Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

tomwaterford

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A UK with access to both the European and US (and potentially NAFTA) markets would have a big advantage over other European nations confined to the EU market.

Which could in turn lead to other countries breaking away from the EU to secure trade deals with the US.

There's no need to break away from the eu to negotiate trade deals???


Usent ireland have a very successful trade deal of live beef negotiated with Libya when gadaffi was about??
Iirc independent of the eu




Where is this notion that an eu member can only trade within the eu arising out of??


There are limitations many on food imports afaik which can be imported into the eu....breaking away so as you can have hormone enhanced beef from Texas seems a bit illogical?

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A UK with access to both the European and US (and potentially NAFTA) markets would have a big advantage over other European nations confined to the EU market.

Which could in turn lead to other countries breaking away from the EU to secure trade deals with the US.

Yes, because a country like England with one-tenth of the EU's population is going to have the economies of scale to not only get as good a deal but a better deal than the EU? Delusional, economically illiterate nonsense.

England is leaving the club. It will lose the club's privileges and in this way will be "punished" for leaving. To all but delusional Brexiters this is a reasonable consequence.That means those of us still in the club will have fewer people to share the privileges with, and any Hungarian-style populist will quickly understand the lesson of England's "punishment".

Enzokk

maryishere wrote: »

Wrong. Canada is a G7 nation and is regularly described as a trading nation as its total trade is worth more than two-thirds of its GDP (the second highest level in the G7. Of that total trade, roughly 75% is done with countries which are part of free-trade agreements with Canada, primarily the United States through NAFTA. By the end of 2014, Canada bilateral trade hit C$1 trillion for the first time.
The North American Free Trade Agreement among Canada, the United States, and Mexico came into force on January 1, 1994, creating the largest free-trade region in the world. By 2014, the NAFTA area GDP was estimated to be over C$20 trillion with a market encompassing 474 million people. Building on that success, Canada continues to negotiate and has concluded free-trade agreements with more than 40 countries, most recently with South Korea, which represents Canada's first FTA with a partner in the Asia-Pacific region. As of 2016, Canada has also concluded a trade agreements that is potentially bigger than NAFTA: the twelve-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership.

After 7 years of talks the Canadians have concluded the EU are incompetent messers and cannot agree on anything, and are disgusted at the EU. No wonder the UK wants to leave too. Who would want to be a member of such a rude, ungrateful club as the 27 (who cannot agree about anything) that are left?

First off, the UK is still part of this "rude, ungrateful club" as they haven't left the EU. If Canada is upset at the EU they are upset at all the nations in the EU, including Ireland and Germany and...:eek:... the UK!

You do realise that the Trans-Pacific Partnership started their negotiations in 2008 and its still not ratified by all of the nations. They have 2 years from February 2016 to get enough support to enact the agreement. So 7 years seems about right, it even seems a little quick as only one agreement is needed to conclude the agreement between the EU and Canada.

Its wonderful that Canada has a FTA with South Korea, they followed the EU in this regards as there is a trade agreement already in place between the EU and South Korea as well. Canada started negotiation with South Korea in 2005 and signed the agreement in 2014.

FrancieBrady

maryishere wrote: »

Not all of the world since 2007. China has not had one for example, or Australia, or many other countries.


do you mean its invading the EU as well?

There have been a lot more extremist muslim attacks in the EU ( eg France, Belgium, German) that in Japan or Australia or Canada?



Correct and nobody said they were.

The recession did not just affect the EU, and ISIS is not just an EU problem either.
It's typical Brexiter scaremongering to suggest what the poster was suggesting.

Meanwhile - https://www.facebook.com/santiago.delapresilla/videos/10157724058280220/

A lot to be done in the UK.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sounds to me as though 27 1/2 member states are being prevented from entering in to an agreement because the remaining 1/2 state doesn't like it. How is that democracy?

The EU cannot win, they are either not democratic at all where decisions for the population is made in the EU courts where they have no say, or when one of the regions actually use their right to hold up an agreement its somehow not democratic either.

Do you want the other 27 members to ignore the will of the Wallonia region and just enact deals without their consent?

maryishere

Enzokk wrote: »

The EU cannot win

It sure is not at the moment anyway, for many years it has had the lowest growth of any region in the world. And youth unemployment close to 50% in countries like Spain and Italy. Some achievement that. Too many (28) cooks in the kitchen, all overpaid and with hangers, to ever produce anything worthwhile. The Canadian said it was the worst...

The Rape of Lucretia

A lot of people seem to have a view of democracy that goes : if hings are they way I want them to be, then thats democratic,,but, if they arent the way I want them to be, then the system is undemocratic.
On the topic of Brexit, a lot of people are suddenly very concerned about democracy in the UK - because they think they know what is best for the British better than the British do, and because they dont agree withthe referendum decision, there must be a problem with the democratic process there.

On the topic of parliament voting, whether MPs, of all parties, are leaves or remains, they must vote leave for any deal, hard or soft, as presented by the govt. Not to do so would be the ultimate subversion of democracy. By holding the referendum at all, they passed decision making from Westminster directly to the people. And so must observe that will, whatever the views of individual MPs on the topic.

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

An National Investment Bank for Britain could help make up any shortfall. Can't see the Tories being too receptive to it though.

And how would handing out more money stop the interest rate problems that wiped out manufacturing industry back in Maggies day ?

Once the UK leaves the EU then the remains of the steel industry is toast in the face of Chinese dumping. BAE Systems main business interests life offshore. As do those of Rolls Royce.

tipptom

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, because a country like England with one-tenth of the EU's population is going to have the economies of scale to not only get as good a deal but a better deal than the EU? Delusional, economically illiterate nonsense.

England is leaving the club. It will lose the club's privileges and in this way will be "punished" for leaving. To all but delusional Brexiters this is a reasonable consequence.That means those of us still in the club will have fewer people to share the privileges with, and any Hungarian-style populist will quickly understand the lesson of England's "punishment".

This is why this nasty power hungry club should be reformed.


Why should Britain be "punished" for voting to leave?


They don't want to work with Britain to have a good trading partner because they know if Britain eventually prospers that their whole undemocratic unelected overpaid corrupt regime will be exposed for what is really happening and other country's will say that it has gone to far from what the EU should really be.


Fair play to Britain for leading the way and its time for the rest of the country's to reclaim what the EU was really supposed to be and welcome Britain back in to the EU.

j8wk2feszrnpao

tipptom wrote: »

This is why this nasty power hungry club should be reformed.

I agree, Britain badly needs reform.

maryishere

Cassius Purring Warhead wrote: »

I agree, Britain badly needs reform.

I think the previous poster was talking abut the EU, not one of its main net contributors, the UK. The UK has better growth than the EU, and less than half the unemployment. No wonder so many people want to migrate to there, but the population density of England is already much higher than that of France, Germany, Ireland etc.

Enzokk

maryishere wrote: »

It sure is not at the moment anyway, for many years it has had the lowest growth of any region in the world. And youth unemployment close to 50% in countries like Spain and Italy. Some achievement that. Too many (28) cooks in the kitchen, all overpaid and with hangers, to ever produce anything worthwhile. The Canadian said it was the worst...

You are blaming the EU for local problems. Was the EU to blame for what happened to the Irish economy? Is the EU now responsible for the decisions of local politicians? Then again your support and hatred of the EU is right out of some tabloid newsroom, when things go well its the country on its own...when its not what I want its the EU's fault.

j8wk2feszrnpao

maryishere wrote: »

I think the previous poster was talking abut the EU, not one of its main net contributors, the UK. The UK has better growth than the EU, and less than half the unemployment. No wonder so many people want to migrate to there, but the population density of England is already much higher than that of France, Germany, Ireland etc.

Sarcasm.

maryishere

Enzokk wrote: »

You are blaming the EU for local problems.
.

Unemployment in the EU (as a whole) is over double the UK rate. The growth rate in the EU is the slowest in the world. Those are not local problems.

Our government is to blame for what happened to the Irish economy. It was them who decided to join the euro, allowed the Central bank to do nothing, allow benchmarking to go out of control, announced decentralisation and property tax incentives (encouraging ghost estate in rural countires) - before they rowed back on decentralisation, allowed huge numbers of polish and eastern europeans to suddenly be allowed come here - we were one of only 3 european countries to allow this etc. If we had not low euro interest rates and the foreign banks lent money to our banks (to lend to us) then our crises would not have been as bad. The EU , just like a camel is a racehorse designed by a very large committee, has a lot to answer for / is not blameless.

Ted_YNWA

I'm confused now. Unemployment is surely an issue for each individual country & not EU.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Do you want the other 27 members to ignore the will of the Wallonia region and just enact deals without their consent?

If government decisions were based on pleasing everybody, all of the time, we'd still be living in caves.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If government decisions were based on pleasing everybody, all of the time, we'd still be living in caves.

You guys need to show a case where the UK veto was ignored, or over ruled.

The point is that there does no seem to be a 'democracy' problem in the EU. The UK had no problem with the Canadian trade deal, so it is a moot point really.

Iwasfrozen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, because a country like England with one-tenth of the EU's population is going to have the economies of scale to not only get as good a deal but a better deal than the EU? Delusional, economically illiterate nonsense.

England is leaving the club. It will lose the club's privileges and in this way will be "punished" for leaving. To all but delusional Brexiters this is a reasonable consequence.That means those of us still in the club will have fewer people to share the privileges with, and any Hungarian-style populist will quickly understand the lesson of England's "punishment".

The UK has a larger population than Canada, is the fifth largest economy in the world, and the 7th largest trading partner with the US.

The problem with the transatlantic trade agreement between the EU and the US was not so much about scale of efficiency but internal political problems within the EU and the US. Canada and the EU have been trying to make a trade deal for 27 years, all members states are on favor but the plan is being blocked by Wallonia.

In comparison the UK speaks with one voice and it shares the US' cultural affinity for free trade. In a world were the transatlantic agreement is being attacked on both sides a deal between the UK and US would be much easier to sell.

You also underestimate the UK's importance in the world. Here's Mike Froman the US trade rep and an actual expert speaking on the matter.

Speaking in the US, Mr Froman said the terms of any deal between Britain and America would in part depend on the outcome of trade negotiations between Mrs May’s government and the EU. He said Britain was “a very significant part” of why America wanted to strike a free trade partnership with the EU and that Brexit was forcing the White House to reassess the proposed transatlantic trade agreement with Brussels.

Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/theresa-may-plans-for-brexit-trade-deals-with-the-usa-and-austra/

That's right, the UK leaving is making the US reassess their deal with the EU.

The Rape of Lucretia

tipptom wrote: »

Why should Britain be "punished" for voting to leave?

Britain won't be 'punished' for leaving, in the sense that the EU will exact gratuitous pain or cost on Britain as petulant retribution for its treason of leaving the EU club. Although such claims are quite likely to be heard from some in the UK as the economic penalties bite. Rather, not being in the club will cost the UK the economic privileges of being in the club. They cannot have it both ways. And so will pay a severe cost - but one of their own choosing, as a acknowledged price for taking back control of national legislation and borders. But there will be no 'punishment' as such. The EU will simply gain the best deal for the 27, without consideration of the interests of Britain - why would it do otherwise - and this deal will be to the cost of the UK economy.

Jimoslimos

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

On the topic of parliament voting, whether MPs, of all parties, are leaves or remains, they must vote leave for any deal, hard or soft, as presented by the govt. Not to do so would be the ultimate subversion of democracy. By holding the referendum at all, they passed decision making from Westminster directly to the people. And so must observe that will, whatever the views of individual MPs on the topic.

Well they don't. Referendums don't carry the same constitutional power in the UK as they do in Ireland. It might be political folly to oppose any deal but not a subversion of democracy.

A badly worded populist opinion poll (referendum) =/ democracy.

Cameron's folly was not splitting the Leave campaign at the referendum and presenting a single non-reversible option of a hard Brexit. Bizarrely something he had already successfully managed with the AV referendum.

tipptom wrote: »

They don't want to work with Britain to have a good trading partner because they know if Britain eventually prospers that their whole undemocratic unelected overpaid corrupt regime will be exposed for what is really happening and other country's will say that it has gone to far from what the EU should really be.

Undemocratic, unelected? Put down the Daily Express for one minute there. Any more than say a House of Lords, a hereditary monarch, an established church and a majority government with 36% of the vote? If anything the EU is too democratic, UKIP have the greatest number of MEPs and highest share of the popular vote in European elections yet in the general election were the third largest party by vote share but only returned a single MP.

solodeogloria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You guys need to show a case where the UK veto was ignored, or over ruled.

The point is that there does no seem to be a 'democracy' problem in the EU. The UK had no problem with the Canadian trade deal, so it is a moot point really.

Good afternoon!

It's worth pointing out that just because in this case there is a democratic aspect to ratifying a trade deal with Canada (and this is only because Belguim insists on it), it doesn't follow that the EU doesn't have a democratic deficiency over all.

It obviously does in the way that legislation is drafted by an unelected European Commission before a yes no vote is applied in the European Parliament. There's no point pretending that there isn't a democratic deficiency in the European Union because there is. Traditional parliamentary democracies allow for members to propose legislation, and they allow for members to amend legislation.

In any case - the British people have decided what they are going to do. I voted remain, but I think Theresa May is right when she says that Brexit must mean Brexit. The question now is what sort of Brexit will we get. It seems like the PM is looking to honour the fact that the vote was given with immigration being a major point in the debate beforehand.

If the UK doesn't get a reasonable deal, life will still go on albeit on worse terms with Europe, but on the other hand, it will be free to conduct progressive trade deals with other countries that are finding the EU notoriously cumbersome to talk with in this regard. A large low tax, free trade, outward looking country on the EU's doorstep could be a real pain in the backside for them.

I don't subscribe to the gloom narrative that many are presenting on this thread.

With thanks,
solodeogloria

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

This is why this nasty power hungry club should be reformed.
Why should Britain be "punished" for voting to leave?

That's how clubs work; if you're in the club you get the benefits; if you're not in it you won't get the benefits. In the mindset of the Brexiters who are convinced they have a right to get all the benefits of EU membership without its obligations, they will therefore be "punished". Quite right. What's the point in having a club if outsiders get the benefits? It's absolutely delusional to expect the Brits to have all the privileges of the club but none of its obligations. Delusional, self-entitlement.

tipptom wrote: »

They don't want to work with Britain to have a good trading partner because they know if Britain eventually prospers that their whole undemocratic unelected ...

Ah here, you've got to be taking the piss with this one. Is that the same Britain that in 2016 has a head of state who is there because of her blood and her religion? Hello? Or the same Britain which in 2016 has an unelected parliament which is also there because of its blood and/or religion? The same Britain whose media in 2016 is controlled by a handful of really rich rightwing jingoists, the most powerful of whom is on record as being against the EU because he cannot ring somebody up and corrupt the democratic process like he could always do with the Tories in power - e.g. "lift the restrictions on media ownership, Maggie, and all my newspapers will support the Tory party." What a fantastic "democratic" exchange, that.

tipptom wrote: »

Fair play to Britain for leading the way

The way to where? Inferior workers' rights? Even lower taxes on the rich and their corporations? Even more dominance by oligarchs like Murdoch? Even more scapegoating of the EU by Britain's powerful for British poor being shafted by cheap foreign labour that benefits rich British people?

tipptom

tipptom wrote: »

... and welcome Britain back in to the EU.

Not to put too fine a point on it but... John Bull can fúck right off, and stick his Butcher's Apron, steak and chips in Costa del Knackeragua, soccer hooliganism, dreams of imperial grandeur, Lee Clegg fan club, poppy warmongering, and delusions of superiority over the thick Paddies and all the rest - "froggies", "Krauts" etc - where the sun doesn't shine.

More positively, hopefully with the Brits gone the EU can abandon Thatcher's legacy of neo-liberal economics undermining society. Economically, Britain has been nothing but a pernicious, mé féiner rightwing influence on the development of the European Union. Politically, it's just been an ugly backward-looking, embittered relic of John Bull imperialism unable to come to terms with German dominance.

The only way the British will come back into the EU is if they're running it. That's not going to happen no matter what the plebs who read British tabloids think. As an Irishman who lives a few hundred metres from a hill where the British hanged loads of local people, all I can say is thanks be to God. Long live the EU.

Iwasfrozen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it but... John Bull can fúck right off, and stick his Butcher's Apron, steak and chips in Costa del Knackeragua, soccer hooliganism, dreams of imperial grandeur, Lee Clegg fan club, poppy warmongering, and delusions of superiority over the thick Paddies and all the rest - "froggies", "Krauts" etc - where the sun doesn't shine.

More positively, hopefully with the Brits gone the EU can abandon Thatcher's legacy of neo-liberal economics undermining society. Economically, Britain has been nothing but a pernicious, mé féiner rightwing influence on the development of the European Union. Politically, it's just been an ugly backward-looking, embittered relic of John Bull imperialism unable to come to terms with German dominance.

The only way the British will come back into the EU is if they're running it. That's not going to happen no matter what the plebs who read British tabloids think. As an Irishman who lives a few hundred metres from a hill where the British hanged loads of local people, all I can say is thanks be to God. Long live the EU.

Wow.

Do you want some viniger to go with that massive chip on your shoulder?

Fratton Fred

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not to put too fine a point on it but... John Bull can fúck right off, and stick his Butcher's Apron, steak and chips in Costa del Knackeragua, soccer hooliganism, dreams of imperial grandeur, Lee Clegg fan club, poppy warmongering, and delusions of superiority over the thick Paddies and all the rest - "froggies", "Krauts" etc - where the sun doesn't shine.

More positively, hopefully with the Brits gone the EU can abandon Thatcher's legacy of neo-liberal economics undermining society. Economically, Britain has been nothing but a pernicious, mé féiner rightwing influence on the development of the European Union. Politically, it's just been an ugly backward-looking, embittered relic of John Bull imperialism unable to come to terms with German dominance.

The only way the British will come back into the EU is if they're running it. That's not going to happen no matter what the plebs who read British tabloids think. As an Irishman who lives a few hundred metres from a hill where the British hanged loads of local people, all I can say is thanks be to God. Long live the EU.

Oops, did the mask slip a bit there, Little Irelander?

Iwasfrozen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oops, did the mask slip a bit there, Little Irelander?

Slip a little bit? Mate. We've just seen the full ugly bigotry behind many republicans.

Anita Blow

The point at which Britain leaving the EU is being related to Irish republicanism is probably the point at which there's nothing else to be got from this discussion

Grayson

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Slip a little bit? Mate. We've just seen the full ugly bigotry behind many republicans.

Not really. The UK has held bad the EU for years. The conservatives and then new labour have been full blown free market capitalists. It'll be good to see what the EU can become without them arguing and bickering

tipptom

Cassius Purring Warhead wrote: »

I agree, Britain badly needs reform.

Very poor attempt at sarcasm.
If Britain feels it needs reform they can at least go ahead and reform now that they are free from the shackles of idiots like Hollande and overpaid unelected little dictators in Brussels on a power trip.


And don't forget the cream of our crop that we have foisted on other unfortunate countries, Phil Hogan.

Calina

The more I read this thread the more I wonder if there are so many people deluded as to think every single one of the staff who work for the EU institutions should be elected to their job. I don't know a single country where the entire public service is elected. Not one. And a particular example of where they are not elected is the UK.