Brexit discussion thread II

Fratton Fred · 13-09-2017 07:09PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, and anyone who want that can join NATO. Ireland will veto any further co-operation on defence issues, the UK knows this, why are they stupidly proposing something the EU doesn't need (because NATO does it already) or want (because the neutrals object)?

Some needs to tell Jean Claude then https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/berlin-backs-jean-claude-juncker-call-for-european-army-1.2863126

In fact, someone better tell Michael D :eek:
http://www.military.ie/press-office/news-and-events/single-view/article/05-june-2015-eu-nordic-battlegroup-force-commander-visits-irish-istar-task-force/?cHash=75a718cdf2cb8226a6cea3967d4af58f

mountaintop · 13-09-2017 09:50PM

Two points continuously brought up by the Brexiters in the U.K. which unless I'm completely wrong are absurd but are never challenged. These are (1), that Britain's trade with the E.U. is vastly in the E.U.'s favour and (2), that 90% of world trade in the future will be outside the E.U.
On point (1), 27 nations combined will always have an advantage over one, but break the figures down and things change. For example, little old Ireland is Britain's fifth biggest export market. When Britain leaves the EU and supposedly trades with the rest of the world, will they say the rest of the planet sells more to it than it does to them. I mean, it would be odd if it didn't.
On point (2), 90% of the INCREASE in world trade will be outside the EU, but the actual increase it self will about 5% or something, it's 90% of that.
Am I missing something here? Everyday I hear these bandied about and people just don't challenge it. It's like a mantra now, and a central part of their argument.

Fratton Fred · 13-09-2017 09:56PM

Samaris wrote: »

Still though, it'll be a *great* country for those that got what they wanted - all the unwanted people with funny accents gone

In fairness though, can you actually put a price on getting rid of people from Cork :P

Water John · 13-09-2017 10:13PM

Hey, I hear that.

Sam Russell · 13-09-2017 10:36PM

We are to get two new MEPs following the UK exit.

The number of MEPs drops from 751 to 700, and following the UKs loss of 73 seats, we get two of them. The 51 seats are reserved for new members.

Water John · 13-09-2017 11:06PM

UK Govn't now ducking votes it would have lost. That's the def of lame duck.

Leonard Hofstadter · 14-09-2017 12:03AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

We are to get two new MEPs following the UK exit.

The number of MEPs drops from 751 to 700, and following the UKs loss of 73 seats, we get two of them. The 51 seats are reserved for new members.

Interesting development, I guess we'd probably go back to something like what we used to do before, separate three seat constituencies for Leinster/East, North West/Connacht-Ulster and Munster/South, with Dublin going back to four seats.

No harm to drop the number of MEPs either, will definitely make the EU look better in the eyes of the average voter.

Kermit.de.frog · 14-09-2017 02:04AM

...

solodeogloria · 14-09-2017 08:06AM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I mean this in the nicest be way possible but you the strangest remain voter I have come across. You put no emotional stock in being European and have set out arguments (flawed ones btw) on why the UK is better off out yet voted remain.

I mean there are U-turns...

Good morning!

I think you've misunderstood the motivations of a large portion of remain voters if you think the driver was emotional attachment to the Euro-federalist project.

I'm supportive of respecting the democratic decision of the people and implementing it. I'm supportive of taking back control from the EU.

As for how European I feel, I said I didn't have a lot of emotional stock. Feeling European in any case doesn't require attachment to the Euro-federalist project.

Given that Jean Claude Juncker has learned sod all from the Euro crisis I'm glad that Britain is out. His only answer to everything is more integration even though this is precisely the problem with the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

mountaintop · 14-09-2017 08:23AM

What's wrong with further integration? When Britain is out of the EU, does that mean it's problems will stop? No, it means that the scapegoat for their problems will have been removed and they will now have to look at themselves. The so called faceless bureaucrats of the EU who they hate will be replaced by their own faceless bureaucrats who won't do them any favours. British governments have proven themselves to be brutal in their implementation of policies; without the EU, the monitor in the room will have been removed.

solodeogloria · 14-09-2017 08:46AM

mountaintop wrote: »

What's wrong with further integration? When Britain is out of the EU, does that mean it's problems will stop? No, it means that the scapegoat for their problems will have been removed and they will now have to look at themselves. The so called faceless bureaucrats of the EU who they hate will be replaced by their own faceless bureaucrats who won't do them any favours. British governments have proven themselves to be brutal in their implementation of policies; without the EU, the monitor in the room will have been removed.

Good morning!

"More integration" is key word for handing over more control to the EU. It means taking more control from the democratically elected parliamentarians in member states.

Take for instance membership of the Eurozone. Juncker is now saying that every member state should be a part of it. But Britain benefited significantly from being outside of it. Giving the bloc a new "finance minister" to strong arm member states isn't the answer.

Or compulsory membership of Schengen - it doesn't suit Ireland at all given our common travel area with the UK.

That's before we get into common tax policy which would threaten Irish business.

The EU isn't an all benevolent institution. If it wants to be a federal superstate it should propose this notion directly and see how much traction it gets.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina · 14-09-2017 08:51AM

Tbh, I would be happy to drop the CTA and join Schengen. The UK gives no toss about Ireland other than to bully it or try and use it as a bargaining chip to protect itself from its own folly.

Enzokk · 14-09-2017 09:02AM

Calina wrote: »

Tbh, I would be happy to drop the CTA and join Schengen. The UK gives no toss about Ireland other than to bully it or try and use it as a bargaining chip to protect itself from its own folly.

Agreed, not having to apply for multiple visas could be a benefit for tourism in Ireland as citizens of most countries need to apply for both an Irish and British visa now in any case to visit both countries. If they wanted to take a trip to Europe from Ireland or the UK they needed to apply for a third visa. If Ireland joins the Schengen program it should attract more visitors that may have skipped the country before. Lots more tourists in the whole of the EU than the UK. France has more than double the amount of international tourist arrivals than the UK alone.

World Tourism rankings

More integration makes sense if you buy into the EU project as well. The UK didn't really so let them go. All this rabble about control is a fallacy as no-one has been able to show a loss of control. Parliament still makes their own laws and follows what they think is the right path. There is no input from the EU on this. Any decisions should in thought out as what benefits my country. If it benefits the country to follow the EU in a direction then that is what they should do. Not cry about a beneficial partnership that you decided to join.

solodeogloria · 14-09-2017 09:11AM

Enzokk wrote: »

All this rabble about control is a fallacy as no-one has been able to show a loss of control. Parliament still makes their own laws and follows what they think is the right path. There is no input from the EU on this. Any decisions should in thought out as what benefits my country. If it benefits the country to follow the EU in a direction then that is what they should do. Not cry about a beneficial partnership that you decided to join.

Good morning!

You don't get to claim I've not listed several areas where control is handed over.

You also don't get to claim that there aren't restrictions on what member states can legislate for when there are. The restrictions are listed in the treaties. (TFEU lists these in the exclusive competences and "shared" competences of the EU. "Shared" competence means that the EU is kind enough to let member states make their own laws if it hasn't done so first!)

You know that EU law supersedes the laws of member states, so it wouldn't be truthful to say that there isn't a loss of control.

You can read my previous posts for more information.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 14-09-2017 09:24AM

There certainly is a transfer of control involved in EU membership. Over a wide range of subjects, control is transferred from each member state individually to the member states collectively, acting through the EU institutions. From the perspective of the individual member state, this is a transfer, or at the very least a dilution, of control. This is undeniable.

But the way "Brexit means Brexit" is shaping up, Brexit clearly doesn't mean a return of control to "the democratically elected parliamentarians". May wouldn't have consulted Parliament at all if she could have got away with it; she had to be dragged kicking and into Parliament on this, and even know she's trying to transfer control to Ministers rather than to Parliament.

Enzokk · 14-09-2017 10:23AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You don't get to claim I've not listed several areas where control is handed over.

You also don't get to claim that there aren't restrictions on what member states can legislate for when there are. The restrictions are listed in the treaties. (TFEU lists these in the exclusive competences and "shared" competences of the EU. "Shared" competence means that the EU is kind enough to let member states make their own laws if it hasn't done so first!)

You know that EU law supersedes the laws of member states, so it wouldn't be truthful to say that there isn't a loss of control.

You can read my previous posts for more information.

List me the laws and specific examples where the UK would have had a different approach had they not been in the EU and it would have been a benefit to the country, as opposed to the current situation.

I am sure the free movement of goods may be an area that the UK could change to suit their needs had they not been in the EU, but what would the outcome have been had the UK not been part of the single market for the past how many years?

The way you post makes it sound like the UK has no say in any EU process and they have no representation in the EU. Maybe if the electorate didn't vote for people like Nigel Farage to represent them in the EU they would have had a better understanding of the EU. But you get what you vote for, and the wonderful people of the UK decided that Nigel Farage is what who they want to defend their rights and shape the EU.

Your arguments sound a lot like the bull argument that Labour caused the financial crash by the Tories. Nothing the Tories would have done would have lessened the impact of the GFC (GLOBAL Financial Crisis) as they were in favour of less regulation when more was needed. Those same people are now in charge of your Brexit, good luck with that.

demfad · 14-09-2017 10:26AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There certainly is a transfer of control involved in EU membership. Over a wide range of subjects, control is transferred from each member state individually to the member states collectively, acting through the EU institutions. From the perspective of the individual member state, this is a transfer, or at the very least a dilution, of control. This is undeniable.

But the way "Brexit means Brexit" is shaping up, Brexit clearly doesn't mean a return of control to "the democratically elected parliamentarians". May wouldn't have consulted Parliament at all if she could have got away with it; she had to be dragged kicking and into Parliament on this, and even know she's trying to transfer control to Ministers rather than to Parliament.

And not only is she not returning control of the (3% law making controlled by EU) to parliament she is taking the other 97% that it already controls away.

mountaintop · 14-09-2017 10:39AM

I know in my heart that when Brexit is over and Britain is a 'Great' nation again, it's problems will not have gone away. They will still be there. Who will they blame then? I think the problem is nostalgia: a hankering for a time past when life was simpler and better. Take away all the nit-picking, take-away all the we've lost our control, etc, the reality is stark: Britain is a wealthier, more prosperous country since it joined the EU. The issues with the EU are issues the British have with themselves: They are stuck in the past, they want to get back the great empire that once had. That is gone. Europe is at peace now, it is integrated. I mean, it was in ruins in my parents time. I got sick on a holiday in Spain recently and had to be hospitalised. I presented my E111 card and received excellent free public health care. It made me proud to be part of Europe. I often wonder why Britain joined the EU in the first place. And all the arguments I hear for them leaving are in the majority populist soundbites. It certainly won't end immigration, just wait and see. Most immigration by far to the UK is still from its former 'Empire' countries. Get real! And as for Scottish independence, that's like a slow cooking stew, it just needs time. Fully agree with Enzokk's comment's by the way.

ambro25 · 14-09-2017 10:44AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

You also don't get to claim that there aren't restrictions on what member states can legislate for when there are. The restrictions are listed in the treaties. (TFEU lists these in the exclusive competences and "shared" competences of the EU. "Shared" competence means that the EU is kind enough to let member states make their own laws if it hasn't done so first!)

You know that EU law supersedes the laws of member states, so it wouldn't be truthful to say that there isn't a loss of control.

Put aside the fact that the UK wilfully consented to these "restrictions" BITD and since (with many at the initiative of the UK itself!), the exclusivity and/or the sharing of certain competences, under which these "restrictions" arise, have at all times been there for the good functioning of the EU as a collective, supranational endeavour.

You can't have a club, without club rules that are devised for the best interests of both the club's longevity and its members. That's common sense at the most basic level.

For instance, it is quite clear that not promulgating exclusive competency for international trade deals would had the UK, Germany and France (-at least) pull the proverbial international trading blanket away from each other, and from the EU as a coherent trading whole, all sorts of nationalist preferential ways, to the extent that bi- and multi-lateral deals in that notional context would have long rendered the whole EU endeavour redundant.

That was well understood by politicians of the day and since (until recently in the UK), likewise by all the other socio-economic stakeholders involved, including large national and multinational investors and wealth creators.

Now, you can perfectly well believe -and argue- that the UK is now in a position wherein it does not require the multifarious benefits of its club membership any longer. Rightly or wrongly, matters not: after all that is opinion territory, and here is debate.

But considering where the UK was when it originally joined the EU, and where the UK was some 40 years later, in June 2016 in the aftermath of the worst global financial crisis since 1929, you yourself don't get to claim that this 'loss of control' has hampered the UK's development in any way, nor that there is an economic case for the UK 'taking back control'.

There may well be a social and/or political case for it. But policies aimed at these aspects of British society don't put food on tables or roofs on heads: these always have to be paid for by economic activity in the first place.

Professor Moriarty · 14-09-2017 10:52AM

Juncker's speech yesterday has greatly increased the likelihood of a hard Brexit. The Tory press was gleefully all over it like a rash. It's as if the EU has decided that Brexit is an opportunity for further integration (though Poland and Hungary might spike those guns) now that British recalcitrance and their veto will be gone. The corollary of that is that Brits will believe that the Leavers were right all along about the EU. It's now very hard to see how this will be resolved amicably and in a way that suits all parties.

demfad · 14-09-2017 10:58AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Juncker's speech yesterday has greatly increased the likelihood of a hard Brexit. The Tory press was gleefully all over it like a rash. It's as if the EU has decided that Brexit is an opportunity for further integration (though Poland and Hungary might spike those guns) now that British recalcitrance and their veto will be gone. The corollary of that is that Brits will believe that the Leavers were right all along about the EU. It's now very hard to see how this will be resolved amicably and in a way that suits all parties.

Don't agree. Juncker cant moderate his speeches afraid of how the Tories might spin it via their right wing media. The breakdown in relationship has all been one sided. If the British push ahead and leave the negotiations it will be economic suicide. THis just makes it easier to blame the EU. So what? They were looking for any excuse for this anyway.

murphaph · 14-09-2017 11:02AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think you've misunderstood the motivations of a large portion of remain voters if you think the driver was emotional attachment to the Euro-federalist project.

I'm supportive of respecting the democratic decision of the people and implementing it. I'm supportive of taking back control from the EU.

As for how European I feel, I said I didn't have a lot of emotional stock. Feeling European in any case doesn't require attachment to the Euro-federalist project.

Given that Jean Claude Juncker has learned sod all from the Euro crisis I'm glad that Britain is out. His only answer to everything is more integration even though this is precisely the problem with the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I favour further integration. You don't. That doesn't mean it's a problem. Some see it so, some don't.

Fwiw I used to be like you. But in 2017 I see a changing world and believe we in Europe need to stick together. There are those that would like to see us weakened and supplicant.

Jim2007 · 14-09-2017 11:04AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Take for instance membership of the Eurozone. Juncker is now saying that every member state should be a part of it. But Britain benefited significantly from being outside of it. Giving the bloc a new "finance minister" to strong arm member states isn't the answer.

How exactly has the UK benefited from being outside the Euro? And I mean is specific terms not your usual generalities!

Has it been able to use monetary policy to lessen the impacts of the financial crisis?

Was it able to avoid austerity?

Increase exports?

In todays world there are only two European central banks with the depth of resources necessary to play in the big league: ECB & SNB. The BOE simple does not have the resources to take on ether of these over the long term.

Jim2007 · 14-09-2017 11:07AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Juncker's speech yesterday has greatly increased the likelihood of a hard Brexit.

I think we are rapidly reaching the point that where people in the EU no longer care what happens to the UK.

oppenheimer1 · 14-09-2017 11:17AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

I think we are rapidly reaching the point that where people in the EU no longer care what happens to the UK.

Indeed. As we are English speaking and much of our media is created in the UK, there is a tendency to think events in the anglophone world are of greater importance globally than they actually are. Our proximity and the impact it will have here all make it a bigger deal for Ireland.

The continent has moved on though, Brexit is a story well down the order at this stage.

mountaintop · 14-09-2017 11:28AM

The Brexit referendum was a moment in time. It was a referendum held on one day to decide the entire future of a country. Based on that one day's referendum people who were too busy or disinterested to fully understand the ramifications of what it could mean voted based on vague senses of what Europe meant to them. People should have been provided with information beforehand. I know, I know, it's too late now. And another thing I've been meaning to say for a long time. I heard Liam Fox MP calling for a vote to leave in the run up to the referendum. His reasoning was he wanted to take back control, etc, etc, but also he wanted to preserve his cultural identity and heritage. He subsequently went onto say that the British had nothing to apologise for regarding the impact of its empire on the world. Liam Fox’s cultural heritage is Irish, he was born in a council house in Glasgow of Irish parents. If he was in America he’d be claiming his Irishness and proud of it. But he never mentions it and as far as I can see, is ashamed of it. I can’t stand the man.

Zubeneschamali · 14-09-2017 11:35AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's now very hard to see how this will be resolved amicably and in a way that suits all parties.

It was never possible.

Fratton Fred · 14-09-2017 11:50AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Juncker's speech yesterday has greatly increased the likelihood of a hard Brexit. The Tory press was gleefully all over it like a rash. It's as if the EU has decided that Brexit is an opportunity for further integration (though Poland and Hungary might spike those guns) now that British recalcitrance and their veto will be gone. The corollary of that is that Brits will believe that the Leavers were right all along about the EU. It's now very hard to see how this will be resolved amicably and in a way that suits all parties.

What you will see now is other countries using their veto instead of the uk.

Take defence for example, the uk has always opposed a European army, so no one else has had to. Will Ireland allow this to happen? Will Denmark?

Will Ireland allow the eu to determine its fiscal policy?

An Ciarraioch · 14-09-2017 12:04PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What you will see now is other countries using their veto instead of the uk.

Take defence for example, the uk has always opposed a European army, so no one else has had to. Will Ireland allow this to happen? Will Denmark?

Will Ireland allow the eu to determine its fiscal policy?

Both issues require unanimity, which is why neither have ever progressed beyond discussion papers to date.

mountaintop · 14-09-2017 12:06PM

I'd be delighted if Europe decided Irish fiscal policy. They'd make a better job than our own politicians. And why not a European Army? Ireland has hidden behind America and the UK for too long. We claim neutrality but have others defend it.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments