|
Brexit
Apr 5, 2017 10:41:57 GMT
Post by evangelion on Apr 5, 2017 10:41:57 GMT
The UK has now been very clear about what it wants: a fair deal for existing immigrants in and out; free trade; and sovereignty. The UK already has sovereignty, so that's not an issue. May has said the UK is leaving the Common Market, so now she has to negotiate free trade terms with the EU from scratch, but she can't do it until Britain formally leaves the EU. May has conceded that free movement for EU citizens could continue for up to 5 years after Brexit has formally taken place.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 8, 2017 12:27:47 GMT
Post by fortigurn on Apr 8, 2017 12:27:47 GMT
The UK has now been very clear about what it wants: a fair deal for existing immigrants in and out; free trade; and sovereignty. The UK already has sovereignty, so that's not an issue. May has said the UK is leaving the Common Market, so now she has to negotiate free trade terms with the EU from scratch, but she can't do it until Britain formally leaves the EU. May has conceded that free movement for EU citizens could continue for up to 5 years after Brexit has formally taken place. But at least now they can keep brown people out of the country!
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 8, 2017 16:46:59 GMT
Post by ydoethur on Apr 8, 2017 16:46:59 GMT
The UK already has sovereignty, so that's not an issue. May has said the UK is leaving the Common Market, so now she has to negotiate free trade terms with the EU from scratch, but she can't do it until Britain formally leaves the EU. May has conceded that free movement for EU citizens could continue for up to 5 years after Brexit has formally taken place. But at least now they can keep brown people out of the country! Actually Fortigurn I don't think that's a helpful or accurate remark. There are all sorts of major issues with the EU. Just to give one that caused me the most personal grief, in 1996 the EU banned all exports of British beef over the BSE crisis, a move that destroyed the dairy and beef industries (they have never recovered from it). Why did they do this? Well, they claimed it was for public health reasons. But France had a BSE rate of double Britain's (unhelpfully, due to their abysmal record keeping this was not widely known at the time but it would seem it was known or at least strongly suspected by the Commissioners) and took no hygiene precautions in the slaughtered process, yet their beef has never been officially banned (apart from one brief wildcat ban by the Spanish). It was done, it would appear, to bolster those major agricultural industries who were clients of the Commission (ironically, especially the French). That's one example of a round abuse of power that caused appalling hardship, particularly for a young boy whose family depended on agriculture for their livelihood. I could mention others (see, for example, the Lisbon treaty which had been repeatedly rejected by national referendums but was rammed through because it served the interests of the Parliament). There is no doubt that immigration (almost all from Eastern Europe - immigration from elsewhere is actually comparatively low, certainly in those areas that voted leave) was a major issue and equally there is no doubt that nothing can or will be done about it as the British economy would as currently constituted come to a screeching and painful halt if it were stopped abruptly. But sovereignty, corruption (no organisation that puts the ghastly Juncker anywhere near power deserves anything but contempt) and a genuine fear that the EU is industriously driving towards either full federation or civil war - possibly both - and we are better off keeping our distance also played a part. So, of course, did intense dislike for politicians, bankers and businessmen in the remote south-east who have done just fine in the last grim decade while the rest of us are ignored. If we are to deal as a nation with what has happened and what is coming (which I suspect will be unpleasant) we will have to start talking to and empathising with one another, and casual offensive remarks like that are to put it mildly unhelpful. (I don't know if you're British, I suspect not from your remark, but it feeds in to the narrative of two nations and entrenches divisions and suspicions on each side.) context - as noted above, I have no love for the EU's leadership whom I consider to be a criminal cabal run by tax cheating Fascist nutcases. However, I voted Remain on the basis (a) they are unlikely to be around for ever (b) there are several real benefits to being a member as well as downsides and (c) I was - and still am, concerned by the potential economic damage leaving will cause. However, I live in a heavily Leave area (Cannock Chase) and I have spoken to enough people to know just how complex this issue is.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 8, 2017 19:12:22 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 8, 2017 19:12:22 GMT
But at least now they can keep brown people out of the country! Actually Fortigurn I don't think that's a helpful or accurate remark. There are all sorts of major issues with the EU. Just to give one that caused me the most personal grief, in 1996 the EU banned all exports of British beef over the BSE crisis, a move that destroyed the dairy and beef industries (they have never recovered from it). Why did they do this? Well, they claimed it was for public health reasons. But France had a BSE rate of double Britain's (unhelpfully, due to their abysmal record keeping this was not widely known at the time but it would seem it was known or at least strongly suspected by the Commissioners) and took no hygiene precautions in the slaughtered process, yet their beef has never been officially banned (apart from one brief wildcat ban by the Spanish). It was done, it would appear, to bolster those major agricultural industries who were clients of the Commission (ironically, especially the French). That's one example of a round abuse of power that caused appalling hardship, particularly for a young boy whose family depended on agriculture for their livelihood. Yes, I agree such language is best avoided, and I also agree on a substantial level that the majority of Leavers weren't motivated by racism and that the minority of those who did weren't those who swung the issue (I mean, yes, notionally if the racists were not going to vote Leave, Remain would have won, but that section of the population was going to overwhelmingly vote Leave no matter what, so there's technically no swing vote there). I think that concerns about the NHS are what actually made the difference - and that is very likely to backfire. Fortigurn's from Australia by the way, like probably most of the forum members who are currently active. I remember very few facts of the BSE crisis as I was just too young, but the version I got at the time did give me the impression that it was handled as a health crisis (not that I could tell the difference at the time). Do you know of any text that explains more of your side of the story? I could mention others (see, for example, the Lisbon treaty which had been repeatedly rejected by national referendums but was rammed through because it served the interests of the Parliament). I do remember more of this. "Repeatedly" means twice in the same round here, in France and in the Netherlands. I think that both countries were free to put the Treaty of Lisbon to a referendum again, the Netherlands certainly had the option to do so, but the governments at the time declined to do so. I think this is more a national failure than an institutional failure of the EU. (Additionally, there were a lot of trumped up concerns about a "superstate" in the air back then, that didn't come to fruition. Lisbon has also been an important step in democratising the European Union.) There is no doubt that immigration (almost all from Eastern Europe - immigration from elsewhere is actually comparatively low, certainly in those areas that voted leave) was a major issue and equally there is no doubt that nothing can or will be done about it as the British economy would as currently constituted come to a screeching and painful halt if it were stopped abruptly. But sovereignty, corruption (no organisation that puts the ghastly Juncker anywhere near power deserves anything but contempt) and a genuine fear that the EU is industriously driving towards either full federation or civil war - possibly both - and we are better off keeping our distance also played a part. So, of course, did intense dislike for politicians, bankers and businessmen in the remote south-east who have done just fine in the last grim decade while the rest of us are ignored. The view I got from sociologists and economists is that it's mainly that any well functioning economy attracts significant (but imo overall moderate) levels of immigration and that it is a little higher in countries with deregulated labour markets. Of course, immigration is vital to specific sectors, like the NHS, and those are likely to suffer from that. It's also hard to see from the continent why people anywhere are afraid of full-throttle federalisation of the EU. There were a number of rather easy, highly affordable, but essential reforms to the EMU that would have amounted to a more federal approach to parts of the EU, but those haven't been implemented at all. Instead the Euro countries were too scared of sensible reforms and rather decided to gank Greece (for some street creds among the muggers in their electorates). context - as noted above, I have no love for the EU's leadership whom I consider to be a criminal cabal run by tax cheating Fascist nutcases. However, I voted Remain on the basis (a) they are unlikely to be around for ever (b) there are several real benefits to being a member as well as downsides and (c) I was - and still am, concerned by the potential economic damage leaving will cause. However, I live in a heavily Leave area (Cannock Chase) and I have spoken to enough people to know just how complex this issue is. I am rather surprised by the phrase "a criminal cabal run by tax cheating Fascist nutcases", though. I mean, I get why you'd make a jab at Luxembourg and Juncker for their tax haven behaviour (though Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK also function as tax havens), but I don't get the rest. If I were convinced that I could get rid of a levels of governance dominated by fascists just by voting in a referendum, I would vote Leave without a second thought, and if I weren't convinced of that, I wouldn't use hyperbole like that. Could you explain what motivates this response? James, could you too elaborate what convinces you that the EU may be too incompetent to manage the exit negotiations? Is it the mention of Gibraltar in the memo?
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 8, 2017 21:08:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by ydoethur on Apr 8, 2017 21:08:21 GMT
Sorry, don't know of any good accounts of the BSE crisis. One needs to be written, but as it would require mastery of several languages is it most unlikely to be written from a British perspective!
You ask me about my last sentence. The answer is that the EU leaders are as far as I am concerned, scum. I make that plain. But their power is restricted to certain key areas at present and as long as Britain remained that would still hold true as further federation was impossible. However, with us gone that brake is likely to be removed. The thought of the likes of Juncker, Prodi, Verhfostadt, Mandleson (to take some rather egregious recent examples) having real power over what would almost certainly be the world's richest and most powerful nation should make anyone's flesh creep. I do not want to see a state run by such people literally within touching distance of the UK. (I haven't forgotten Mandelson was once Deputy PM here, before anyone reminds me. He should never have had that post after being forced to resign twice before, but even allowing for that there are strong constraints and effectual oversight on the British executive totally lacking on the Commission).
But also, I am all for close security co-operation, free travel and free trade with our fellow European countries and in its own rather less than brilliantly perfect way the EU does provide that. It needs massive reform at some point - I voted Remain in the perhaps naive hope that a close remain result might jolt them out of their complacency at last. Verhofstadt's response that the vote shows how much people love the EU reveals this was perhaps an error of judgement on my part.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 9, 2017 12:26:50 GMT
Post by fortigurn on Apr 9, 2017 12:26:50 GMT
Actually Fortigurn I don't think that's a helpful or accurate remark. But the argument that was heard the most, the argument which represented the UK to the world, was "We need to keep foreigners out of our country". When I visited the UK myself earlier this year, I was unsurprised to hear that message repeated wherever I went. The fortunate exceptions were the Christians I met, who were overwhelmingly Remainers, and who expressed their deep concern with the deliberately divisive and anti-foreigner Brexit campaign.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 9, 2017 14:23:26 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Apr 9, 2017 14:23:26 GMT
By the EU being dysfunctional, I mean the same problems that have prevented it from dealing with the Euro crisis. There are just so many interests competing, all of which have a an effective veto. There are the federalists in the EP, the freetraders in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the Nationalists in Eastern Europe and the French who are just interested in the French. Merkel and the Commission will try to keep the show on the road, but the failure in February last year does not bode well.
Gibraltar is irrelevant. Everyone knows it's status won't change but it is an itch than the Spanish and some Tories can't leave alone. I am more concerned about the idiots who think the best way to make EU membership attractive is to smash the windows of anyone who tries to leave.
On immigration, yes that was a big issue. It wasn't really for me, but now as a local politian having to deal with greenfield housing developments, it is clear that a population that increases by 3 million every ten years in a country that is the second most crowded in europe is not sustainable. That said, UK politics is much less poisonous than most of Europe. In Poland and Hungary, the nationalists are in power, in Italy the most popular party is run by a comedian, in France a genuine fascist is likely to make the top 2 n the presidential elections. Here, UKIP is in free fall and our biggest problem is that the lunatic left have taken over the main opposition party.
As I have said before, the EU is simply a free trade area with a Napoleon complex. That an Australian would carry a candle for it is, frankly, a bit weird.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 10, 2017 1:57:06 GMT
Post by evangelion on Apr 10, 2017 1:57:06 GMT
By the EU being dysfunctional, I mean the same problems that have prevented it from dealing with the Euro crisis. There are just so many interests competing, all of which have a an effective veto. There are the federalists in the EP, the freetraders in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the Nationalists in Eastern Europe and the French who are just interested in the French. Merkel and the Commission will try to keep the show on the road, but the failure in February last year does not bode well. That's no different to any other international economic body. WTO, IMF, you name it. The only people smashing windows were the black bloc anarchists. They do that every time there's a protest in town, regardless of the issue. They they just love an opportunity to cause mayhem. The Leave campaign has already admitted that Brexit will have a negligible impact on immigration. Experts concur. Theresa May has said that free movement will continue for at least 5 year after Brexit. Anyone who voted Leave on the basis of immigration has been conned by the Little Britain crowd. The EU is much more than a free trade area. It's an institution that has provided prosperity, unity, and peace in Western Europe for 50 years. There is no comparable success story in the history of human civilisation. My mother is English/Australian; my father was English/German. I have dual British/Australian citizenship (as do my children). My wife is English (I lived in the UK for 6 years, which is where I met and married her) and we both have family in the UK. Brexit affects me personally, and I don't appreciate the government downgrading my passport from free EU-access to plain Jane British.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 10, 2017 2:00:44 GMT
Post by evangelion on Apr 10, 2017 2:00:44 GMT
But at least now they can keep brown people out of the country!
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 10, 2017 2:11:34 GMT
Post by evangelion on Apr 10, 2017 2:11:34 GMT
(see, for example, the Lisbon treaty which had been repeatedly rejected by national referendums but was rammed through because it served the interests of the Parliament). This is completely untrue. Every time the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a national referendum, it was because the people wanted additional concessions. In every case, subsequent referendums passed because those concessions were granted. In other words: voters accepted the Lisbon Treaty only after it had been changed to their satisfaction. This is the exact opposite of 'ramming through.'
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 10, 2017 7:40:08 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 10, 2017 7:40:08 GMT
By the EU being dysfunctional, I mean the same problems that have prevented it from dealing with the Euro crisis. There are just so many interests competing, all of which have a an effective veto. There are the federalists in the EP, the freetraders in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the Nationalists in Eastern Europe and the French who are just interested in the French. Merkel and the Commission will try to keep the show on the road, but the failure in February last year does not bode well. By the EU being dysfunctional, I mean the same problems that have prevented it from dealing with the Euro crisis. There are just so many interests competing, all of which have a an effective veto. There are the federalists in the EP, the freetraders in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, the Nationalists in Eastern Europe and the French who are just interested in the French. Merkel and the Commission will try to keep the show on the road, but the failure in February last year does not bode well. That's no different to any other international economic body. WTO, IMF, you name it. I agree with Sankari, in fact the EU has been a lot better in achieving its purposes (getting trade agreements done, addressing transnational problems such as pollution) than either the IMF (nightmare experience for nearly any economy they had to 'save', often while leaving dictators unmolested without making any headway in tackling corruption) or the WTO (effective in reducing trade wars - though we don't know whether Trump will buck the other way - but not in reducing tariffs any further). Merkel and the Commission will try to keep the show on the road, but the failure in February last year does not bode well. I don't know what this is about. Could you elaborate? Gibraltar is irrelevant. Everyone knows it's status won't change but it is an itch than the Spanish and some Tories can't leave alone. I am more concerned about the idiots who think the best way to make EU membership attractive is to smash the windows of anyone who tries to leave. Yes, Gibraltar isn't going to get a change in status indeed. Truth be told, May's implication that she might cancel security cooperation if no deal can be reached wasn't a great display of competence either. (see, for example, the Lisbon treaty which had been repeatedly rejected by national referendums but was rammed through because it served the interests of the Parliament). This is completely untrue. Every time the Lisbon Treaty was rejected by a national referendum, it was because the people wanted additional concessions. In every case, subsequent referendums passed because those concessions were granted. In other words: voters accepted the Lisbon Treaty only after it had been changed to their satisfaction. This is the exact opposite of 'ramming through.' Ydoethur is thinking of the European Constitution and the Treaty of Lisbon as one here. There weren't any referenda in France and the Netherlands on the Treaty of Lisbon, but the referenda on the European Constitution had a negative outcome there (but Spain and Luxembourg did approve that treaty). Only Ireland held referenda on the Treaty of Lisbon, and those took place in the way you write.
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 10, 2017 7:47:49 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Apr 10, 2017 7:47:49 GMT
Ah. Another demonstration of Godwin's Law. While the law only states that the probability tends to 1, it does not state at what rate. Still, nice to see further data for the quants responsible for calibrating the numbers. On the Lisbon Treaty, the confusion arises from the fiction that it and the erstwhile EU constitution are not the same thing. They are, and so the French and Dutch ignored rejections of the constitution, and the withdrawal of a referendum in the UK, constitute ramming through the treaty in anyone's books. As Dan Hannan likes to point out, that is the EU's hideous strength. It is not only undemocratic itself, it also subverts the democracy in its members. I wrote about how the Lisbon fiasco made an in/out referendum in the UK inevitable here: bedejournal.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-what-on-earth-happened.htmlAs a side note, much of the EU's current problems are due to the impossibility of further reform without treaty change and the likelihood that any treaty would be rejected in any referendums, and so further undermine the EU's legitimacy. The breaking windows metaphor referred to the voices saying the UK must be punished for leaving. This is idiocy, not least because any organisation that has to threaten its members to prevent from leaving is, by definition, a protection racket. Hence, the breaking windows metaphor (nice country you have there, shame if anything were to happen to it). Best wishes James
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 10, 2017 7:55:31 GMT
Post by James Hannam on Apr 10, 2017 7:55:31 GMT
Ah, beat me to it.
Of course, May was quite right to state the obvious about security cooperation. There are some in the EU who seem to think they hold all the cards and the UK is coming to negotiations as a supplicant. It is helpful (if slightly distasteful) for them to be reminded that this is not so.
But hopefully, we can reach a sensible deal that is in everyone's interests.
J
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 15, 2017 13:13:17 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 15, 2017 13:13:17 GMT
I disagree about how much common sense there was to May's choice to link the two. The UK has an unusually strong intelligence apparatus and ending security cooperation would clearly hurt their opportunities to trade intel. So while carrying through possibly could have hurt the EU more, it's uncertain whether EU countries even considered the signal credible. Chris Giles (FT columnist) by the way thinks that the UK has much weaker hands, but that May has shifted toward a more realistic view of the outcome. www.ft.com/content/170ba108-1ee1-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 24, 2017 5:49:06 GMT
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 24, 2017 5:49:06 GMT
|
|