Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Donald Trump

The mad thing, and I think someone mentioned it earlier, is the the purpose of having the ambassador is really more of a benefit for the "host" nation.

If the UK wanted to express displeasure at something that the EU did, it could simply summon it's Ambassador and have it relay the message back to the EU. It doesn't quite work the same in reverse in the sense that the Ambassador can only really relay messages in the opposite direction, or at most act between strict boundaries of what they have been told to do for any particular action.

If the UK won't grant the Ambassador full diplomatic status, then the EU should just recall him/her back to Brussels.


Don't forget that this is the same UK that granted full diplomatic status to a lady who has been explained as being the wife of someone, and who got pissed and ran over a cyclist.

Hurrache

J Mysterio wrote: »

Equally, Van Morrisson. Terrific talent, but arrogant, obnoxious, ignorant.

I saw someone make the point that throughout all the troubles in the north he lived through he had not so much a protest song, but now during a pandemic he has albums and legal proceedings protesting against measures to protect people.

A talent alright, but a terrible person.

An Ciarraioch

lawred2 wrote: »

What is Denmark doing right?

Follow similar policies to ourselves in terms of mixing pro-enterprise initiatives with extensive social protections, though of course their health and childcare systems are significantly more robust than ours.

https://newrepublic.com/article/160623/getting-denmark-reclaiming-lutheran-social-democracy

bob mcbob

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

As if by magic...Operation Bleach.

"Johnson orders ‘Operation Bleach’ to ‘cleanse’ British law of EU references. The prime minister has asked civil servants to scrap references to the EU from tens of thousands of laws in a bid to stop Labour reversing Brexit after the next election."

Well this is also very English nationalistic - look at English football fans abroad and they define themselves as what they are not, rather than what they are. Most of there songs are anti- (German / Spanish / Argentinian / Irish / etc).

Now look at Brexit now everything is done where is the big plan or vision for the future? Anyone seen one - nope me either. The only thing this incompetent government have is removing reference to the EU in laws and picking a pathetic fight over an ambassador.

It helps cover the fact that they do not have any idea what to do now they have control.

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU is not a nation state therefore it's ambassadors should not get privileges of sovereign nations.

British government is absolutely right on this one.

In order of size it's

The EU
Italy
San Marino
The Vatican, Rome
No. 68 Via dei Condotti, Rome

And you are suggesting that the UK should only recognise four of these ?

Capt'n Midnight

Donald Trump wrote: »

I have a separate question.

What happens if the EU does not ratify the treaty "as is"? Suppose they want a few more clarifications/corrections?

All bets off?

Some recent BBC headlines on the European Union page that should be self explanatory.

UK not going to do anything to make EU 'go crazy'

Brexit: Government considers scrapping some EU labour laws

UK and EU in row over bloc's diplomatic status


UK accused of 'petty' behaviour in EU diplomat row


Other countries ambassadors will be taking notes. The UK will have to sweeten future deals to because you don't do soft power by climbing down immediate after sabre rattling.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

As if by magic...Operation Bleach.

"Johnson orders ‘Operation Bleach’ to ‘cleanse’ British law of EU references. The prime minister has asked civil servants to scrap references to the EU from tens of thousands of laws in a bid to stop Labour reversing Brexit after the next election."

If Brexit so far is anything to go by there will be unintended consequences because it won't have been thought through or done properly.

Some may be sorted out quickly and easily, but others will affect livelihoods.

Also shows why Labour were such fools for even thinking of Lexit

What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was [DUP, UKIP , LibDem coalition] ... , in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power. etc

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If Brexit so far is anything to go by there will be unintended consequences because it won't have been thought through or done properly.

Some may be sorted out quickly and easily, but others will affect livelihoods.

The thought occurs to me that this might be a foot in the door to changing workers' rights, food safety etc. By changing the terminology, under the guise of eradicating EU references and terminology, they might allow for a relaxation of the regulation/law.

Professor Moriarty

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Possibly tho we seen how easily nato could be undermined by Trump and Erdogan.

NATO could be the stick while EU the carrot to keep Putin in line

Good cop, bad cop.

Capt'n Midnight

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The thought occurs to me that this might be a foot in the door to changing workers' rights, food safety etc. By changing the terminology, under the guise of eradicating EU references and terminology, they might allow for a relaxation of the regulation/law.

Only if by "foot in the door" you mean the plan was always to "drive a coach-and-four through", then yes because the only way the UK can be competitive with the EU is to deliver more for less. The UK is a nett importer of energy, raw materials and food so can't do anything there. Sterling was devalued after the vote and UK exports measured in $ or € didn't increase , nor were there universal pay rises

For workers so far there's been a reduction in wages and assets when measured in $ or €. Unless I've missed something I can't see where anywhere else where value added can come from in low margin industries.


Brexit: Government considers scrapping some EU labour laws

The Brexit myth is that the Working Time Directive limits hours, but it's averaged over a year so there's nothing stopping overtime when it's needed and TBH if an employee needs to work more than 47 hours to pay the bills something is wrong with society.

tubercolossus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I am very moderate and pro EU but I will never accept a country called Europe.

It's that simple.

I'm very moderate in my political views and centrist btw being either FF or FG typically.

So trying to paint others in to corners because you disagree won't wash. I haven't done that with you you'll notice.

No-one is proposing or contemplating a country called Europe. Strawman.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU is not a nation state therefore it's ambassadors should not get privileges of sovereign nations.

British government is absolutely right on this one.

I'm afraid this makes no sense at all.

First of all, let's clarify this term "nation state", which is being used very sloppily in this discussion.

A "nation" is a community of people defined by, and distinguished from their neighbours by, shared language, culture, place, history, etc.

A "state" (in this context) is a political structure through which a community of people is autonomously governed.

A "nation state" is a state which serves a nation.

From the 19th century onwards, the view has been widely held that a nation is the appropriate community to be governed by a state. The prevalence of this view led both to nations withdrawing from larger states in order to govern themselves through a nation state (e.g. Ireland, Poland, Hungary) and to nations consolidating multiple states which all serve the same nation into a single nation state (Italy, Germany in 1870 and again in 1990).

Not all states are nation states. Austria before 1918 was not a nation state, for example. The USSR was not a nation state. The UK is, arguably, not a nation state.

In the diplomatic context, whether a country is a nation state or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether it's sovereign. Scotland would be a good example of a nation that has its own particular governing structure. But it does not enjoy sovereignty so, even where the Scottish government does have representation abroad, that representation is not according diplomatic status. (Sometimes, it piggy-backs on UK diplomatic status, operating as an annex to or division of the UK embassy to the country concerned.)

Right. So the real question is not "does the EU delegation represent a nation state?" but "does the EU delegation represent a sovereign entity?"

The first point to note here is that, while sovereign entities are usually countries, they don't have to be. The Holy See, for example, is widely recognised as sovereign and its representatives are accorded diplomatic status (including by the UK) despite the fact that it has no territory and is not in any sense a country. (The Vatican City State has territory, and is a country, even if only a token one. But it's not the Vatican City State that sends and receives ambassadors; it's the Holy See.)

The second point to note is that most other countries do treat the EU as a sovereign entity and accord its ambassador full diplomatic status. While the UK is entitled to make its own decision about this, it's making a pretty left-field decision. 143 countries exchange ambassadors with the EU; 142 of them accord the EU ambassador full diplomatic status.

The third point to note is that, in the UK, certain Brexit supporters have spent much of the past three years insisting that the UK and the EU should deal as "sovereign equals" (and complaining that the EU was not doing this). You can't really take that position and then turn round and deny that the EU possesses sovereignty.

The fourth point to note is that, again, Brexit supporters have campaigned on the basis that the UK needed to Brexit in order to recover its sovereignty, that EU member states have ceded their sovereignty to the Union, etc, etc. Again, you can't expect to be taken seriously if you argue that EU member states have ceded their sovereignty to the Union, yet the Union has no sovereignty.

The deal here is that the EU regards itself not as an international organsation like, say, the World Bank or the Food and Agriculture Organisation or UNICEF, but as a "supranational entity". Member states do not cede their sovereignty to the Union; they pool their sovereignty in the Union and exercise it collectively through the Union. Thus the EU ambassador represents and acts on behalf of the member states, in relation to matters that are within the competence of the Union, in a way that the World Bank, FAO or UNICEF representatives do not represent or act on behalf of the member states of those organisations. Hence, they are sovereign representatives and should be treated as such.

As noted, practically every country in the world accepts this. The UK is perfectly within its rights to take and act on the opposite view, but at the very least they should ask themselves whether it is wise, prudent, or to their own advantage to do so, and the answer certainly looks like "no, it isn't". Plus, if they are going to do this, they had better come up with a pretty solid rationale, since the decision will certainly be questioned and commented on.

I've only seen two rationales offered so far, neither of which really cuts it. The first is "the EU is not a nation-state", which is (a) irrelevant, as already pointed out, and (b) foolish, since it's not difficult to make the case that the UK is also not a nation-state. The second is "it's amusing to wind up the EU/to wind up Remainers in the UK". It may be, but it would be a pretty damning indictment of the current British government if their policies and positions were motivated by a craving for amusement as opposed to, you know, a sober consideration of the UK's best interests and in particular of how it might pursue its stated desire to be treated by the EU as a sovereign equal.

Kermit.de.frog

Let's correct something here - it's the Brits describing the EU as sovereign - not the EU.

They do this to make themselves look big and insult actual sovereign countries in the EU in some way implying we aren't sovereign.

So your point falls away right there.

The EU should not have ambassadors being treated as if they were ambassadors from Germany, Ireland or Portugal. The EU is not a country, sovereign state or nation state.

The UK is absolutely correct to the letter and in reality.

Peregrinus

So every other country in the world, and the EU itself, is wrong about the EU's status? And the UK was also wrong until this week? It's a rather extravagant claim, Kermit.

The EU's position - adopted at a time when the UK was still a member, and with the participation of the UK - is that its ambassadors should be accorded the same diplomatic status as the ambassadors of member states. Council Decision 2010/427/EU is the current articulation of that; it expressly says that the EU should "ensure that host States grant the Union delegations, their staff and their property, privileges and immunities equivalent to those referred to in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 18 April 1961" — i.e. the same privileges and immunities that embassies from sovereign states get.

The rationale is as already explained - EU member states exercise their sovereignty both individually and on a pooled basis, acting collectively through the Union./ The sending of an EU ambassador is an expression of the pooled sovereignty of the member states, in the same way that the sending of an individual state ambassador is an expression of the sovereignty of the individual member state. The rest of the world seems to have no trouble grasping this, and the UK didn't either, until last week. Only Brexiters have ever adhered to the curiously simplistic binary view that if member states can exercise sovereignty the Union cannot, and if the Union can exercise sovereignty the member states cannot.

Whaty has changed, one might ask, that has caused the UK volte-face? Could it possibly be Brexit? Could it be that, in their heart of hearts, Brexiters believe that the EU was an expression of sovereignty, as long as the UK was a member state, but is not now? Because, of course, only the UK possesses, and could exercise on a pooled basis, real sovereignty, unlike those curious foreign places?

(This isn't a novelty, by the way. Back in the day, England (later Great Britain) used to exhange ambassadors both with the Holy Roman Emperor and with constituent parts of the Empire, e.g. Brandendburg. They had no difficulty accepting that both the Emperor and the Elector of Brandenburg were sovereigns, even though Brandenberg was part of the Empire and its ruler was one of the princes who elected the Emperor.)

Kermit.de.frog

If you genuinely believe what you say, and I assume you do, I take it you think we should abolish our foreign diplomatic core and leave the EU to it?

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you genuinely believe what you say, and I assume you do, I take it you think we should abolish our foreign diplomatic core and leave the EU to it?

If you had read what I say, and understood it, you wouldn't have written that.

The member states possess and exercise sovereignty both individually and on a pooled basis, through the Union. The member state ambassadors represent the individual sovereignty of the individual member states; the Union ambassadors represent the pooled sovereignty of the member states, exercised in and through the Union.

As the member states have only pooled their sovereignty in relation to certain subject matters - the matters which are EU competences - they still send ambassadors to represent them in relation to matters for which sovereignty is exercised individually, and not on a pooled basis.

I'm not sure what bit of this you don't understand, or think is wrong, or why.

Kermit.de.frog

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you had read what I say, and understood it, you wouldn't have written that.

The member states possess and exercise sovereignty both individually and on a pooled basis, through the Union. The member state ambassadors represent the individual sovereignty of the individual member states; the Union ambassadors represent the pooled sovereignty of the member states, exercised in and through the Union.

As the member states have only pooled their sovereignty in relation to certain subject matters - the matters which are EU competences - they still send ambassadors to represent them in relation to matters for which sovereignty is exercised individually, and not on a pooled basis.

I'm not sure what bit of this you don't understand, or think is wrong, or why.

Yes, but the problem is not now is it? The problem is down the road.

Symbolism matters - and it's only a matter of time until our, and everyone else's, diplomatic core is disbanded. Right? Brussels will conduct foreign policy.

So, let me ask you this.

Assuming countries don't leave of their own accord the EU (some will) - how do you think middle of the road people like me are going to think if we feel our nationality is being taken from us?

How do you think it is going to go down?

You push the EU (as is your right) but, in my opinion, don't understand the consequences down the road.

What is wrong with the EU we have now? Why more, more, more?

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes, but the problem is not now is it? The problem is down the road.

Symbolism matters - and it's only a matter of time until our, and everyone else's, diplomatic core is disbanded. Right? Brussels will conduct foreign policy.

So, let me ask you this.

Assuming countries don't leave of their own accord the EU (some will) - how do you think middle of the road people like me are going to think if we feel our nationality is being taken from us?

How do you think it is going to go down?

You push the EU (as is your right) but, in my opinion, don't understand the consequences down the road.

What is wrong with the EU we have now? Why more, more, more?

Is that a 'What if', or something you see as a guarantee?

If it's the latter, what makes you think so?

Kermit.de.frog

I have given my opinion but this is the Brexit thread so I don't want to drag it off course. I'll just leave it at that.

Peregrinus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes, but the problem is not now is it? The problem is down the road.

Symbolism matters - and it's only a matter of time until our, and everyone else's, diplomatic core is disbanded. Right? Brussels will conduct foreign policy.

I don't think that is right, no. In fact, the Lisbon Treaty requires EU diplomatic missions to co-ordinate their activities and positions with the diplomatic missions of member states, and about a third of EU diplomatic staff are required to be drawn from the diplomatic services of the member states. So supersdeing or phasing out individual member state diplomatic services and missions doesn't seem to be on the cards at all.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So, let me ask you this.

Assuming countries don't leave of their own accord the EU (some will) - how do you think middle of the road people like me are going to think if we feel our nationality is being taken from us?

How do you think it is going to go down?

You push the EU (as is your right) but, in my opinion, don't understand the consequences down the road.

What is wrong with the EU we have now? Why more, more, more?

The EU we have now has ambassadors that are are accorded full diplomatic status by the receiving countries, and this has been the case for many, many years. The UK, as already noted, is very much departing from well-settled norms here. So surely it is I who should be asking you "What is wrong with the EU we have now?"

Going Strong

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps. The idea is to make it extremely difficult to match up future regualtions and laws again. But it is very petty. Regarding street names, the vast majority of streets and roads have both Irish and English names. They didn't revert to the old signs.

I've seen comments elsewhere that it is a deliberate tactic to ensure that any movement to rejoin the EU will find it very difficult as, in the fairy tale of Hansel & Gretel, there's no breadcrumb trail to lead the way back.


Also, wrt to nixing the EHIC, Erasmus, visiting artists & musicians etc, that there must be seen to be no benefit to the EU whatsoever from a UK citizen's viewpoint. As in there won't be any visible traces of the EU left in the UK.

Peregrinus

Going Strong wrote: »

I've seen comments elsewhere that it is a deliberate tactic to ensure that any movement to rejoin the EU will find it very difficult as, in the fairy tale of Hansel & Gretel, there's no breadcrumb trail to lead the way back.

I don't think this will work. Changes to legislative texts are themselves carefully documented, and with current technology and systems it is easy to reconstruct a legislative text in exactly the form it had on any given day in the past. Identifying the amendments by which references to the EU were removed and drafting new amendments to reverse them and reinsert the references would not be difficult.

I think the real point of removing references to the EU is to conceal, without altering, the influence that EU law has had on English law, so that future readers and users of UK regulations will not realise the extent to which those regulations continue to implement requirement which were imposed on the UK when it was an EU member state.

Going Strong wrote: »

Also, wrt to nixing the EHIC, Erasmus, visiting artists & musicians etc, that there must be seen to be no benefit to the EU whatsoever from a UK citizen's viewpoint. As in there won't be any visible traces of the EU left in the UK.

Yes, I think this is all part of the same impulse. The purpose of removing references to the EU from, say the regulations which protect the rights of workers when the business they are employed in is sold and they find themselves with a new employer is so that people who, in years to come, are reading the law that protects workers in that situation will not realise that the protection they enjoy was a consequences of the UK's membership of the EU. Likewise the UK withdraws from EHIC, Erasmus, etc and then reinvents slightly crappier imitations of them so that people won't associate the benefits of programs like this stem orginally from the UK's EU membership.

sondagefaux

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU is not a nation state therefore it's ambassadors should not get privileges of sovereign nations.

British government is absolutely right on this one.

I really resent this attempt at treating the EU as some overarching sovereign nation state by the back door.

Nobody voted to give up our status as a sovereign nation state.

Nobody voted to make Brussels our capital either.

They should be treated as an international organisation.

I really resent this attempt at treating the EU as some overarching sovereign nation state by the back door.

There's no back door. The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy is provided for in the EU treaties, agreed to by all its members.

Among its provisions are a requirement for the EU to seek to develop relations with third countries and international organisations that share its principles:

The Union shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations which share the principles referred to in the first subparagraph. It shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of the United Nations.

The treaties also give the EU legal personality (Article 47 TEU) which means it can enter into legal agreements, including agreements with states and international organisations.

The Union may conclude agreements with one or more States or international organisations in areas covered by this Chapter.

Therefore it has the legal authority, granted in the EU treaties agreed to by all its members, to agree to develop relations, and conclude agreements, including agreements on diplomatic relations, with states and international organisations.

There's nothing underhanded or 'back door' about any of this. The EU treaties have been negotiated, developed and adopted by its members.

Nobody voted to make Brussels our capital either.

Brussels is not Ireland's capital.

It is, however, the city set out in the EU treaties (and the EEC treaties before them) as the city where the key EU institutions, the Parliament, the Council, the Commission etc, must have their official HQs (known as 'seats' in EU jargon).

Ireland's citizens voted in referendums to join the EEC by accepting and ratifying, and giving constitutional status to, the EEC and EU treaties.

Therefore, we voted to accept the legal status of Brussels as the city where the seats of the key EU institutions must be located.

They should be treated as an international organisation.

Another international organisation which is not a state is the Arab League, officially the League of Arab States. It appoints ambassadors representing the League as a whole to various states that are not members of the League:

President Farmajo Receives Credentials From Ambassadors Of Arab League And Switzerland
January 18, 2021

The President of the Federal Republic of Somalia HE Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo has received credentials from the new Ambassador of the Arab League HE Salah Ahmed Juneyd and the Ambassador of Switzerland HE Valentin Zellweger.

The Ambassador of the League of Arab States, HE Salah Ahmed Juneyd, shared with the President a message of greetings from the chairman of the League of Arab, HE Ahmed Abu Al-Qayd, thanking the people and Government of Somalia for the warm welcome.

Ambassador Salah Ahmed Juneyd indicated that he will work to strengthen the support and assistance of the Somali government, and commended the significant progress made by the people and government of Somalia.

https://www.radioshabelle.com/president-farmajo-receives-credentials-from-ambassadors-of-arab-league-and-switzerland/

https://thediplomatinspain.com/en/2020/12/arab-league-;)-decorated-by-the-asturian-nobility-corps/

The individual members of the League are independent states, just as the individual members of the EU are, and have their own diplomats representing their own countries.

States also appoint ambassadors to the Arab League:

On 5 November, Estonian Ambassador Miko Haljas presented his credentials to Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, in the League’s headquarters in Cairo.

https://vm.ee/en/news/estonian-ambassador-arab-league-presents-his-credentials-secretary-general-ahmed-aboul-gheit

The UK sends an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Head of Mission to the EU and the EAEC (European Atomic Energy Commission).



The same day it announced it wouldn't grant diplomatic immunities to the EU's Ambassador to the UK, it announced that its former Chargé d'Affaires a.i. (ad interim - for the time being, temporary), Lindsay Croisdale-Appleby, had become its Head of Mission (a shorthand for the full title above), a position that comes with diplomatic immunities and privileges.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/lindsay-croisdale-appleby

Now the UK is entitled not to reciprocate, but it does so while recognising the EU and EAEC as bodies which may have diplomatic relationships with states, including the UK, thus making its actions hypocritical to say the least, and at a risk to its EU Mission's diplomatic personnel's status.

Switzerland only joined the UN in 2002:

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/news/dossiers/alle-dossiers/15-jahre-uno-mitgliedschaft-der-schweiz/haeufige-fragen--die-schweiz-und-die-uno.html

However, various UN bodies have been based in Switzerland since the 1940s.

Even though not a member of this international organisation, Switzerland has accorded their diplomatic personnel immunities and privileges.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/missions/mission-onu-geneve/en/home/manual-regime-privileges-and-immunities/introduction/manual-immunity/regime-privileges-immunities.html

So even apart from the 140+ states that do so in respect to EU diplomatic personnel, there is precedent for a state to grant diplomatic immunities and privileges to the diplomatic personnel of an international organisation of which it isn't a member.

schmoo2k

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's correct something here - it's the Brits describing the EU as sovereign - not the EU.

They do this to make themselves look big and insult actual sovereign countries in the EU in some way implying we aren't sovereign.

So your point falls away right there.

The EU should not have ambassadors being treated as if they were ambassadors from Germany, Ireland or Portugal. The EU is not a country, sovereign state or nation state.

The UK is absolutely correct to the letter and in reality.

I think you are correct - if anything the EU Ambassadors should be afforded MORE rights and status than those smaller individual countries, especially if your goal is foster better trade deals in the future!

stoneill

Kermit.de.frog offering opinions.

Peregrinus offering facts with historical references.

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you genuinely believe what you say, and I assume you do, I take it you think we should abolish our foreign diplomatic core and leave the EU to it?

The irony of the term Proud Irish and then in the same breath being actually fearful of Ireland's position in the world and treating everything negatively. It is the very definition of uncertain, incapable and timid.

Proud Irish women and Proud Irishmen are off this island out representing Ireland in the EU. Confident in who we are . So confident they represent you in the world stage. They aren't afraid and they aren't relying on spurious nonsense arguments to arrange our future relationships with our neighbors or countries further afield.

Luckily of course we have the proud folks out there representing us.

McGiver

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Assuming countries don't leave of their own accord the EU (some will) - how do you think middle of the road people like me are going to think if we feel our nationality is being taken from us?

If and when the EU federalises, which is a long way to go by the way, no one's nationality/cultural identity is going to be taken away from anyone. The EU will most likely end up as Switzerland - the various cantons have strong cultural identity, many times either different languages or different dialect of Swiss German, they have their own local laws including taxation, local assembly, local government etc.

What is your concern with that?

And most importantly, this EU federalisation is a hypothetical question as of 2021, and absolutely irrelevant to waste one's time on. It's a red herring and had been used to justify Brexit during the campaign too.

I honestly don't know why are the eurosceptics bringing up hypothetical questions into the EU debate. They lose a lot of credibility doing that. If they were focusing on actual EU issues from a critical stance that would be beneficial and bring credibility but focusing on either made up/delusional/conspiracy or hypothetical scenarios makes them irrelevant and a laughing stock.

McGiver

listermint wrote:

Proud Irish women and Proud Irishmen are off this island out representing Ireland in the EU. Confident in who we are . So confident they represent you in the world stage. They aren't afraid and they aren't relying on spurious nonsense arguments to arrange our future relationships with our neighbors or countries further afield.

Mairead McGuinness. All what I can say.

looksee

If and when the EU federalises

...it will be the countries themselves discussing and agreeing to it for their own good as well as the greater good. It is not something that can be imposed and if any country does not wish to be part of the federation they are completely free to decline.

Of course they will miss out on any advantages of federalisation, but they will also be free of any disadvantages. In very, very broad terms I think it would be easier to make a list of advantages than of disadvantages.

ArmaniJeanss

Some reasonably positive Brexit news from the UK point of view.

Nissan to keep Sunderland open.

"Brexit has given competitive edge on car battery tariffs, says Nissan chief"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/22/brexit-has-given-competitive-edge-on-car-battery-tariffs-says-nissan-chief
"Ashwani Gupta, Nissan’s chief operating officer, said: “Brexit gives us the competitive advantage not only within the United Kingdom but outside the United Kingdom also.”
Speaking from Nissan’s Yokohama headquarters, Gupta said the Brexit deal had turned out to be positive for the carmaker."
….
"The comments mark an abrupt change in tone from Nissan, which along with the rest of the car industry has previously been one of the loudest voices warning against a disruptive Brexit."


******
Ultimately its a 'Factory doesn't shut' story which of itself isn't something to shout about, but the Nissan/Sunderland thing was for a long while a stick used to beat the North-East working-class Brexiteers with.