Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

pixelburp wrote: »

I do vaguely recall reading about a Anglo-French Union before, true; and without knowing more details I can't see how it was ever considered a serious suggestion within either government - being as they are/were two intensely proud (stubborn/zealous) nations.

One theory is that Churchill would have fought on to the last Frenchman. The same guy that offered Norn Iron to Dev for similar reasons.

Anything to keep England going. Got voted out in '45

pixelburp

Pandiculation wrote: »

I think Ireland's pre WWII history in some ways parallels a lot of Europe's post-WWII recovery, which is possibly why slotted into it a little more comfortably.

It's also not that unusual to have had bad relations with a larger neighbour. Many countries have enclaves and border disputes that were completely resolved to the point they didn't matter by the EU. If you take Belgium for example, there are some aspects of its border with NL that are so complicated you need labels on doors!

In our case it had increasingly solved so many of the problems with the Northern Ireland border, certainly since 1993 as it stopped mattering.

For those not in the know, Pandiculation is likely referring to Baarle-Nassau; only in Belgium (well, not really but you know what I mean) could you have such legislative complexity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baarle-Nassau

Capt'n Midnight

Pandiculation wrote: »

That story of rallying against the French yesterday was a big morale boot for those who absorb that kind of messaging.

And it was pure coincidence it happened just as there was an election.

BonnieSituation

Sam Russell wrote: »

It would horrify most of the Little Englanders to find out that the idea of the EU was supported by one Winston Churchill.

Sure Thatcher was the biggest cheerleader for the single market

yagan

Britain sent a representative to the conference at Messina in 1955 where the 6 members of the expanded coal and steel community which grow from Benelux had convened to discuss themes that would eventually form the four freedoms in the Treaty of Rome.

In his response to the conclusion of that conference the UK representative Bretherton reportedly told them..

Messieurs, I have followed your work with interest, and sympathetically. I have to tell you that the future Treaty which you are discussing a) has no chance of being agreed; b) if it were agreed, it would have no chance of being ratified; c) if it were ratified, it would have no chance of succeeding.

Britain still had remnants of its former empire, but when that evaporated after Suez they needed to substitute the EEC for what they had lost. They never could accept an economic bloc that they could not control like they once controlled their empire. Britain's inability to pool sovereignty is reflected in Brexiters dual barb of the EU being simultaneously too strong and too weak.

France shed its imperial mindset with the bloody Algerian war on their own doorstep which led to the fourth post imperial republic, but Britain still struggles with an imperial mindset that expects to rule or be ruled.

hotmail.com

The Tory Party are just good at winning elections in the UK.

The Brits like them, regardless of who the leader is.

Labour made a mistake selecting a leader from London and with a title before his name. If the party moves more to the centre, like in the Blair era, then what is the point of the Labour Party?

They are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Pandiculation

steddyeddy wrote: »

You could actually tattoo little Englanders with facts about the EU and British history so that it would stare at in the mirror every morning and they would still stick to their narrative. Another of their heros is Thatcher, a woman who said this about breaking international agreements.

Thatcher and the current Tories are two very different beasts.

While I'm definitely not a fan of hers, I think she was what she was - a classic conservative politician, who believed in absolute market economics, a smaller state, low regulation and removal of all but the bare minimum of social welfare payments, but she was also very much an internationalist and in favour of the market economics and market philosophies of the emerging European Single Market.

She was however, fairly deeply conservative in a few areas of social policy though, and quite regressive in areas like LGBT rights and quite heartless in how she approached many areas of policy and she could be quite literally warmongering and seemed to get off on militarism.

However, compared to many of the current Tories she had a vision of a functioning country, even if many might not have agreed with her on how it would work.

All the current lot seem seem to see is the next election win and how many headlines and clickbate stories they have. It's a philosophy of just power for the sake of power, cronyism and it's wrapped in a load of nationalism.

It's shocking to see how far they've sunk and what they're pushing as political agendas.

yagan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sure Thatcher was the biggest cheerleader for the single market

That britain could dominate. Thatcher had reimagined Britain as the USA's sheriff in Europe, so much so that she pleaded with Gorbachev to not let Germany reunite, which only shows Britain's imperial mindset towards Europe.

I remember the absolute meltdown the British tabloids had when France had invited Schroder to become the first German chancellor to attend the D Day commemorations as it confirmed its sheriff role to be a fantasy.

CelticRambler

pixelburp wrote: »

I do vaguely recall reading about a Anglo-French Union before, true; and without knowing more details I can't see how it was ever considered a serious suggestion within either government - being as they are/were two intensely proud (stubborn/zealous) nations.

If you go back a little further, an Anglo-French union wasn't just a suggestion but a functional reality! Most of Western France was part and parcel of the giant multinational corporation that was mediaeval "English" monarchy. Even today, if you know what to look for, it's possible to see and feel the difference between the English-governed part of France and the rest.

That doesn't stop the modern French buying anything branded with a Union Jack as a fashion statement.

Pandiculation

I also find though one of the biggest problems is the English commentary has a tendency to see the EU as France (and to a lesser extent Germany).

It played into their inability to understand that Ireland was an EU member and that they actually had an EU land border.

They also tend to completely overestimate the quip of some French MP or some unheard of MEP.

In Brexit, it wasn't Paris or Berlin that they should have been talking to, but rather Brussels and Dublin, yet they kept lobbying Paris and Berlin.

hotmail.com

Pandiculation wrote: »

I also find though one of the biggest problems is the English commentary has a tendency to see the EU as France (and to a lesser extent Germany).

It played into their inability to understand that Ireland was an EU member and that they actually had an EU land border.

They also tend to completely overestimate the quip of some French MP or some unheard of MEP.

In Brexit, it wasn't Paris or Berlin that they should have been talking to, but rather Brussels and Dublin, yet they kept lobbying Paris and Berlin.

But the EU is dominated by France and Germany. They are the original founding members and it started with policies which favoured these countries.

Leroy42

hotmail.com wrote: »

But the EU is dominated by France and Germany. They are the original founding members and it started with policies which favoured these countries.

But without Ireland agreeing none of that matters. (or Malta etc). It is very different from the UK union, in that what England want they will get no matter what. They assumed that this would be the case.

UK felt they needed to only get agreement for France or Germany, and could expect the EU to bully Ireland. WHen it was, if anything, the other way around. Irelands interests were front and centre.

The UK completely misread the situation and instead of learning they doubled down.

Pandiculation

hotmail.com wrote: »

But the EU is dominated by France and Germany. They are the original founding members and it started with policies which favoured these countries.

That hasn't really reflected reality a lot of the time. It's a structure that tries very hard to include all of its members in decision making and completely over weights small countries relative to their populations, with voting systems in the Council and the nomination of commissioners.

They kept getting referred back to Barnier and Brussels when they approached Merkel, who basically kept pointing out she was the German Chancellor and didn't run the EU.

I think that actually reflects on how the UK sees itself. It's a rather distorted union of England and 3 other places who have little or no power to influence how the UK works.

yagan

hotmail.com wrote: »

But the EU is dominated by France and Germany. They are the original founding members and it started with policies which favoured these countries.

The voting majority of the EU is from smaller states.

reslfj

yagan wrote: »

... the 6 members of the expanded coal and steel community which grow from Benelux had convened to discuss themes that would eventually form the four freedoms in the Treaty of Rome.

The FoM for workers was already in the coal and steel community - though only for (qualified) coal and steel workers.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum:xy0022

As far as the movement of skilled workers was concerned, the ECSC countries had to remove restrictions on employment based on nationality / ECSC Treaty

The actual text signed in Paris, 18 April 1951 reads:
"Article 69
1. The member States bind themselves to renounce any restriction based on nationality against the employment in the coal and steel industries of workers of proven qualifications for such industries who possess the nationality of one of the member States;"

https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/treaty_establishing_the_european_coal_and_steel_community_paris_18_april_1951-en-11a21305-941e-49d7-a171-ed5be548cd58.html


Lars

pixelburp

It is a tedious, and frankly boring, point of contention that the EU "is" - or is dominated by - France and Germany. It isn't. While political gravitational weight may be stronger from those countries the reality is the EU is a partnership of equals; the devil is in the details here of the legislative structure of the union. If France's clout was truly so absolute, IIRC Ireland's corporation tax would have been changed years ago by now.

If we're all guilty of some perceived bias as armchair critics of the US and the UK, the same can be said of those who'd presume the EU is some Franco-German club, with the rest of us merely hangers-on. That betrays a Westminister coloured view of political unions TBH

hotmail.com

Pandiculation wrote: »

That hasn't really reflected reality a lot of the time. It's a structure that tries very hard to include all of its members in decision making and completely over weights small countries relative to their populations, with voting systems in the Council and the nomination of commissioners.

They kept getting referred back to Barnier and Brussels when they approached Merkel, who basically kept pointing out she was the German Chancellor and didn't run the EU.

I think that actually reflects on how the UK sees itself. It's a rather distorted union of England and 3 other places who have little or no power to influence how the UK works.

Irish ministers going to Brussels constantly tell stories that they have to influence French and German decision makers.

I realise there is technical rules that ensures each state is equal and has a veto but the reality is different.

Smaller countries like our own just grateful to be included but we rarely kick up a fuss.

purplefields

So the Tories have won Hartlepool.

I have been lurking on this thread for some time. To be honest, mainly as a type of 'doom tourism'. Waiting to see the catastrophic effects of Brexit.

However, little seems to have materialised. So far I've heard that some fishermen was severely effected, some funds were moved out of the City of London and shops specialising in British goods in Europe now get there goods from Musgraves in Ireland.

It that really it?

I thought there was going to be utter chaos. With planes not able to fly, problems with nuclear medicine, and the general collapse of the economy.
I hear now that the decline is going to be more gradual, but is it really?

My opinion on this has really changed in the last couple of weeks. The people of the UK seem quite happy with the results, since they are turning more towards the Tories, even in what were staunch Labour constituencies. Even Scotland appears to be gradually deciding against Independence.

Sterling hasn't collapsed and neither has the car industry.

Have I been wrong about all of this? I am genuinely interested.

hotmail.com

purplefields wrote: »

So the Tories have won Hartlepool.

I have been lurking on this thread for some time. To be honest, mainly as a type of 'doom tourism'. Waiting to see the catastrophic effects of Brexit.

However, little seems to have materialised. So far I've heard that some fishermen was severely effected, some funds were moved out of the City of London and shops specialising in British goods in Europe now get there goods from Musgraves in Ireland.

It that really it?

I thought there was going to be utter chaos. With planes not able to fly, problems with nuclear medicine, and the general collapse of the economy.
I hear now that the decline is going to be more gradual, but is it really?

My opinion on this has really changed in the last couple of weeks. The people of the UK seem quite happy with the results, since they are turning more towards the Tories, even in what were staunch Labour constituencies. Even Scotland appears to be gradually deciding against Independence.

Sterling hasn't collapsed and neither has the car industry.

Have I been wrong about all of this? I am genuinely interested.

The only issue relates to the North and the vast majority in England don't care about that. It doesn't influence their voting intentions.

The speed of their vaccine rollout has also cemented Brexit in British minds.

Brexit is over. Done. The only people that keep talking about are Irish people still annoyed with the 2016 result.

Pandiculation

To be fair, due to the pandemic, we can't see what's going on with Brexit. For most of this year hardly any aircraft were flying (up to 98% reductions in many airports), nobody's been travelling and very few people have been moving or job seeking abroad. In fact, most of us in Ireland weren't even able to leave our own counties or even 5km areas.

Also the economy's been turned upside down and inside out, with many businesses in the UK, EU and beyond subsisting on state aid, furloughs and welfare payments.

So it's way too soon to conclude "is that it" with regards to Brexit.

ArmaniJeanss

The EU is controlled by France and Germany, whilst simultaneously being a slow-moving behemoth because of the need to get 27 countries to agree on anything.

It remains difficult to fight against both these arguments.

druss

hotmail.com wrote: »

Irish ministers going to Brussels constantly tell stories that they have to influence French and German decision makers.

I realise there is technical rules that ensures each state is equal and has a veto but the reality is different.

Smaller countries like our own just grateful to be included but we rarely kick up a fuss.

Irish Ministers and indeed Irish industry or Irish NGO's go to Brussels to lobby a whole range of EU-side stakeholders. That they go to Brussels to speak to Paris and Berlin alone is an interesting take.

yagan

purplefields wrote: »

I thought there was going to be utter chaos.

I think it's mostly Brexiters who say those who opposed them think it will be chaos.

The reality as being borne out by events you describe is the reconfiguration of international and economic affairs with the UK becoming a marginalised player in this region of the world.

A century ago Europe was a quarter of the world's population and dominated the global economy. In 1960 Europe still had twice as many people as the continent of Africa, yet by 2050 Nigeria alone is projected to have a larger population than Europe by then.

The pooling of sovereignty via the EU is a necessary reconsolidation in this world of rising competing economic blocs just to maintain a standard of living achieved in the 20th century.

There are now more food banks in Britain than there are McDonalds and I can't see how Unicef having to feed to English children is progress.

The UK has been marching forward to the past since it lost its empire.

purplefields

I understand the whole covid thing, but that's effected every country. Compared to other countries there has been no brexit collapse.

In fact, I see this published just today:
UK economy set to grow at fastest rate in more than 70 years
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57008220

Granted that it's a bit of a ridiculous article considering that the economy has effectively been closed down for the last year. Is that that Brexit's effect is hugely smaller than the Covid effect?

The car industry. What's going on there? - I thought a spanner had been thrown in the works for just in time manufacturing.

hotmail.com

druss wrote: »

Irish Ministers and indeed Irish industry or Irish NGO's go to Brussels to lobby a whole range of EU-side stakeholders. That they go to Brussels to speak to Paris and Berlin alone is an interesting take.

I didn't think it was so controversial to say that the EU is dominated by it's two largest members.

It's just common sense. I think you assume I say this as a negative thing. I don't.

yagan

purplefields wrote: »

In fact, I see this published just today:
UK economy set to grow at fastest rate in more than 70 years
.

Many economies that locked down will also post record breaking bounce backs as they reopen, but that's Covid related, not Brexit.

Sure it can be sold as a Brexit bounce, but only the most gullible would link the two.

PeadarCo

purplefields wrote: »

I understand the whole covid thing, but that's effected every country. Compared to other countries there has been no brexit collapse.

In fact, I see this published just today:
UK economy set to grow at fastest rate in more than 70 years
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57008220

Granted that it's a bit of a ridiculous article considering that the economy has effectively been closed down for the last year. Is that that Brexit's effect is hugely smaller than the Covid effect?

The car industry. What's going on there? - I thought a spanner had been thrown in the works for just in time manufacturing.

One of things you have to remember is that the UK hasn't been checking goods coming into the UK. The reason the UK hasn't been checking goods is because one they don't have the staff and two the economic impact. Remember Brexit was about controlling the UKs borders, something which the UK government can't do at the moment.

You can see the impact already in trade flows. The increase use of direct sailings to the EU by Irish transport companies being just one example. So the data is beginning to show the huge trade disruption.

pixelburp

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The EU is controlled by France and Germany, whilst simultaneously being a slow-moving behemoth because of the need to get 27 countries to agree on anything.

It remains difficult to fight against both these arguments.

Schrodinger's Union; both a railroaded duopoly and political talking shop, ensnared by "red tape" at the same time. As you say it's impossible to discuss the issue when you have such a cognitive knot to untangle before even getting to the meat. This is somewhat, I suppose, how we're here in the first place. A referendum pushed over the line off the back of messaging almost constantly self-contradictory.

druss

hotmail.com wrote: »

I didn't think it was so controversial to say that the EU is dominated by it's two largest members.

It's just common sense. I think you assume I say this as a negative thing. I don't.

I don't it is a negative thing. I think it's an incorrect view.

Detritus70

purplefields wrote: »

So the Tories have won Hartlepool.

I have been lurking on this thread for some time. To be honest, mainly as a type of 'doom tourism'. Waiting to see the catastrophic effects of Brexit.

However, little seems to have materialised. So far I've heard that some fishermen was severely effected, some funds were moved out of the City of London and shops specialising in British goods in Europe now get there goods from Musgraves in Ireland.

It that really it?

I thought there was going to be utter chaos. With planes not able to fly, problems with nuclear medicine, and the general collapse of the economy.
I hear now that the decline is going to be more gradual, but is it really?

My opinion on this has really changed in the last couple of weeks. The people of the UK seem quite happy with the results, since they are turning more towards the Tories, even in what were staunch Labour constituencies. Even Scotland appears to be gradually deciding against Independence.

Sterling hasn't collapsed and neither has the car industry.

Have I been wrong about all of this? I am genuinely interested.

So far there have not been any real, tangible benefits for Brexit.
There are increased difficulties with trade, it has become more difficult for English migrants living abroad, there are complications with qualifications and driving licenses and British people can't just come and go as they please.
The only benefit as far as I can see is sovereignty, but what is that really?
How does that really influence your daily life? What is the difference when you get up in the morning, have your breakfast, go to work and so on?
It's not like there were EU soliders shouting orders at you before. Parliament is still there as before, there's still the Queen, you can't blame the EU for Prince Philip's demise, in short, the UK has exited a trade organisation and the benefits are that everything has become a little bit more difficult and the one benefit is that shaven-headed DM readers with bulldog tatoos can feel more "sovereign".