Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Too much risk in that. It's far easier to slam the veto break as soon as we get a wiff of something bad for Ireland.

It is always there, but tbh you are either in or out. Another thing the UK should have learned. And it will probably suffer for that policy as a result. Their worries and cries for special treatment/deals will fall on deaf ears.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is always there, but tbh you are either in or out. Another thing the UK should have learned. And it will probably suffer for that policy as a result. Their worries and cries for special treatment/deals will fall on deaf ears.

We can be in while still slamming the veto break if we even get a wiff of anything disadvantageous to ourselves. It's not a zero sum game.

Also the British government did know this, it was the idiot Joe Bloggs on the street who didn't.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We can be in while still slamming the veto break if we even get a wiff of anything disadvantageous to ourselves. It's not a zero sum game.

Also the British government did know this, it was the idiot Joe Bloggs on the street who didn't.

You have to accept in any union that things will sometimes go against your interests.
Did the UK wholeheartedly enter the union with a desire to see it working?
TBH I don't think they did, they opt out of just too much and that will work against them now.
Lessons are about to be learned.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Like any union the EU has it's problems. As said, it was always heading towards closer union. But until now it has been a beneficial union for Ireland.
We are not properly collecting CT anyway, so maybe we should fix that first locally before getting in a strop about EU directives on it.

Some people would doubt how beneficial it was when the EU demanded we pay unsecured bond holders, but that is another big argument.

Yeah how dare us get in a strop about being lectured how to collect taxes for all of Europe.
And if you read the text that is exactly what the competition commissioner said.
Contrary to some with a particular political leaning all those billions are not really ours, but in fact destined to the states in which the revenue was earned.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

wtf is airstrip one?

so all countries in the eu should be treated equal, but some more equal than others?

Yep some are more equal than others.

Thankfully some like the Hungarians do have a pair of balls.
No surprise seeing how they stood up to the Russians.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Your question implies that Germany is in the driving seat. Every country is in the driving seat.

And there goes a pig at 1000 feet.

Deleted User wrote: »

...

The most likely outcome is Brexit with no special conditions (hard brexit) meaning an external EU border that we would be obliged to maintain...

In which the case the EU is no longer beneficial to Ireland so then where do our all Europhiles see us going ?

sKeith wrote: »

Merkel invited the refugees into Germany, not into Europe. Why should she need to consult any other member states about inviting people into Germany!

Ehh no she broke the Dublin regulations or agreement on how the EU deals with refugees and then she started lecturing other sovereign nations on how they should deal with refugees entering their territory on their way to Germany.

And then somehow in contravention to how we are all meant to be drivers of this wonderful all inclusive EU vehicle she got the EU to start forcing other states to take in her overflow.

jmayo wrote: »

But the ever increasing globalisation and movement of people and resources that the likes of the EU laud and proffer isn't all it is cracked up to be for a lot of normal people.


Look at the labels here being slammed on people who voted for Brexit or those who claim they will vote for Trump.

There are huge divisions opening up and one side looking down it's nose at the other will only cause the fissures to go deeper.

Is it the "European Project" that is driving globalisation and freer movement of people or is it business and technology? Is the fact that you can browse for a cut price phone on Alibaba and have it sent across from the other side of the world anything to do with the working time directive and the minimum wage or is it simply a matter of business people exploiting available technologies and marketing channels?

Globalisation is primarily technology-induced change. Some of us remember a time when there were no mobile phones, no texting, no video on demand, no internet, no cable TV, no personal computers, even. A time when the thought of a young person "Flying" to Britain or the continent was the height of luxury. Get the boat and train! That's what young people do.

Technology has cut the price of flying and opened up foreign destinations to the less well off. OK so deregulation has had its effect but only to enable what was already technically feasible.

Whether or not there is a thriving EU, globalisation is here to stay.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is it the "European Project" that is driving globalisation and freer movement of people or is it business and technology? Is the fact that you can browse for a cut price phone on Alibaba and have it sent across from the other side of the world anything to do with the working time directive and the minimum wage or is it simply a matter of business people exploiting available technologies and marketing channels?

The EU or EEC opened up free trade within Europe.
It facilitated the free movement of people and capital.
Then World trade agreements, the collapse of the communist soviet union and all it's satellites and the opening of China has had massive influence on global trade.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Globalisation is primarily technology-induced change. Some of us remember a time when there were no mobile phones, no texting, no video on demand, no internet, no cable TV, no personal computers, even.

Thanks for reminding of the days when you didn't get updates about your friend's and neighbour's holidays, weekends away and where they had their latest coffee. :rolleyes:
(expecting more minus points )

Snickers Man wrote: »

A time when the thought of a young person "Flying" to Britain or the continent was the height of luxury. Get the boat and train! That's what young people do.

Technology has cut the price of flying and opened up foreign destinations to the less well off. OK so deregulation has had its effect but only to enable what was already technically feasible.

Actually deregulation had a huge massive impact.
Oh and the bette noir of the leftie unions and old established airlines, one Mr O'Leary, has had huge affect on our ability to move throughout Europe cheaply.

Aircraft were well capable of flying between Ireland and Europe in the 70s and 80s, but our home grown monopoly Aer Lingus and some other national carriers made it unreachable for most normal people.

The technology drive of late has been to make aircraft more fuel efficient in order to counteract environmental impact and cost of fuel.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Whether or not there is a thriving EU, globalisation is here to stay.

Yes globalisation is here to stay, but a lot of people are been left behind.

It is all well and good if you work for a high tech company, have a sought after skillset, but not so good if you are a normal grunt who just does manufacturing work.
Globalisation benefits the most the ones who have the money.
Apple shareholders can watch their shares rise astronomically, not alone because they can site their company in a tax friendly jurisdiction like Ireland, but because they can use very cheap labour in places like China.

Yep you can get a fancy enough phone out of it, but are you seriously telling me the €700 phone cost anything like €700 to manufacture.
And even if you factor it in software develop costs and design costs I would bet there is still a huge profit margin.

A lot of people in the Western world are finally copping on to fact that globalisation means the gulf between rich and poor is growing ever steadily.
It is one of the factors behind Trumps whole success.

And please do not resort to that tired cliche of upskilling or going for further education.
Everyone is not suited and capable enough not more than every footballer is capable of playing for Barcelona.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We don't have to accept it if we can help it. That includes any issue we can veto.

You don't go into a union thinking it is all about you. Yes, yo might occasionally use a veto but the UK opted out of so much as a big player it hurt the success of the union.
I think we can now see it was the English influence that caused that. Indeed, English arrogance will probably bring down that other union, the UK itself.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't go into a union thinking it is all about you. Yes, yo might occasionally use a veto but the UK opted out of so much as a big player it hurt the success of the union.
I think we can now see it was the English influence that caused that. Indeed, English arrogance will probably bring down that other union, the UK itself.

You don't go into a Union and concede your national self interest. Ireland has benefited from the EU but as soon as they try to change something we benefit from we should do anything in our power, including using our veto, to shut it down.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

examples please.

They have all been mentioned before, many times. Schengen, Monetary union, human rights, Justice and Home Affairs etc. And a less than wholehearted Remain campaign.