Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus wrote: »

But these comments strike me as pretty much the opposite of deft, whatever that is.

He's doing it on purpose, of course.

The pressure is coming onto the UK team, time is running out. So Barnier starts to act less diplomatic, less accommodating, less friendly. Get the point across that yes, the EU really will block Phase 2 if they don't get it together.

Rub their noses in it a bit.

I seem to recall the Article 50 letter being interpretable as implying the UK would use security as a bargaining chip...

solodeogloria wrote: »

Saying things that are patently ignorant and untrue about the UK's counterterrorism and defence efforts across Europe doesn't put pressure on anyone.

I read the article - it is not ignorant or untrue. It is just not friendly or diplomatic.

And even if all it does is make Barnier look like a jerk, that is to the point. Remind the UK team that Barnier is not their friend and reinforce the notion in their heads that yes, he really will block phase 2. Next week, for 3 months.

One thing the whole Brexit does show, or at least should, is that by being in the EU Ireland is far stronger than had we never entered it.

The talk from some of the media in the UK (today in the Telegraph they have an article titled "Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands") points to the sort of relationship we would have had we just been two countries.

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

Leroy42 wrote: »

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

There should be no question about this at all, or any kind of suggestion that it would be wrong to do so. We should go full steam ahead and take advantage of the situation, because as it stand we will be hurt economically, and the UK has show it doesn't care at all. The UK barely cares about the North as it is.

If Ireland can take advantage of the situation, we should do so. No need for any guilt, as we are simply acting in our best interest, and the UK refuses to listen to any reason.

Also, as I stated before Varadkar needs to use his veto. The UK decided to ignore the North and Good Friday agreement. As far as I am concerned the Brexiters happily stabbed us in the back for there crass fantasy Brexit, and its only way to get the to take the situation seriously and engage with reality.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It's 11 AM!?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's 11 AM!?

It's 11 am in Greenwich, not necessarily where some folks are posting from, though.

Must be in Hawaii, today.
Diff to keep up with these time zones and changes. The EU should insist all its countries operate the one time zone.

Leroy42 wrote: »

One thing the whole Brexit does show, or at least should, is that by being in the EU Ireland is far stronger than had we never entered it.

The talk from some of the media in the UK (today in the Telegraph they have an article titled "Britain needs to help Ireland's young and inexperienced leader back down from his impossible Brexit demands") points to the sort of relationship we would have had we just been two countries.

That why I am in the camp that Ireland should be using this own goal by the UK to drive for a massive takeover of industries etc that have traditionally been the UK's. This is a very rare event, a chance to actually change the dynamic. Yes it requires that we take advantage of the UK, but does anybody really believe that wouldn't be the case if the roles were reversed?

Absolutely. Any and all concerns we might have had would have been simply ignored entirely from the UK side if we did not have allies.

I would not call it taking advantage. It is a negotiation, everyone should be arguing for what they want out of the negotiations. This is what we would do, the veto is part of our case in these negotiations. The UK will try and get the best deal it can within political restrictions, just some seem to get annoyed if anyone else does the same.

The telegraph is a rag alright. That headline is pretty shocking alright and does show the utter contempt a section of the UK holds for this country.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!


No spin at all. The implication is that the UK is abandoning European countries in counter-terrorism collaboration. That's not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That's your interpretation on it, depending on what you want to read you can find the whole speech here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-5021_en.htm

Barnier made it clear, that as Britain is leaving the EU it complicates the cooperation as outlines later:

And this Defence and Security Union will have to be developed without the British, since on 30 March 2019 the United Kingdom will, as is its wish, become a third country when it comes to defence and security issues.
We must draw the appropriate legal and operational conclusions from this:
The UK defence minister will no longer take part in meetings of EU Defence Ministers; there will be no UK ambassador sitting on the Political and Security Committee.
The UK can no longer be a framework nation: it will not be able to take command of EU–led operations or lead EU battlegroups.
The UK will no longer be a member of the European Defence Agency or Europol.
The UK will not be able to benefit from the European Defence Fund the same way Member States will.
The UK will no longer be involved in decision-making, nor in planning our defence and security instruments.

And he is right, that outside of the EU, UK won't be able to work as efficiently on security as it can do it from the inside.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is no Brexit that is beneficial for the UK. There is damaging, more damaging or catastrophically damaging.

Oh, I agree.

Brexiters, though, we must acknowledge, do not agree. They think that at least the upper end of the range of possible outcomes for the UK lies in positive territory, not negative. And it is they, not we, who control the UK's positions and attitudes in the Brexit discussions.

My point is that most of them will acknowledge that getting a Brexit outcome at the more favourable end of the spectrum does depend crucially on getting a good trade deal with the EU. It's not just that the UK's EU trade is half of its total trade, and the half that will necessarily be most badly impacted by leaving the Single Market/Customs Union. It's also that the UK's credibility as a negotiator with the other 160-odd countries with whom it does the other half of its trade, and its bargaining position in negotiations with those countries, will be fatally damaged if the UK is seen to be unable to conclude a trade agreement even with the EU.

In short, if the UK leaves the EU without an EU trade deal, that would mark the point at which even Brexiters would agree, for the most part, that the wheels had come off the whole Brexit project. It would be time to dust off the "blood, sweat, toil and tears" speeches, and to talk about how regaining sovereignty and national self-respect was worth any merely economic price, however high, however painful.

Peregrinus wrote: »

...talk about how regaining sovereignty and national self-respect was worth any merely economic price, however high, however painful.

That really is the fundamental difference in the outlook between these two countries.

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

I hear the argument that some of that concern is a whipped up frenzy.

I hear the argument that the price Britain would pay to regain that sovereignty would not be as large as it may turn out to be in a hard brexit

But I can't help looking at the picture objectively and reaching the conclusion that by and large the British place a higher value on their independence and sovereignty - certainly than we do in Ireland - and arguably more than other nations in Europe.

I've always thought that the EU would ultimately be a generational question - I find a political or federal EU uncomfortable for a host of reasons, but I've always accepted that a younger generation might genuinely feel themselves EU citizens first, and national citizens second, and in due course set about fixing the finance mechanisms and making the place more democratic. Watching the debate here I wonder whether to some extent it is a small vs large nation thing as well - and we already know it's a regional and occupational thing within each nation.

And for those countries that do come to rely on a higher power in Brussels for political management - out of choice - it is interesting to reflect on the impact that might have on the quality of and engagement in domestic politics. One of the most enlightening, shocking conversations I can remember in my lifetime was at dinner with a Spanish fund manager, right in the worst days post Lehman - when we were hunting around banks from Canada to London to take overnight sterling and dollar deposits, there was a real panic on - and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

We really do live, for our sins, in fascinating times. I hope we don't all get so caught up in taking sides not to stand back and ponder the seismic shifts which are taking place.

kowtow wrote: »

and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

I think the number of British people who might say that has probably gone up since the referendum, but I agree that it is still surprisingly small.

Give it 5 years, and perhaps lessons will have been learned.

kowtow wrote: »

That really is the fundamental difference in the outlook between these two countries.

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

I hear the argument that some of that concern is a whipped up frenzy.

I hear the argument that the price Britain would pay to regain that sovereignty would not be as large as it may turn out to be in a hard brexit

But I can't help looking at the picture objectively and reaching the conclusion that by and large the British place a higher value on their independence and sovereignty - certainly than we do in Ireland - and arguably more than other nations in Europe.

I've always thought that the EU would ultimately be a generational question - I find a political or federal EU uncomfortable for a host of reasons, but I've always accepted that a younger generation might genuinely feel themselves EU citizens first, and national citizens second, and in due course set about fixing the finance mechanisms and making the place more democratic. Watching the debate here I wonder whether to some extent it is a small vs large nation thing as well - and we already know it's a regional and occupational thing within each nation.

And for those countries that do come to rely on a higher power in Brussels for political management - out of choice - it is interesting to reflect on the impact that might have on the quality of and engagement in domestic politics. One of the most enlightening, shocking conversations I can remember in my lifetime was at dinner with a Spanish fund manager, right in the worst days post Lehman - when we were hunting around banks from Canada to London to take overnight sterling and dollar deposits, there was a real panic on - and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

We really do live, for our sins, in fascinating times. I hope we don't all get so caught up in taking sides not to stand back and ponder the seismic shifts which are taking place.

The real issue, however, is that much of the regional disparity within the UK derives directly from the political and economic policies devised and implemented by Thatcher, and largely maintained by successive governments. By "rolling back the State", and thus removing crucial social services, prosperity generated in London and the SE of England has been inequitably distributed across the rest of UK, with the results clearly visible in the Midlands and North of England. The EEC and later the EU was adopted as a convenient bogeyman for voters, but Corbyn's success in June suggests the argument is finally wearing thin.