Okay so you say you've accounted for context but still insist that the EU will betray Ireland for the benefit of the UK, selling it's out own interest at the same time. Lets examine the exact consequences of such a deal for the EU
trellheim wrote: » Do you honestly believe the EU will hold it up if Ireland has a problem with <whatever gets agreed in the next few weeks > ? A lot of the transition agreement has been hammered out, they are at the difficult bits <Ireland etc> .. Greece is very relevant - small state, beholden to the banks , gets told what to do.
trellheim wrote: » It's an opinion - you're all entitled to your own
trellheim wrote: » What would YOU say will be the outcome from the June EU negotiations and summit ?
RobertKK wrote: » Looks like Theresa May has finally totally lost it. On the Andrew Marr show talking about the phantom 'Brexit dividend'. If she has bought into that crap then a no deal Brexit is looking more likely.
Mrs May said: "In the week beginning the 9th of July we will publish a white paper which will set out, in more detail than the speeches any of us have given ... we will set out in more detail the ambition we have for the relationship with the European Union in future."
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Finally, the DUP or Arlene at least , are taking small steps. It's the little stuff like this that give hope for the future. Foster meets Fermanagh GAA team ahead of Ulster final DUP leader's 'hand of friendship' at Eid celebration in Belfast The No Surrender attitude in the UK amongst the hard Brexiteers to the EU is scary. The FPTP system and the security of wealth means that a lot of them have nothing to fear either way. Those subject to cuts and Universal Credit delays and screwups on the other hand have a lot to loose. via Slugger https://unherd.com/2018/06/noise-victimhood-culture-drowned-plight-poor/
Leroy42 wrote: » But surely that puts the whole Brexit debate to bed. ... My point being, that if she really believes this .... then surely they should be looking to get out ASAP. No transition period needed.
A survey by the Royal Society of Arts, published last January, found that economic insecurity has become the “new normal” in the UK. Of more than 2,000 workers surveyed, 40% described their finances as permanently precarious, and 30% said that they were not managing to get by.
budget will rise by an average of 3.4% annually - but that is still less than the 3.7% average rise the NHS has had since 1948. The prime minister said this would be funded partly by a "Brexit dividend", but also hinted at tax rises. Labour said the government had failed to fund the NHS properly and was relying on a "hypothetical" windfall.
Such an agreement must be approved by the 38 regional and national parliaments that make up the EU, not just the member states. This process will not begin until there is a very high chance of it succeeding because there is the potential for it to open up a big can of worms and cause all kinds of issues at the regional level
Jim2007 wrote: » A belief not based on reality. There will be no transition deal until such time as an exit deal has been agreed and the outlines of a traded deal to go with it. Such an agreement must be approved by the 38 regional and national parliaments that make up the EU, not just the member states. This process will not begin until there is a very high chance of it succeeding because there is the potential for it to open up a big can of worms and cause all kinds of issues at the regional level. What is likely is that the 27 may decide to extend the negotiation period as allowed under A50, which would see the UK remaining a full member for a long time to come. But this is not a transition. They would enjoy full membership rights and obligations.
Peregrinus wrote: » When the Bill for holding the referendum was before Parliament, there was discussion of whether there should be a requirement for a qualified majority - a majority overall, plus a majority in at least three of the constituent parts of the UK, or a majority including at least 40% of the electorate (so the referendum couldn't be decided by a narrow margin on a low turnout) - that kind of thing. There is precedent for this in referendums that the UK has held before, e.g. the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979. But the governnment's position was that this wasn't necessary, since the outcome of the referendum would not be legally binding. If the government didn't think that the referendum result reflected a sufficient national consensus, it could decide not to act on it.In advance of the referendum actually being held, the Tories committed to "respect" the result, which the honours students will note is not quite the same thing as a commitment to implement the result. However, since the referendum result, the Tories have been hijacked by ultra-Brexiters who assert that the referendum results reflects an immutable "Will of the People™", that their interpretation of the result represents dogma before which all must bow, and that any suggestion of consulting the people or thelr elected represntatives further must be resisted, since it represents an opportunity for the people to betray the Will of the People™.
trellheim wrote: » My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .
J Mysterio wrote: » Not sure if you guys saw this in ths Sunday Times last week, thought it was brilliant.
RobertKK wrote: » He didn't really, he asked her if she really believed there would be a Brexit dividend and she said 'Yes' and she was never questioned where this dividend would come from.
trellheim wrote: » Yes I know it was a somewhat different comparison in terms of the situation faced - my point was more the gun-to-the-head lack of choice. My strong belief is that a compromise that is very unattractive to Ireland will be hammered out, to allow the transition agreement go into effect ( remember there is still NO transition agreement). As far as I can see this is the DExEu's strategy - to delay and delay until the horrible situation on offer is better than no deal. At that point a man will arrive (not from Brussels but from somewhere else - this is what happened last time ) and we will be told 'take the deal' .
WTF has happened to government in the UK? We had a referendum and decided to let the Daily Mail run the country instead.
(I was particularly impressed by the way the system couldn't cope with months that had 5 pay days in. Because everyone is paid monthly now. Right? Right.)
"its real aim was to get as many claimants off benefits as possible" Well, with tens of thousands of people* dying as a result, I'd say they've achieved their aim.* 45,000 between 2011 and 2014. Not a typo.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Did he challenge her on it?
RobertKK wrote: » Looks like Theresa May has finally totally lost it. On the Andrew Marr show talking about the phantom 'Brexit dividend'.
We need to ask the question: What is the EU for? And to get to the answer, we need to look at what the EU actually does, and analyse rigorously and frankly the tasks it does well, those it does not so well, and those it does badly. Only once we have a clear sense of our citizens' priorities can we sensibly ensure the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver them. The European Union is for the citizens of Europe, not the political elites of Europe. That means focussing discussion not on the process but on the results of EU co-operation. Only ideologues and specialists are impassioned by esoteric technical issues like the extent of qualified majority voting or the limits of co-decision. People care most about the practical benefits they can derive from the EU: more jobs, cleaner streets, less crime. This is where the debate should begin
The Greek bailout was an entirely different scenario and has very little in common with the situation Ireland faces now. Greece broke EU and ECB budgetary rules, lied about it and refused to implement reforms without a gun to their head In regards to Brexit Ireland has done nothing but be the most stalwart EU supporter, has toed the line and indeed led the EU in many respects Greek interests and EU/ECB were extemely divergent, Greece wanted to keep spending other peoples money, EU/ECB wanted to ensure they paid for themselves. In stark contrast Ireland's and the EU's interests are almost perfectly aligned, they both want the UK to A) Be part of the SM/CU Fullfill all their outstanding obligations C) Not to get any special privileges The EU/ECB wanted to make an example out of Greece in order to presuade all other members that the rules must be followed in order to ensure lasting stability of the EU/Eurozone The EU want to make an example out of the UK and the folly of leaving the EU and to set a counterexample of Ireland who will demonstrate the benefits of being an EU member Why would the EU sell us out? They would only be selling out themselves.
judeboy101 wrote: » Are you really telling me they knew nothing? https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-lenihan-s-family-criticises-trichet-over-phone-call-1.2198516?mode=amp
EdgeCase wrote: » They seem constantly shocked by the fact that the EU, unlike themselves isn’t just throwing Ireland under a bus. Unlike the UK, the EU does actually grant its members huge powers of veto and treats them with a far greater degree of equality and respect. The UK approach is very much that the UK is England and the other countries aren't taken seriously at all really. That's always been the history of the UK. It's never been a union by consent, but by hostile acquisition and forced integration and that's, sadly, still being reflected in modern politics. There’s also an inability to comprehend that Ireland is a part of the EU and the Eurozone and the European Commission and other institutions' job and role is to protect the EU and the Eurozone . . .
briany wrote: » What if David Cameron had not held the referendum as a whole UK one, but four separate ones in each constituent country, and specified that a majority must be achieved in each in order for the UK to move forward with Brexit? I think this would have been a shrewd move because it's difficult to argue against this without exposing the idea that the UK is not a union of equals. And while this would still have stoked the flames of regionalism, it would at least been better to have this debate in the aftermath of the vote, where the voting structure gave NI and Scotland more leverage to block Brexit and demonstrate to people the possibly grave implications of Brexit for the UK's integrity.
