treaty) is formed. The process begins with both sides roughly laying out what they want, and then gradually working their way down to something both find digestible. A point is surrendered here, another is gained there. This is simply the first step, and it is a crucial one. Granted, it should have been done six months ago, but here we are.
The one notable exception to above is the settlement bill. At the moment, the EU has presented Britain with a short document containing generalised subheadings, and a statement that effectively says 'Do you agree all of this stuff is things you should be paying for?'. Britain, on the other hand (it not being their place to draw up a costing of the EU) has countered with 'Can I see a detailed breakdown from the bottom up of what you'd like me to pay for?' It's a case of a request for a blank cheque being met with a demand for a detailed invoice. I understand why both are doing what they are doing, and it makes sense from both perspectives. The EU wants as much jam as it can extract, Britain wants a detailed invoice so it can point to various items and haggle or dismiss them.
The second noticeable feature has been the lack of paperwork from Barnier's negotiating team. In line with their media strategy, they have blitzed the British proposals with varying levels of denigration and insults. Some of it rightly so, others not so much. But whilst Britain has now laid its first hand on the table and said, 'Let's see yours', Barnier's team is still trash talking as if it wasn't there. There is no set of EU proposals on the Irish border. There isn't a single EU proposal on travel arrangements post Brexit. The only EU proposal on the table regarding citizen's rights post-Brexit was a headline grabber that no sane country would ever accept. The only EU proposal on the table regarding the Brexit bill is a vague four page document. I could go on, but the point is made.
Now some of the above has a good reason for it. Barnier doesn't want to put anything on the table relating to post-Brexit trade because he wants to keep that sort of thing uncertain until he extracts a fat wodge of cash, for example. But that only explains away so much. This lack of paperwork from the European side is again, more or less a matter of information very clearly in the public domain, so there's not a huge amount to disagree on.
My speculation (and this is where it turns into interpretation) is that this is because they did not expect the British team to get their stuff together and so did not feel the need to produce it. And judging by the Tories over the last few months, I thought that too until the last few weeks. I have noticed a trend though, over the last few months, of Bojo and Fox saying things that simply didn't line up with Davis and May's much tighter lips and precise statements. It's very much contributed to the impression of a disparate government. Yet at the same time, Davis has just thrown a large pile of paperwork at the EU. The logical conclusion is that Fox and Bojo have now been cut out of the loop, and Davis is getting on with things.
Another observation noticeable by its absence is the lack of headlines talking about the new department's need for staff. The most recent ones I've seen actually, have been decrying how much they're paying the staff that they have hired (whatever they wanted in a nutshell). The conclusion I'm therefore drawing, is that they have now assembled a team of reasonable size, who will now be beavering away on the matter. Given we're six months in and the above, I don't believe that's an unreasonable conclusion to make.
Regarding the EU over the last three or four weeks, there's been the appearance of a much greater proportion of headlines relating to an increasingly twitchy Ireland, who appears to think the EU is planning on using their border as a bargaining chip. The Visegrad group has also announced that they'll torpedo anything that doesn't take their interests into account. In other words, the national governments in the EU with the most to lose are getting restless. I think it is a safe assumption to say that Barnier will currently have these two factions on the phone to him emphasising the need to make this work and not slide into hard brexit.
Finally, examining the British delegation's actions so far, we have begun to see both a media and diplomatic pushback over the last fortnight for the first time. The British negotiating strategy appears to be to present a seeming willingness to publicly meet the imposed criteria of 'proceeding sufficiently far on certain issues' to get to the meat of what interests them, but to not actually conclude/sign anything until everything is on the table. They also appear to have taken note of both Barnier's lack of documentation now compared to them, and the anxieties of Ireland/the Visegrad group. So they're pushing some headlines on the former, and some diplomatic feelers on the latter.
If you think that any of the above is particularly biased/untrue, I'm more than happy to discuss why it might be wrong.
I have to say, while I'm on the other side of the fence to Ketara as regards the benefits of Brexit, I reckon his analysis of the negotiations is getting close to the point. It is beginning to look like the UK government having been very slow indeed off the mark, is now putting out some good papers and positions, while the EU begins to look less well prepared than we might have thought 6 months ago.
This question of the bill is crucial. The EU needs to present a proper bill with workings, or else it looks like a Mafia style "facilitation payment".
So all we're doing -- with our "impressive" 3 hour filibuster YMDCRAW worthy attack on their position is hold our own ground, at best, and manage to make no progress in any other area.
One notes what you refer to as the Uks " fat stack of documents"
We shouldn't agree to pay some vast some of money to the EU just to access the next step of negotiations that might benefit us, its got to be part of a package of give and take. Otherwise there's no reason to think it will get an ounce of goodwill going forward and they'll have our money. If we give up on the 'divorce bill' and free movement on the border and citizenship rights for all EU nationals, they could simply turn around and say they're not interested, or only offer something ridiculous, knowing they have the majority of what they want. There are clearly people in the EU who want Brexit to be a disaster for us, so while we don't want to crash out with nothing, we shouldn't be giving anything away free to with hollow promises it might help trade deals, etc.
Published EU papers -- IIRC they started releasing them in April, or there abouts.
It includes their initial breakdown of how to calculate what we should pay.
If you look closely at your link, you'll see most of those are internal documents. So for example, the instructions to the negotiating team, policies for goods placed on the market before Brexit, adjusting personnel appointments, and so on. They're about how the European structure will adapt to Brexit, as opposed to Brexit negotiations themselves. The ones that do relate to the negotiations are mostly things like agendas of discussion. A timetable ain't really much a of a policy document! Even the ones directly linked to the matter are sparse. The one on security co-operation post brexit, is only 4 pages long!
Their position is self evident : if you are not in the EU then you have the same rights/duties etc etc as everyone else.
If we want more than that then it's up to us to prove/show/whatever we want is workable instead.
Given the Visegrad group's needs, trying to pass the buck doesn't fly even internally. They need some form of enhanced immigration, and that means it's something both parties have to work on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37396805 The EU has to represent their interests as well as anybody else in Paris or Greece. Trying to say 'Ah, it's all Britain's department' won't fly with them.
Still bigger than the EU's pile, both in scope and depth.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that'll last forever, nor I do I think that it's about quantity at the end of the day. I reckon that the EU will now adjust their position from 'We expect a total walkover and don't have to do any work' to move to 'Oooer, best get cracking then'. This is just the opening salvoes as everything starts to get down to business.
Howard A Treesong wrote: We shouldn't agree to pay some vast some of money to the EU just to access the next step of negotiations that might benefit us,
I believe the idea is that these will, ultimately benefit both sides is it not ?
its got to be part of a package of give and take. Otherwise there's no reason to think it will get an ounce of goodwill going forward and they'll have our money. If we give up on the 'divorce bill' and free movement on the border and citizenship rights for all EU nationals, they could simply turn around and say they're not interested, or only offer something ridiculous, knowing they have the majority of what they want. There are clearly people in the EU who want Brexit to be a disaster for us, so while we don't want to crash out with nothing, we shouldn't be giving anything away free to with hollow promises it might help trade deals, etc.
Bit dumb to agree to do that first of then really wasn't it ?
As opening salvos go it was hardly shock and awe was it ?
So instead we're now trying to negotiate having already masterfully showed that we're either A : idiots or B : untrustworthy with regards to what we've already agreed upon.
they could simply turn around and say they're not interested
Yes, it's funny how little coverage that possibility gets in the press over here.
It's almost like they have their own agency ( meaning here in the actorial sense not organisational, although they do, of course have that too ! ), and therefore own goals etc etc and might not simply cow down down to whatever fearsome array of increasingly desperate politicians we throw at them.
trying to pass the buck doesn't fly even internally.
It's nothing to do with "passing the buck".
It's already a known proposition how borders work with regards to Eu and non EU countries.
The default position already exists as a legal reality.
If any country/faction/group wants something different here than the default then it needs to be negotiated.
I agree entirely that the EU wants or would like something other than that, I'm pointing out that the actual reality is somewhat "binary" -- if you follow -- and the alternative is already known, ie it will automatically revert to what it was prior to the existing agreements.
It's nothing to do with "passing the buck".
It's already a known proposition how borders work with regards to Eu and non EU countries.
The default position already exists as a legal reality.
If any country/faction/group wants something different here than the default then it needs to be negotiated.
I agree entirely that the EU wants or would like something other than that, I'm pointing out that the actual reality is somewhat "binary" -- if you follow -- and the alternative is already known, ie it will automatically revert to what it was prior to the existing agreements.
I'm afraid I don't quite see the point you're trying to make then. Having agreed that the EU wants something different from the default, and that it needs to be negotiated, it would therefore be entirely reasonable to expect the EU to produce documents featuring proposals of different ways it could work. Certainly, it's as relevant to their negotiating team as it is ours, possibly moreso. Now things are taking off, they'll produce one shortly, of that I have little doubt.
(ii) Again, EU's media strategy is something of public record. We have the daft things like the Davis 'no documents' photo doing the round, 'leaks' coming off Juncker's desk three hours after phone calls, conversation with Juncker about the power he believes the British press have over the government, and so forth.
We have on record what Rupert Murdoch said to Anthony Hilton at the Evening Standard (and note never asked to be retracted)...."I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.” so the latter part is almost certainly true that the press do have a lot more say in UK politics (and hence by a few powerful rich people). The no documents photo was an official press release by both parties. It wasn't the EU that took a sneaky photo and then released it. It was more twitter that picked up the comparison. As for Juncker I think he is playing a game. He knows the irrational hatred aimed at him by certain parts of the UK populace and press so why not play up to it? That makes the rest seem more reasonable.
The one notable exception to above is the settlement bill. At the moment, the EU has presented Britain with a short document containing generalised subheadings, and a statement that effectively says 'Do you agree all of this stuff is things you should be paying for?'. Britain, on the other hand (it not being their place to draw up a costing of the EU) has countered with 'Can I see a detailed breakdown from the bottom up of what you'd like me to pay for?' It's a case of a request for a blank cheque being met with a demand for a detailed invoice. I understand why both are doing what they are doing, and it makes sense from both perspectives. The EU wants as much jam as it can extract, Britain wants a detailed invoice so it can point to various items and haggle or dismiss them.
I think it is more likely that the UK gave a list of things to the EU at the last meeting they wanted to remain a part of (which may well have been everything and the kitchen sink with little real thought), and the EU has now come back with the summary costs (and which to point out the UK might have only asked for at the last meeting). Now I can understand people wanting to look at the fine details, but in the end it probably won't make that much to the overall value. A few million may shaved off here or there might get it down to £10 billion or so. But overall if the UK wants to remain in the things it asked for then it will have to pay for a fair share of it. There will be a bottom line for things already committed to and the rest is what the UK want to remain party of (so things like staying part of the EU version of GPS etc).
The second noticeable feature has been the lack of paperwork from Barnier's negotiating team. In line with their media strategy, they have blitzed the British proposals with varying levels of denigration and insults. Some of it rightly so, others not so much. But whilst Britain has now laid its first hand on the table and said, 'Let's see yours', Barnier's team is still trash talking as if it wasn't there. There is no set of EU proposals on the Irish border. There isn't a single EU proposal on travel arrangements post Brexit. The only EU proposal on the table regarding citizen's rights post-Brexit was a headline grabber that no sane country would ever accept. The only EU proposal on the table regarding the Brexit bill is a vague four page document. I could go on, but the point is made.
It's not really the position of the EU to tell the UK what it wants about Ireland's border though. That is totally in the remit of the UK. The EUs position is already clear on this one. They would happily keep open borders and freedom of movement for all EU citizens. It is the UK that has gone down the "fear (hate for some) the stranger route" and hence it is for the UK to tell the EU what it wants with all of the borders. The EU can then respond to the UKs position. If the UK wants an open border for UK and Irish citizens how does that work with that all EU citizens have the same rights? The EU may then propose that it can't be just Irish and UK citizens but all EU citizens can pass freely through the Irish border. The UK needs to decide what it wants; we already know the EUs position on this...
Now some of the above has a good reason for it. Barnier doesn't want to put anything on the table relating to post-Brexit trade because he wants to keep that sort of thing uncertain until he extracts a fat wodge of cash, for example. But that only explains away so much. This lack of paperwork from the European side is again, more or less a matter of information very clearly in the public domain, so there's not a huge amount to disagree on.
There is a lot of negotiating sense to this however both internally and externally. It stops the UK trying to 'bribe' some countries with offers to get through a more lenient agreement on movement/debts and so on. As negotiating position if you are in a position of strength you never want to mix dealings of the 'old' with the dealings with the 'new'. If you are in a weaker position you do as that allows you to mitigate some of your losses against ideas of potential gains (birds in the bush). Even contractors at home will do this...if things aren't working out correctly they will deflect the conversation onto 'new' items to offset the impact. Barnier is playing a perfectly sensible negotiating game.
Another observation noticeable by its absence is the lack of headlines talking about the new department's need for staff. The most recent ones I've seen actually, have been decrying how much they're paying the staff that they have hired (whatever they wanted in a nutshell). The conclusion I'm therefore drawing, is that they have now assembled a team of reasonable size, who will now be beavering away on the matter. Given we're six months in and the above, I don't believe that's an unreasonable conclusion to make.
That could simply be though that May has plugged all the leaks rather than anything substantially changing. Those that disagreed with Empress May have either resigned or been pushed out. There are articles where May specifically stated this was a priority. Silence doesn't mean things have changed...
We have on record what Rupert Murdoch said to Anthony Hilton at the Evening Standard (and note never asked to be retracted)...."I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”.....
The media also backed May to win a landslide.
Yeah, British media may well be more influential than their European counterparts, I couldn't say. And heck, I'm not having a go at it as a strategy. I don't really have an issue with any part of the European strategy so far (although I find Juncker personally objectionable). I'm simply noting that it was crafted on the basis of an assumed walkover, and so now needs revising, and fast.
I think it is more likely that the UK gave a list of things to the EU at the last meeting they wanted to remain a part of....
Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just speculating?
It's not really the position of the EU to tell the UK what it wants about Ireland's border though. That is totally in the remit of the UK.
As I said above to Red, there are sufficient interests on both sides of the fence that both sides need to be making proposals. It's no more specifically the remit of the UK than the EU(representing Ireland), as the border has two sides.
That could simply be though that May has plugged all the leaks rather than anything substantially changing. Those that disagreed with Empress May have either resigned or been pushed out. There are articles where May specifically stated this was a priority. Silence doesn't mean things have changed...
Still bigger than the EU's pile, both in scope and depth.
The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought.
For example just examining the Nuclear safeguards and issues paper we have:-
Spoiler:
High-level principles
In order to achieve this vision, the UK proposes to work with the Euratom Community according to the following principles:
ensuring a smooth transition to a UK nuclear safeguards regime with no interruption in safeguards arrangements;
providing certainty and clarity to industry and others wherever possible;
collaborating on nuclear research and development in order to maximise the benefit of shared expertise and resources;
minimising barriers to civil nuclear trade for industry in the UK, Euratom and third countries;
ensuring mobility of skilled nuclear workers and researchers; and
collaborating on areas of wider interest, including regulatory cooperation and emergency preparedness.
Initial issues for discussion
As part of the UK’s orderly withdrawal, and to provide certainty to industry and reassurance to all, it is important to work through the following issues in the initial phases of discussion:
nuclear safeguards arrangements; and
provision of legal certainty on immediate issues related to nuclear material in both the UK and Euratom.
These issues are set out in further detail below. The UK looks forward to addressing further issues as a priority in the negotiations once the European Commission has further developed its approach in these areas. This will include nuclear research and development, regulatory and wider cooperation, trade and the mobility of nuclear workers and researchers. As with all issues related to the UK’s withdrawal, it is clear these issues are closely linked to the future relationship. The UK is keen to discuss this as quickly as possible, in order to establish a close working relationship between the UK and the Euratom Community.
It's literally just a shopping list amounting to:-
We want to continue working together, we don't know how, can't tell you how we are going to safeguard anything, but you'll work with us yes?
Tell businesses it will be OK despite the fact the UK can't provide any assurances of what its systems will look like afterwards
We still want the benefit of the EU funding nuclear research and use it when appropriate (noting financial implications to the UK)
Minimise barriers, not defining which ones they are interested in, which they think are a barrier. Are we talking less safeguards? Who handles the material? Remove the yellow stop barrier at the entrance to Euratom. It's not specific and therefore useless as negotiating point (noting financial implications to the UK)
Ensure the UK can still poach EU skilled staff - just they won't get the same rights they currently do. The UK already are talking about visas, controls and so on. Without more context on this how can you even think about this specific issue? (Noting financial implications for the UK as the EU will want to keep its skilled staff)
Collaborating on endeavours (again the UK wants to benefit from the EU funding). (again noting the financial implications to the UK).
Assurance to the industry again (but again not what that relates to) - maybe they just want to send them a card and stress ball in the post?
Provide legal certainty on immediate issues. The thing is from the EU there is legal certainty; it is the UK that doesn't. What are the "immediate" issues they refer to? Again there are no specifics, nothing to discuss or agree or negotiate on because no one has any idea what the UK is referring to.
And despite the complete lack of detail, that most of the issues the UK need to define as how they are going to deal with in the future to give the EU an idea of how Euratom might be able to deal with the UK, they simply state, well here's the list now it's up to the EU to sort it out. Can anyone rightfully here think that a nuclear agency would be able to agree anything concrete before a government has told them how they are going to deal with nuclear material (after all the Tories might legislate to say that all nuclear waste from now on should be stored under social care tower blocks because they don't care about such people). Does anyone think Euratom would agree anything if that was the proposal?
Simply any of us could have written a better document than this. It's loose woolly nonsense with nothing anyone could negotiate specifics on. It is no surprise that the EU is rather baffled by the approach...
If anybody want my hand on heart, gut instinct viewpoint of how this will turn out, then here it is:
I honestly think Britain is wasting its fething time with these negotiations.
A few pages back, I recommended that people should watch some youtube videos of what Yanis Varoufakis has to say on talking to the EU, and with each passing day, his words are becoming spot on.
The EU have no intention of negotiating. They are pretending, and Barnier will remain rigid and hide behind his limited remit, because it was a deliberate EU ploy.
They're letting him drive 30mph, but 80mph is needed here.
Barnier is like Agent Smith from the Matrix, guarding the doors. If Britain wants real progress, then by pass this charade and go straight to computer central: Macron and Merkel.
The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought......
The European ones are similarly devoid of detail, only they tend to be considerably shorter to boot if you go and look. You'd see the same on both sides if you went and looked at the first batch of documents between the EU and Japan or Canada.
This is the 'feeling out' phase, the bit where they lay out in vague cloaked language what they'd like to talk about, and what sort of direction they'd like to go in. Kind of like a regurgitated Mission Statement from a Fortune 500 company. It's not meant to be legible, for heaven's sake! That would spoil everything!
Nah, we'll see a thicker batch of equally vapid crap from the EU, and then we'll lock them in a room together for a year and see how ugly the baby that comes out is. Such is international treaty negotiation.
Yeah, British media may well be more influential than their European counterparts, I couldn't say. And heck, I'm not having a go at it as a strategy. I don't really have an issue with any part of the European strategy so far (although I find Juncker personally objectionable). I'm simply noting that it was crafted on the basis of an assumed walkover, and so now needs revising, and fast.
That was a media prediction though...Murdoch actually said this so is a reported statement, not an assumption/guess by a reporter.
I think it is more likely that the UK gave a list of things to the EU at the last meeting they wanted to remain a part of....
Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just speculating?
Speculation, hence the "I think" but seems a reasonable assumption when you consider the released UK documents
As I said above to Red, there are sufficient interests on both sides of the fence that both sides need to be making proposals. It's no more specifically the remit of the UK than the EU(representing Ireland), as the border has two sides.
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement. It is the UK that wants to change this and hence it is the one responsible to bringing something to the table to discuss. The EU could spend thousands of pointless hours going "what about this option" because it needs the UK first to define its position. If the UK states it wants open borders and free movement then the EU can respond in how that effects them constitutionally. If the UK states it wants open borders between Ireland and the UK then the EU can then say their constitution would then require all borders to be open and allow free movement as that they have an obligation to provide the same to all EU citizens.
You can see the departmental layout and names here if you want to go and look.
That's not really the point; name tags doesn't mean something isn't woefully understaffed. I could probably point out locations where you can find nursing departments in the NHS. That doesn't mean either aren't woefully understaffed, just that someone in admin has been kept busy. Silence could just mean that people are too fearful of speaking out in case May brings out a firing squad and shoots them.
The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought......
The European ones are similarly devoid of detail, only they tend to be considerably shorter to boot if you go and look. You'd see the same on both sides if you went and looked at the first batch of documents between the EU and Japan or Canada.
This is the 'feeling out' phase, the bit where they lay out in vague cloaked language what they'd like to talk about, and what sort of direction they'd like to go in. Kind of like a regurgitated Mission Statement from a Fortune 500 company. It's not meant to be legible, for heaven's sake! That would spoil everything!
Nah, we'll see a thicker batch of equally vapid crap from the EU, and then we'll lock them in a room together for a year and see how ugly the baby that comes out is. Such is international treaty negotiation.
The EU doesn't need to be specific though and can't really be until the UK provides clarity on what it wants. It is the UK that is leaving the EU not vice versa. It is for the UK to decide the specifics it wants and the EU to respond. It is more sensible to have general position statements from the EUs perspective as agreed 'red lines not to cross'. Otherwise they could put together 1000's of pages of documents on (for example), protection of birdlife in Europe only to find the UK has no issue with the current arrangements and wants to remain as is. That just wastes the EUs time. I repeat it is the UK that is leaving. It is for the UK to be specific as to what it wants to keep and what not to keep. Then the EU can be more specific in the negotiations on the issues the UK wants to talk about whilst not overstepping the red lines.
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
The EU doesn't need to be specific though and can't really be until the UK provides clarity on what it wants. It is the UK that is leaving the EU not vice versa. It is for the UK to decide the specifics it wants and the EU to respond.
I'm sorry, but this is a bizare position to take on negotiations.
If you and I want to trade a set of pokemon cards (to build a somewhat nostalgic analogy), I have ones you want, and you have ones I want. Whilst you could sit there and listen purely to my offers and proposals, accepting or turning down as you like, it's a daft way to negotiate. You might think of something I forget, or come up with a counteroffer that hasn't occurred to me. I also might misinterpret what you want, and offer poor value, when an exchange of information could allow us to more accurately gauge each others priorities better.
Likewise, if all the EU does is sit there as a passive recipient to proposals made by the UK. Their members have needs and desires as well which need to be voiced. Negotiations are give and take, offer and counter-offer. They want things, we want other things back. By all means open negotiations with 'Make me an offer', but after that the horse trading needs to start. If you just say 'Yes' or 'No' to everything the other side says, it'll be a short negotiation! The EU is fully capable of tailoring a new deal outside of the existing membership. Crafting it will require such talks.
If they refuse to dicker, then we'll end up having a hard brexit, I suppose. Something none of the countries involved actually want.
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.
I'm sorry, but this is a bizare position to take on negotiations.
Not really, every negotiation starts with one party approaching another with something it wants, where that is a change to a contract, a cut in costs etc. The other party then goes away and considers what the first party wants. The party that is content and is happy as is has no need to make a change and will only implement change because the other party wants to.
If you and I want to trade a set of pokemon cards (to build a somewhat nostalgic analogy), I have ones you want, and you have ones I want. Whilst you could sit there and listen purely to my offers and proposals, accepting or turning down as you like, it's a daft way to negotiate. You might think of something I forget, or come up with a counteroffer that hasn't occurred to me. I also might misinterpret what you want, and offer poor value, when an exchange of information could allow us to more accurately gauge each others priorities better.
Except it is a poor analogy (as we already both share the pack and have equal hands). A better one would be where both parties own something (lets say a shared road access). One party thinks it can build a new access cheaper (forgetting there is a cliff before the road) and hence wants to get out of the shared access agreement. They also want to put a fence up at the boundary to stop people from the other house using their exit (not that they would because it means driving off a cliff). One party is fine with how things are, so it is for the other party to approach them. They have no need to approach the party that wants the change because they are happy as is. This party does need to consider what the leaving party wants however. They are proposing a fence, but it is a butt ugly and hence they are opposed. If the leaving party wants that on their side that's fine, but the content party would prefer a nice wooden fence. What about the maintenance costs of the road. The leaving party has signed a 25 agreement to help maintain the road. It is not the content party's fault that they want to close it off. The leaving party is the terminating party hence they have to buy out their part of the contract..
Likewise, if all the EU does is sit there as a passive recipient to proposals made by the UK. Their members have needs and desires as well which need to be voiced. Negotiations are give and take, offer and counter-offer. They want things, we want other things back. By all means open negotiations with 'Make me an offer', but after that the horse trading needs to start. If you just say 'Yes' or 'No' to everything the other side says, it'll be a short negotiation! The EU is fully capable of tailoring a new deal outside of the existing membership. Crafting it will require such talks.
There is no debate that there won't be offers and counter offers. But it is still for the UK to be specific as to what it wants first. The EU can then study these and propose a counter offer on the area in question and so on (or other areas up for negotiating).
If they refuse to dicker, then we'll end up having a hard brexit, I suppose. Something none of the countries involved actually want.
Depends on which part of the UK press you read (or the BBC comments sections!)
I'm sorry Whirlwind, but when it comes to the basics of how negotiation works here, I think we're not so much on different pages but entirely different books! Likely because to me, I see it as a fresh negotiation between two parties with tradeable assets (as Brexit is happening regardless, wiping the slate clean and resetting things back to 0), whereas you think that due to Britain leaving, Britain now has to individually propose all aspects for renegotiation irregardless of Brexit? Or somesuch?
Nah, I'll leave that one there and save us both some time I think.
To me, this whole negotation is more about a divorce than a trade of pokemon cards. There is no tradeable asset here. It's just about separation of what was previously under the household.
The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought......
The European ones are similarly devoid of detail, only they tend to be considerably shorter to boot if you go and look. You'd see the same on both sides if you went and looked at the first batch of documents between the EU and Japan or Canada.
This is the 'feeling out' phase, the bit where they lay out in vague cloaked language what they'd like to talk about, and what sort of direction they'd like to go in. Kind of like a regurgitated Mission Statement from a Fortune 500 company. It's not meant to be legible, for heaven's sake! That would spoil everything!
Nah, we'll see a thicker batch of equally vapid crap from the EU, and then we'll lock them in a room together for a year and see how ugly the baby that comes out is. Such is international treaty negotiation.
And the UK team, who have essentially no time left, should be trying to lead discussions and jump forward to the actual discussion instead of wasting time on this slow game.
The one notable exception to above is the settlement bill. At the moment, the EU has presented Britain with a short document containing generalised subheadings, and a statement that effectively says 'Do you agree all of this stuff is things you should be paying for?'. Britain, on the other hand (it not being their place to draw up a costing of the EU) has countered with 'Can I see a detailed breakdown from the bottom up of what you'd like me to pay for?' It's a case of a request for a blank cheque being met with a demand for a detailed invoice. I understand why both are doing what they are doing, and it makes sense from both perspectives. The EU wants as much jam as it can extract, Britain wants a detailed invoice so it can point to various items and haggle or dismiss them.
A 4 page document that has been available for two months and a half? And the UK reply has been "I need more details" when, as a current EU member, can access the numbers themselves? That's textbook stalling.
In any case, there's a nice summary of the whole thing on today's Guardian
The Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) could make “flexible and imaginative” its official motto. Fittingly, it has been copied from the EU and was used several times by Davis this week. The Brexit secretary called on Barnier to be imaginative by not allowing the EU’s strict timetable to stop any discussions about the future. EU negotiators, however, are being strict about the timetable, even correcting themselves if they mention an issue that is being held over until the second phase.
British negotiators believe they are more nimble than the EU in other ways. British officials worry their EU counterparts do not have the ability to negotiate the most complex issues because their hands are tied by the EU mandate, drawn up and controlled by 27 countries.
5. But the EU thinks it is more serious
The EU team counters that a lack of flexibility is not the problem. For Brussels negotiators, the persistent stumbling block is the lack of clarity about what the UK wants. For instance, having studied the UK paper on how to govern any future trade relationship, the EU team concludes that London has not taken any position at all.EU officials have been positive about the publication of British position papers, as evidence of a more serious turn from the government. But EU diplomats find them vague, overly long and weighed down by excessive background details, while lacking firm or feasible proposals.
Ketara wrote: I'm sorry Whirlwind, but when it comes to the basics of how negotiation works here, I think we're not so much on different pages but entirely different books! Likely because to me, I see it as a fresh negotiation between two parties with tradeable assets (as Brexit is happening regardless, wiping the slate clean and resetting things back to 0), whereas you think that due to Britain leaving, Britain now has to individually propose all aspects for renegotiation irregardless of Brexit? Or somesuch?
Nah, I'll leave that one there and save us both some time I think.
Traditionally, it's the party that wants the change that has to (a) propose the change and (b) get agreement. The incumbent party has no obligations other than to stick to the law.
We know the eu stance on pretty much everything as the status quo. We still don't really know the UK stance on anything as they haven't produced any substance yet.
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.
Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.
And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one - not simply say 'go away and re do it' for the exact reason you state they shouldn't go off and come up with stacks of paper on something we might not want to change - Without their input we cannot be sure that our next offer won't be just as unacceptable as this one
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.
Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.
And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one
The UK proposal is not workable for several reasons. You named the most important one and that's that all EU nationals are treated equal for freedom of movement purposes. That's non negotiable, and the UK as a soon to be former member knows it.
Why the EU can't put forward a proposal on the Irish border? Basically because it hinges on what exactly does the UK want from the whole EU. The Irish border is going to be an external EU border so of course the kind of border is there will depend the kind of model the UK wants. Norwegian-like border? Serbian? Turkish? Russian? each one of them is very different but you can't work the minutiae if you don't know what the big picture looks like. And the UK so far refuses to say what the big picture is going to be.
Once the EU-UK relationship is established then and only then Irish specific kinks can be smoothed.
The EU position on a lot of stuff is largely dependent on the UK's proposals and what's agreed - it can only be reactive at this stage, but has nothing to react to.
Take the Eire border, there are (from a EU precident) 2 options:
If free movement across the border => no border.
If no free movement across the border => border.
So if the UK concede to free movement, it's a non issue.
Now the smugglers border is also a possibility, depending on how much the UK deviates from the EU in terms of things like tax, tariffs, law and safety standards. If you've got a soft border, and everything is more or less the same on both sides, it's not really a big deal.
But if you've got a soft border and something is illegal or more expensive on one side but not the other, then you're going to have a real issue with smuggling and all of the economic side effects. As I understand it, this already happens with some goods where it's cheaper to drive across the border to buy stuff, especially with currency fluctuations, but depending on what the UK team turns Brexit into that could become an awful lot worse and can potentially be devastating to one or both sides of the border or even further afield.
It'd give a direct route to move illegal goods and people from UK <-> Mainland Europe.
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.
Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.
And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one
The UK proposal is not workable for several reasons. You named the most important one and that's that all EU nationals are treated equal for freedom of movement purposes. That's non negotiable, and the UK as a soon to be former member knows it.
Why the EU can't put forward a proposal on the Irish border? Basically because it hinges on what exactly does the UK want from the whole EU. The Irish border is going to be an external EU border so of course the kind of border is there will depend the kind of model the UK wants. Norwegian-like border? Serbian? Turkish? Russian? each one of them is very different but you can't work the minutiae if you don't know what the big picture looks like. And the UK so far refuses to say what the big picture is going to be.
Once the EU-UK relationship is established then and only then Irish specific kinks can be smoothed.
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work - now we should be working together to come up with a solution, not having the EU say 'go away and try again' because we have stated our position and now we should negotiate.
The EU can claim that we are not being clear all they want, but we have stated what we want in most areas - the fact they disagree does not constitute a lack of clarity on our part - it just means we need to negotiate.
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work
The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.
Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.
Clearly you didn't follow the referendum.
Brexit was all about free trade, indeed it was a driving point of the leave side that outside of the EU we could strike far more free trade deals than we could inside of it, the UK position outside of the EU is far more in favour of free trade than the EU is.
As for free movement, there is a clear difference here - feel free to come to England, only the extreme far right have any issue with this, but restrict the rights to live/work/claim benefits/access free health care - something that isn't allowed within the EU. If someone from Ireland (or Spain, France, Poland, etc) wants to come to England and visit the sites or buy things then feel free, if they want to come to work or take advantage of our free healthcare system then outside the EU we can stop them.
Having the freedom to travel into a country without being stopped at the border is a massively different thing to what the EU considers 'free movement', to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Since they won't have a National Insurance Number, needed to get a job/buy or rent a house or claim benefits - and outside the EU we can say that they cannot have a National Insurance number we can control all that fairly easy.
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work
The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.
Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.
Clearly you didn't follow the referendum.
Brexit was all about free trade, indeed it was a driving point of the leave side that outside of the EU we could strike far more free trade deals than we could inside of it, the UK position outside of the EU is far more in favour of free trade than the EU is.
As for free movement, there is a clear difference here - feel free to come to England, only the extreme far right have any issue with this, but restrict the rights to live/work/claim benefits/access free health care - something that isn't allowed within the EU. If someone from Ireland (or Spain, France, Poland, etc) wants to come to England and visit the sites or buy things then feel free, if they want to come to work or take advantage of our free healthcare system then outside the EU we can stop them.
Having the freedom to travel into a country without being stopped at the border is a massively different thing to what the EU considers 'free movement', to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Since they won't have a National Insurance Number, needed to get a job/buy or rent a house or claim benefits - and outside the EU we can say that they cannot have a National Insurance number we can control all that fairly easy.
And the EU will give the UK free trade and movement in exchange for what exactly? In the words of Macron, the EU is not a supermarket where you can pick and choose the bits you want. If you want to use the club pool you still have to pay the dues.
But of course the UKcould expel or refuse to pay benefits to EU migrants. They just chose not to and blamed the EU for that.
I don't always agree with Ketara, but his comments on Bojo and Fox being marginalised, were spot on, because lo and behold, up pops Fox to spout gibberish at the EU
Atos, G4S paid no corporation tax last year despite carrying out £2billion of taxpayer-funded work
Two of the country’s biggest private contractors paid no corporation tax in Britain last year, despite carrying out billions of pounds of taxpayer funded work for the Government, an official audit finds
Two of the country’s biggest private contractors paid no corporation tax in Britain last year, despite carrying out billions of pounds of taxpayer funded work for the Government, an official audit has found.
A report by the National Audit Office, published today, disclosed for the first time how much Government work is now outsourced to the private sector.
It found that the four biggest suppliers - Atos, Capita, G4S and Serco - carried out £6.6billion-worth of work for the public sector and central Government last year.
Yet two of them – Atos and G4S which carried out £2billion-worth for work for the Government and public sector – paid no corporation tax at all in the UK in 2012. Capita paid between £50million and £56million, while Serco paid £25million in tax.
Atos and G4S were criticised by Margaret Hodge MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
She said: “Everyone has a duty to pay their fair share in tax, but there is something particularly galling about the idea of company who gets its income from the public purse not putting its rightful contribution back in.
“Of course, we don’t actually know how much profit Atos and G4S made in the UK last year because this remains an area where there is a total lack of transparency.
“We need to lift that veil of secrecy – and again, that duty of transparency should apply particularly to those who derive their income from taxpayers’ money.”
G4S sources said that the company did not pay any corporation tax last year because it had carried one-off losses over from the previous year. Overall it said it paid around £400million in PAYE-related taxes.
An spokesman for Atos, which is carrying out fit for work tests on sick and disabled benefits claimants, said: “We don’t undertake any aggressive tax planning and everything booked in the UK is also billed here which is why HM Revenue and Customs has classified us as low risk.
“However, due to significant investment in the UK to maintain our business here as well as pension contributions, we did not make enough profit last year to qualify for Corporation Tax.”
The impression I have gathered over the past couple of months is that May fought the election on a hard Brexit platform hoping to capture the UKIP vote. She failed, and provoked a significant backlash (Labour vote up from 26 to 40%!)
May now is paying a lot more attention to the wide body of opinion that favours the softest possible Brexit (if not actually sticking in the EU, which is what a lot of Business actually wants.) This includes international Business, e.g. the Japanese and Germans as well as our own people.
This development coincided with a general realisation and acceptance by a lot of people like David Davis, despite being keen Brexiteers, that a sudden hard Brexit on 20th March 2019 would be a colossal disaster. It would be bad for the EU, but much worse for the UK.
Whilst it would be possible to mitigate this disaster by preparing for it, firstly we're running out of time. 18 months is cutting it very fine in terms of preparation for big businesses and governments. Secondly, serious preparations for hard Brexit will make it a lot harder to continue work for a soft Brexit.
Therefore we are having a lot less "Brexit means Brexit" rhetoric and a lot more production of actual position papers and proposals. Criticise them if you will but they are coming out steadily and form at least the basics for consultation and negotiation.
This is also why most people on the UK side have come to accept the concept of a transitional arrangement. It's a way of prolonging the negotiation for several years to get the time needed to do it properly.
I'm intentionally not commenting much on this, but on which team is negotiating in good faith, I'd say to an extent neither are.
That said, we will see soon enough the results of the negotiations, as the clock is ticking on a fixed timeframe.
Personally, I fear the worst, and I think Ireland is going to be caught in between it's neighbour and it's trading block, and squeezed to feth.
This makes me pretty annoyed, because we were happy enough with the status quo but now this change is being forced on us against our will. But that's the way of the world when you're a small, weak country. That's why we consider it better to have a seat at the big table, I suppose.
Kilkrazy wrote: The impression I have gathered over the past couple of months is that May fought the election on a hard Brexit platform hoping to capture the UKIP vote. She failed, and provoked a significant backlash (Labour vote up from 26 to 40%!)
May now is paying a lot more attention to the wide body of opinion that favours the softest possible Brexit (if not actually sticking in the EU, which is what a lot of Business actually wants.) This includes international Business, e.g. the Japanese and Germans as well as our own people.
This development coincided with a general realisation and acceptance by a lot of people like David Davis, despite being keen Brexiteers, that a sudden hard Brexit on 20th March 2019 would be a colossal disaster. It would be bad for the EU, but much worse for the UK.
Whilst it would be possible to mitigate this disaster by preparing for it, firstly we're running out of time. 18 months is cutting it very fine in terms of preparation for big businesses and governments. Secondly, serious preparations for hard Brexit will make it a lot harder to continue work for a soft Brexit.
Therefore we are having a lot less "Brexit means Brexit" rhetoric and a lot more production of actual position papers and proposals. Criticise them if you will but they are coming out steadily and form at least the basics for consultation and negotiation.
This is also why most people on the UK side have come to accept the concept of a transitional arrangement. It's a way of prolonging the negotiation for several years to get the time needed to do it properly.
On the subject of Japan, May has promised the Japanese that HMS Argyll, one of our destroyers, will be patrolling Japan sometime in the future as part of Britain's commitment to Japan's defence against North Korean aggression or something.
From what I've heard, those destroyers are plagued with mechanical problems and would be lucky to make it past the Isle of Wight, never mind reach the Sea of Japan
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm intentionally not commenting much on this, but on which team is negotiating in good faith, I'd say to an extent neither are.
That said, we will see soon enough the results of the negotiations, as the clock is ticking on a fixed timeframe.
Personally, I fear the worst, and I think Ireland is going to be caught in between it's neighbour and it's trading block, and squeezed to feth.
This makes me pretty annoyed, because we were happy enough with the status quo but now this change is being forced on us against our will. But that's the way of the world when you're a small, weak country. That's why we consider it better to have a seat at the big table, I suppose.
As I've said before, and no disrespect to Irish dakka members, I sort of shrug my shoulders at Ireland these days, and that's not meant as an insult. I like Ireland and the Irish.
I appreciate the long and complicated history, and the border problems etc etc
But the Republic of Ireland is an independent nation, and so is the UK. We've made a peaceful, democratic decision to leave the EU.
For me, and again, I stress I mean no disrespect to Ireland, but I'm not really that bothered about what happens to the Republic. They will have to stand on their own two feet like the rest of us.
I hope people can see what I'm getting at here. I voted leave because I believed it was in the UK's best interests. What happened afterwards to Ireland, USA, North Korea, whoever, didn't factor into it at all.
It's all very well you personally being blase about the Republic of Ireland but the 300 mile land border cannot be ignored and the linked history (of the Troubles, etc) creates a situation demands proper consideration of things.
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work
The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.
Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.
Clearly you didn't follow the referendum.
Brexit was all about free trade, indeed it was a driving point of the leave side that outside of the EU we could strike far more free trade deals than we could inside of it, the UK position outside of the EU is far more in favour of free trade than the EU is.
As for free movement, there is a clear difference here - feel free to come to England, only the extreme far right have any issue with this, but restrict the rights to live/work/claim benefits/access free health care - something that isn't allowed within the EU. If someone from Ireland (or Spain, France, Poland, etc) wants to come to England and visit the sites or buy things then feel free, if they want to come to work or take advantage of our free healthcare system then outside the EU we can stop them.
Having the freedom to travel into a country without being stopped at the border is a massively different thing to what the EU considers 'free movement', to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Since they won't have a National Insurance Number, needed to get a job/buy or rent a house or claim benefits - and outside the EU we can say that they cannot have a National Insurance number we can control all that fairly easy.
And the EU will give the UK free trade and movement in exchange for what exactly? In the words of Macron, the EU is not a supermarket where you can pick and choose the bits you want. If you want to use the club pool you still have to pay the dues.
But of course the UKcould expel or refuse to pay benefits to EU migrants. They just chose not to and blamed the EU for that.
Free trade in exchange for the fact it is beneficial for both sides - or is free trade suddenly bad if it's not initiat3d by the EU?
As I said, We don't want the EU version of free movement, we just want to not have a hard border - in exchange for that the EU can help prevent the trouble of the past with the IRA and unionist, or are you saying that the EU would be happy to see a return to the trouble? If it is I'm not sure it's an organisation we want to be part of.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's all very well you personally being blase about the Republic of Ireland but the 300 mile land border cannot be ignored and the linked history (of the Troubles, etc) creates a situation demands proper consideration of things.
There's a lot of good will on both sides, and more importantly, the desire is there to get a deal and avoid the troubles of the past.
I'm confident that a deal can be cobbled together that will suit both sides.
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope you can see equally why as a non-British person, I don't much care how you get treated in return.
I understand and respect that viewpoint.
I've always considered nations like the Republic of Ireland and the USA to be close friends and allies, but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Precisely on your side here.
I'm sure DINLT's mindset is very common throughout the world, though, and certainly not "bad" or "wrong" or anything of the like - but, by necessity, it will also be very present with the EU officials debating the Brexit process. They will also do what is best for the EU, and will now view the UK as a foreign country, something which some Brexit supporters here seem to decry - even though it's simply returning the favor.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Can you not see how that clashes with your previous comment:
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope you can see equally why as a non-British person, I don't much care how you get treated in return.
You want us all to draw closer together, but you don't care how we get treated? That a fair old dichotomy.
I voted remain, and I still think brexit will feth us short and long term, but that dichotomy is exactly why a lot of people wanted out of the EU, the perception that the EU wanted us in, but not for our sake but theirs.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Precisely on your side here.
I'm sure DINLT's mindset is very common throughout the world, though, and certainly not "bad" or "wrong" or anything of the like - but, by necessity, it will also be very present with the EU officials debating the Brexit process. They will also do what is best for the EU, and will now view the UK as a foreign country, something which some Brexit supporters here seem to decry - even though it's simply returning the favor.
I have no problem with the EU doing what's best for the EU in these negotiations or treating Britain as a foreign country.
I like Europe and Europeans, and I hope we will continue to be close friends and trading partners, and cooperate on defence and the environment. I've never had a problem with that.
It's the United States of Europe that has always made me suspicious.
And another point, in the unlikely event that the Republic of Ireland was ever invaded by the Russians or the North Koreas, I'd want British troops defending Ireland for 3 reasons:
1. Historic debt we owe Ireland for Irishmen fighting for Britain in 2 world wars.
2. Because they are close friends and allies (even though they're not in NATO)
3. Because it would be in Britain's strategic interest to defend Ireland, as Britain would probably be next.
Why have I used such a strange scenario as an example?
Because ultimately, nation states have to act in their own interests. If Britain were ever invaded, I'd expect Irish troops defending Britain for the sole reason that an attack on Britain would ultimately threaten Ireland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
I've never denied that the EU hasn't done some good, but the direction the EU is heading in is not for me.
And let's be honest, Britain has always ben the odd man out in Europe. It's probably for the best if we go our own way.
As long as the respect and cooperation remains there between Britain and the EU, we'll all be fine.
Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.
That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.
Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.
Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.
And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one - not simply say 'go away and re do it' for the exact reason you state they shouldn't go off and come up with stacks of paper on something we might not want to change - Without their input we cannot be sure that our next offer won't be just as unacceptable as this one
Irish nationals will presumably need to prove their status in order to get this free movement? Does that count as free?
The revolution is already under way. Government departments have been told that if they can find anything that merely requires secondary legislation — which either appears on the Commons Order Paper without debate, or goes to a small committee with a government majority of loyal MPs for the lightest possible scrutiny — then they should go ahead and do it. Secondary legislation is supposed to be for the details that MPs don’t need to spend hours debating in the chamber, like the location of a road or the precise rate at which a benefit is increased. But governments of all hues abuse the opportunity to avoid a row, and can sneak past big, controversial policies with minimal debate.
That's partly what differentiates acts of parliament to statutory instruments. The former have a significant and well-understood process to their passage. Multiple stages of debate and revision through both houses of parliament, combined with public awareness and usually involvement.
It's hardly a guarantee that all law will be exemplary, but this level of scrutiny certainly helps.
By contrast, a statutory instrument is, as parliament’s own website explains, "a form of legislation which allow[s] the provisions of an act of parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without parliament having to pass a new act". Primary legislation is intended to set out general principles, leaving it up to ministers and their civil servants to fill in the gaps.
Statutory instrument are categorised as either negative or affirmative instruments. In either case, they're published online and made available in the Commons library, but in the case of a negative instrument it becomes law unless it is rejected on a resolution of either House. Affirmative instruments require a positive vote in favour. In either case, no amendment is allowed: statutory instruments pass or fall as a whole.
Needless to say, they are very popular with our legislators. Throughout the entirety of the last Labour government, statutory instruments averaged a little under 1,900 per year, with the total count rarely topping 2,000.
Since 2010, they've been running at over 3,000 a year, with 2014 posting 3,423.
Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work
The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.
Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
I've always considered nations like the Republic of Ireland and the USA to be close friends and allies, but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...
You realise of course this is the root of all bigotry and racism. That for some reason a person born on a different rock is somehow different to someone born on another rock; rather than looking at the individual they are your views of them a filtered by which side of the line they happened to arrive on. The feeling that because someone wasn't born on one side of a line that was determined only a handful of hundreds of years ago (generally through people stabbing or shooting each other) makes them 'foreign' and viewed with less respect as to what happens to them. We all were born on this planet not because we are British/German/North Korean/etc but because of the vagaries of quantum fluctuations throughout the lifetime of the universe. Are you seriously suggesting that if a mother gave birth to a child at the NI border that child with the same potential should be viewed differently depending on whether the mother made one step to the left or right? Because that is what you are saying...
The revolution is already under way. Government departments have been told that if they can find anything that merely requires secondary legislation — which either appears on the Commons Order Paper without debate, or goes to a small committee with a government majority of loyal MPs for the lightest possible scrutiny — then they should go ahead and do it. Secondary legislation is supposed to be for the details that MPs don’t need to spend hours debating in the chamber, like the location of a road or the precise rate at which a benefit is increased. But governments of all hues abuse the opportunity to avoid a row, and can sneak past big, controversial policies with minimal debate.
Unfortunately our politicians haven't learnt from the past that the only outcome from removing the people that put them there from the decision making process is a revolution where the masses rise up and string them up! It's sad to see that our politicians are so keen to benefit themselves that they will happily run rough shod over what democracy is really about.
I've always considered nations like the Republic of Ireland and the USA to be close friends and allies, but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...
You realise of course this is the root of all bigotry and racism. That for some reason a person born on a different rock is somehow different to someone born on another rock; rather than looking at the individual they are your views of them a filtered by which side of the line they happened to arrive on. The feeling that because someone wasn't born on one side of a line that was determined only a handful of hundreds of years ago (generally through people stabbing or shooting each other) makes them 'foreign' and viewed with less respect as to what happens to them. We all were born on this planet not because we are British/German/North Korean/etc but because of the vagaries of quantum fluctuations throughout the lifetime of the universe. Are you seriously suggesting that if a mother gave birth to a child at the NI border that child with the same potential should be viewed differently depending on whether the mother made one step to the left or right? Because that is what you are saying...
I have to agree. The opinion DINLT seems to be expressing here actually makes me pretty bloody angry. I thought he was talking rubbish before, especially about the intra-national unions and collaborations of this time, the UK, EU and NATO, but I'm afraid he's started to cross the line. I have many Irish family members, and this whole begotten exercise is going to directly affect them quite badly, not with standing if any sort of border reignites the troubles and we end up with people being hurt or even losing their lives because of this idiotic, nationalistic bollocks.
As somebody who was growing up in 1980s Britain when the IRA were bombing British cities, let me make myself absoluetly clear:
I DO NOT WANT VIOLENCE AND TROUBLE AGAIN IN NORTHERN IRELAND!
God knows I had enough of it back then.
Making the point that nations should act in their own interests be the British, be they from the Republic, does not make one a warmonger.
Believing in the nation state does not make one a bigot or a racist. By that logic, there are billions of racists on Planet Earth, becuase we have over 150 sovereign nations in existence.
Should we tell the USA to tear up the declaration of independence or Greece to revert back to Sparta and Athens, or Germany to return to the days of the Hanseatic league? Of course not.
The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
And as far as heavy handed - if you think making sure that you are not a criminal and that the skills you are bringing will help our economy is heavy handed then I suggest you spend a little time trying to emigrate to a country with real heavy handed checks.
Also, why do you assume that trade means we have to be under their law? That's pretty ,much an invention of the EU - sure they can say what we sell there needs to meet they laws, that's reasonable and we'd probably do the same, but ALL laws? That's just a ridiculous suggestion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
Which is why it is in everyones interests to get a deal sorted, so why is it remainers feel like it's something that the UK should be paying for when a solution is just as beneficial to the EU as it is to us?
Free trade in exchange for the fact it is beneficial for both sides - or is free trade suddenly bad if it's not initiat3d by the EU?
As I said, We don't want the EU version of free movement, we just want to not have a hard border.
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. For example I can travel to Ukraine but I'm not allowed to take up employment and only stay for X days. Which pretty much fits your previous definition of soft border.
This means my passport is checked on entry. Doesn't matter if I fly to Kiev or drive from Poland. Is that soft enough?
Because I can't think of a single border crossing that doesn't involve some sort of document checking, unless there's free movement involved (either within the EU, EU-EFTA, etc)
Especially if there's no free movement of goods. Nowadays you can smuggle thousands of pounds worth of goods (electronics, meds, etc) on your personal luggage. Don't you think smuggling would be rife on such a soft border of free movement of people doesn't come with free movement of goods?
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all....
Apparently the EU, which wants freedom of movement, wants a hard border, while the UK, which wants complete autonomy of restrictions to movement, wants a completely soft border.
You don't want to be in the EU, so you don't want a soft border. One of your reasons for resigning from the EU is that you don't like EU's soft borders, yet now you're in favour of a soft border. Or a hard border. I don't know. I've completely lost track of the cognitive somersaults you're going through.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
And as far as heavy handed - if you think making sure that you are not a criminal and that the skills you are bringing will help our economy is heavy handed then I suggest you spend a little time trying to emigrate to a country with real heavy handed checks.
Also, why do you assume that trade means we have to be under their law? That's pretty ,much an invention of the EU - sure they can say what we sell there needs to meet they laws, that's reasonable and we'd probably do the same, but ALL laws? That's just a ridiculous suggestion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
Which is why it is in everyones interests to get a deal sorted, so why is it remainers feel like it's something that the UK should be paying for when a solution is just as beneficial to the EU as it is to us?
Because the EU is not responsible for this, and we know their position on EU membership, because we helped create it. The onus is on the UK to come up with a solution to the problem that Leave has created. So, here you go, it's your mess, what are you going to do about it?
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all....
Apparently the EU, which wants freedom of movement, wants a hard border, while the UK, which wants complete autonomy of restrictions to movement, wants a completely soft border.
You don't want to be in the EU, so you don't want a soft border. One of your reasons for resigning from the EU is that you don't like EU's soft borders, yet now you're in favour of a soft border. Or a hard border. I don't know. I've completely lost track of the cognitive somersaults you're going through.
Then I suggest you take some time and read what I've actually said rather than what you wish I'd have said.
At no point have I ever said I want a hard border with NI, that way leads back to the troubles and it's In everyone's interest (both the UK and the eu) to avoid that. Indeed I even said I'd be happy to see the 'no checks on Irish nationals' extended to all EU nationals, as we could control what people were actually bothered about with immigration (mainly to do with jobs) via other methods once we are out of the EU.
I don't want the EU 'free movement' this isn't the same as a soft border.
At the same time they also want harsh immigration controls stopping those "dirty foreigners taking UK jobs" or "overloading the NHS and education system" etc. So they want to put in heavy handed checks on the people coming in to the country and a hard border whilst not being stuck with EU legislation (that they will have to if they want seamless trade). When you look at these sort of contradictions it is easy to see why the EU is frustrated. The UK government is asking for things that are the polar opposite to each other but expect the EU to be able to implement. In the end it's political nonsense run by a group of clowns.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
And as far as heavy handed - if you think making sure that you are not a criminal and that the skills you are bringing will help our economy is heavy handed then I suggest you spend a little time trying to emigrate to a country with real heavy handed checks.
Also, why do you assume that trade means we have to be under their law? That's pretty ,much an invention of the EU - sure they can say what we sell there needs to meet they laws, that's reasonable and we'd probably do the same, but ALL laws? That's just a ridiculous suggestion.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...The idea that if Britian leaves the EU, the Irish will start blowing themselves up, is one I would find insulting if I were Irish. It makes them look like petulant children, which they are not!
It's up there with WW3 breaking out if the EU didn't exist.
Where is the faith in people to determine their own destiny through peaceful means? Sadly lacking by the sounds of it!
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The peace process may have put the tensions on simmer, but they are still there. It would take a few Ill considered actions and words, and the last 20 years could unravel.
We knew that the Irish border would be a hugely contentious issue, yet enough people like you simply did not care about it to even consider it when making your decision. You've stated that much in your position on "foreigners".
Ireland maybe a separate nation state, but that does not mean we shouldn't give a gak about them. They are tied as closely to us in many ways as Scotland and Wales is to England. If you treated, and spoke about, your friends and family in this way, you'd swiftly be lacking in either.
Which is why it is in everyones interests to get a deal sorted, so why is it remainers feel like it's something that the UK should be paying for when a solution is just as beneficial to the EU as it is to us?
Because the EU is not responsible for this, and we know their position on EU membership, because we helped create it. The onus is on the UK to come up with a solution to the problem that Leave has created. So, here you go, it's your mess, what are you going to do about it?
We had a solution, a soft border - the EU rejected it - which is why we now need to negotiate, it's not just up to us to keep coming up with solutions - that's what negotiations are.
Free trade in exchange for the fact it is beneficial for both sides - or is free trade suddenly bad if it's not initiat3d by the EU?
As I said, We don't want the EU version of free movement, we just want to not have a hard border.
I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing. For example I can travel to Ukraine but I'm not allowed to take up employment and only stay for X days. Which pretty much fits your previous definition of soft border.
This means my passport is checked on entry. Doesn't matter if I fly to Kiev or drive from Poland. Is that soft enough?
The first part of this is what we offered, it was rejected.
As far as checking documents, You are right this happens at borders, we came up with a truly new and innovative solutions involving automated checks and Number Plate Recognicion technology.
New, innovative, a real chance to work with the unique situation of the Ireland/NI border, but rejected out of hand by the EU because they can't have it be seen that the UK can come up with solutions to leaving the EU so easy - afterall if we can do it so could everyone else.
This is a very interesting statement, and one I'm sure many people across the EU would not agree with. Absolving the EU of all responsibility for this mess just further entrenches divisions, I think.
Personally, I'm actually saddened slightly that even after Brexit, the EU remains as intransigent as ever. I'm not even referring to their relations with the British, but their own internal politicking. Those sitting in Brussels still seem unwilling or unable to address the structural flaws within their system that helped to lead everyone to this point.
There was a period of about two months just after Brexit, when there were a lot of speeches made in the European Parliament, and by various functionaries to the effect of 'Something's gone wrong, and we need to figure out how to fix it'. It sounded really hopeful and positive, y'know? Made me hope that regardless of whatever potential mid to short term dog's dinner Brexit ended up as, something good might happen as a result. But as time has ticked on, the opposite has happened, if anything. The hatches have been well and truly battened down, the various crises (like the Italian immigrant situation) persist with no clear endgame, and everyone in Brussels seems to have forgotten what was said before. There was a small resurgence when Macron got elected of flag waving, but his internal support base has already dwindled, and his vision for Europe thus far seems to be "Same ol' same ol'".
I had a slight hope that Brexit would be the catalyst that would lead to things changing internally for the better in the EU's machinations, but it really seems to have come to nothing. It makes you wonder what actually has to happen to instigate a positive change. I hope for the people who live over there that something triggers it sooner or later, because there's a lot of discontent rumbling around finding outbursts in crass nationalism and xenophobia. I fear that if the EU continues to put its fingers in its ears, there'll be a Brexit repeat or worse in another country five years down the line.
Making the point that nations should act in their own interests be the British, be they from the Republic, does not make one a warmonger.
Believing in the nation state does not make one a bigot or a racist. By that logic, there are billions of racists on Planet Earth, becuase we have over 150 sovereign nations in existence.
Should we tell the USA to tear up the declaration of independence or Greece to revert back to Sparta and Athens, or Germany to return to the days of the Hanseatic league? Of course not.
The issue is that the you are missing how such things link together. Violence does not instantly appear. It arises from a group of people expressing similar sentiments and deciding that the people on another side of a line should be 'removed' to ensure that the former gets what they want. It is the worst expression of peoples prejudices against a group simply because of a line.
Your expressions stated similar sentiments. "For me, and again, I stress I mean no disrespect to Ireland, but I'm not really that bothered about what happens to the Republic. They will have to stand on their own two feet like the rest of us." or "but I never forget that at the end of the day, they are foreigners...". You are judging a group of people by an arbitrary line on a map which has no meaning to who an individual is regardless of what side of a line they are on. You've specifically selected a group of people based on where they are and decided arbitrarily that they deserve less understanding or sympathy than those on your side of the line. Yet that line means nothing, all of us are here by fluke of chance combinations. Why should that make you think they are different and less worthy of consideration. You are valuing people simply on how in the relatively recent past someone scribbled on a map. The real danger is when lots of people start aggregating to this view because then that becomes ugly...There aren't billions of racists because the vast majority would happily have open borders everywhere; it is only the few that want to protect themselves from others becoming their equal, which in the end we all are.
Except it's the EU wanting a hard border, we offered a very reasonable solution without a hard border, and if the EU negotiated we'd probably have agreed to allow it to be open to anyone to visit, just not work or live - but they don't want that so instead claim we havn't come up with an option at all.
No we offered something that is against the founding principles of the EU and they won't accept that. It's a blunt way of the UK trying to divide the EU and they aren't having it. They will protect the equal rights for all it's citizens equally, anything that breaks that will not be accepted and is a waste of time. How likely do you think a deal with the US would be if we required the 3rd amendment to apply in Texas but not in Washington State?
I had a slight hope that Brexit would be the catalyst that would lead to things changing internally for the better in the EU's machinations, but it really seems to have come to nothing. It makes you wonder what actually has to happen to instigate a positive change. I hope for the people who live over there that something triggers it sooner or later, because there's a lot of discontent rumbling around finding outbursts in crass nationalism and xenophobia. I fear that if the EU continues to put its fingers in its ears, there'll be a Brexit repeat or worse in another country five years down the line.
I don't think you have to worry about this...they only need to watch the UK implode over the coming years to realise that going the same direction is not a good idea...
I don't think you have to worry about this...they only need to watch the UK implode over the coming years to realise that going the same direction is not a good idea...
I'll be frank, sometimes it feels you seem to almost be relishing the prospect. It may not be how you intend to come across, or even how you actually think on the matter, but it occasionally feels from the way you talk in this thread that you want the country to go completely down the pan in order to a) give what for to those with different political views to you (mainly nationalists), and b) make us rejoin the EU. I mean, countries have literally broken up in the past and not suffered the some of the sorts of ill economic devastation I've seen you predicting.
The most likely outcome is a minor recession for two or three years (which happens every ten-fifteen years anyway) whilst affairs rebalance, and then business as normal in the same way as Japan, India, etc. Some things will be lost, some things will be gained. And in fifteen years time, nobody will remember why it was such hot political issue.
If that is what happens, would you be happy with that?
I don't think you have to worry about this...they only need to watch the UK implode over the coming years to realise that going the same direction is not a good idea...
I'll be frank, sometimes it feels you seem to almost be relishing the prospect. It may not be how you intend to come across, or even how you actually think on the matter, but it occasionally feels from the way you talk in this thread that you want the country to go completely down the pan in order to a) give what for to those with different political views to you (mainly nationalists), and b) make us rejoin the EU. I mean, countries have literally broken up in the past and not suffered the some of the sorts of ill economic devastation I've seen you predicting.
I don't think I've ever said that. I think socially the UK is imploding. There is (in the majority) and older generation that pines for a UK with an empire and influence and a younger generation that is more accepting of that we now live in a global world and closing doors against increasingly globalised issues is not the way forward (however we are increasingly giving the outside world a negative impression of the UK to live and work in). I don't think that this will go away anytime soon and will see us see-sawing between two opposing views until the 50/60/70s generation die out in enough numbers. That in the end will leave the UK in worldwide weakened position globally as any thought of reliability disappears. I could point to the way our politics is becoming more divisive with a hard right (by current UK politics) party desperately clinging to power, whilst a hard left (by current UK standards) does exactly the same desperately trying to get power. Both sides removing any thought of debate in their own parties as much as possible.
Economically I think we will have a recession and then a slow slide in economic output given the current direction. The lack of stability in the UK will reduce investment and with an aging workforce, worse education system and being less attractive to migrants whilst we might have stagnant growth we'll steadily fall behind other nations until we become (although not weak) mediocre at best. The government will try and combat this by reducing social/environmental etc legislation reducing the rights of the people at large. This is all the while whilst we combat an increasingly resourced starved world that is warming considerably. In some ways I feel sorry for what is coming, especially for my niece and nephew who will be the ones that bear the brunt of this idiocy. The people at the top will be fine, it will be the populace at large that suffers.
The revolution is already under way. Government departments have been told that if they can find anything that merely requires secondary legislation — which either appears on the Commons Order Paper without debate, or goes to a small committee with a government majority of loyal MPs for the lightest possible scrutiny — then they should go ahead and do it. Secondary legislation is supposed to be for the details that MPs don’t need to spend hours debating in the chamber, like the location of a road or the precise rate at which a benefit is increased. But governments of all hues abuse the opportunity to avoid a row, and can sneak past big, controversial policies with minimal debate.
That's partly what differentiates acts of parliament to statutory instruments. The former have a significant and well-understood process to their passage. Multiple stages of debate and revision through both houses of parliament, combined with public awareness and usually involvement.
It's hardly a guarantee that all law will be exemplary, but this level of scrutiny certainly helps.
By contrast, a statutory instrument is, as parliament’s own website explains, "a form of legislation which allow[s] the provisions of an act of parliament to be subsequently brought into force or altered without parliament having to pass a new act". Primary legislation is intended to set out general principles, leaving it up to ministers and their civil servants to fill in the gaps.
Statutory instrument are categorised as either negative or affirmative instruments. In either case, they're published online and made available in the Commons library, but in the case of a negative instrument it becomes law unless it is rejected on a resolution of either House. Affirmative instruments require a positive vote in favour. In either case, no amendment is allowed: statutory instruments pass or fall as a whole.
Needless to say, they are very popular with our legislators. Throughout the entirety of the last Labour government, statutory instruments averaged a little under 1,900 per year, with the total count rarely topping 2,000.
Since 2010, they've been running at over 3,000 a year, with 2014 posting 3,423.
I work for a department that is currently trying to pass an SI and we have been told that the next available slot is in Summer 2019.
Da Boss wrote: I'm a passionate pro-European federalist precisely because I want to break down distinctions like that, so this all makes me sad and, yeah, angry.
Can you not see how that clashes with your previous comment:
Da Boss wrote: Well, I hope you can see equally why as a non-British person, I don't much care how you get treated in return.
You want us all to draw closer together, but you don't care how we get treated? That a fair old dichotomy.
I voted remain, and I still think brexit will feth us short and long term, but that dichotomy is exactly why a lot of people wanted out of the EU, the perception that the EU wanted us in, but not for our sake but theirs.
There's nothing clashing. Wanting a better integration and being happy about the UK being part of the EU is consistent if one is pro EU. Then being not enthusiastic when one member wants out of the club is also consistent, especially in a messy and confusing divorce. And if Leave people mention their "don't care what happens with the rest" mentality then why should pro EU people even care about the treatment of the post Leave UK? Do people with a pro EU stance need to have some sort of Stockholm syndrome for you to accept this as "consistent"? There's a different context and you can't just put two statements next to each other and complain about "dichotomy".
People want the UK in the EU to have a bigger community for all kinds of benefits but if the UK doesn't want to be part of this anymore then there's not much "drawing closer" that can happen (and forcing something would be creepy). The UK is one of the bigger members in the group and even has/had and slightly outsized influence on policies. How can you say "the perception that the EU wanted us in, but not for our sake but theirs". Maybe perception is the important word here but that's something the UK has to deal with. That perception itself also might be wrong.
I'm pro EU (feth it, I want a worldwide union) and think the whole referendum was an unorganised mess. Now the UK wants out (to a degree/percentage, not everyone, …) and that should be respected but don't expect a medal from the EU for that stunt.
Irish nationals will presumably need to prove their status in order to get this free movement? Does that count as free?
You're right of cause, I've never felt like a free man having to carry a passport when I go to a foreign country...
If you need a passport to cross the border, then you're still going to have to erect a physical barrier to stop people without one passing. You can't automate it using something like ANPR; how would you (a) identify if all of the passengers have free movement and (b) stop the cars with passengers that don't?
Even if you have an "Irish only" lane or queue at any borders, you'd still need a barrier to stop people abusing it.
However you regard it, that's still a border, and that's very much not wanted in Ireland, as well as a total pain in the rear for anyone who crosses the border on a regular basis.
Then you've got the fact that the border is about 300 miles long. Who's going to be responsible for policing the sections of border that don't have check-points on them?
The only way to not have a border is to genuinely leave it open and do all of the border checks when leaving Eire/NI, either on the EU side or the UK side, and cast a blind eye to anything that's made it across the soft/invisible border that shouldn't, since it'll never get any further.
This is a very interesting statement, and one I'm sure many people across the EU would not agree with. Absolving the EU of all responsibility for this mess just further entrenches divisions, I think...
At the end of the day, no one forced Cameron to call a referendum. Yes there is anti-EU feeling, and there are problems with the system but in some ways they are very distinct entities. The EU, like any man made beaurocracy, has flaws, and needs constant challenge and amendment, which does happen. However, as have seen, a lot of the anti-EU feeling has been down to things that were the responsibility of national Governments, but blamed on the EU.
This whole exercise has been a farce, with pundits now clinging to "sovreignty" as their justification now for putting the country through the grinder, when it was more likely just a chance to stick one in the eye of our own establishment.
It makes it more ludicrous when commentators like DINLT come one here and make grandiose claims about how this is a historic moment that the noble, right thinking people have reclaimed their heritage from the faceless beurocrats of Brussels, when frankly it's absolutely nothing like that at all.
How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
Howard A Treesong wrote: How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
My understanding was that the idea has been robustly rejected by Unionists.
clearly this is a great idea then ?!
