Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Donald Trump · 16-01-2019 12:34AM

theguzman wrote: »

If those lads are getting worried then its clear this is good for the ordinary guy, if the British establishment have the brass neck to try a Nice or Lisbon II stunt with Brexit it will be a 70% Leave Hard Brexit. When the corporate crooks are worried its always a good thing.

Brexit will give short term instability and upheavel but the long term outlook will be great to be away from undemocratic EU Franco/German Dictatorship.

Ah jaysus.

Just because someone you don't like is against something doesn't automatically mean it is good for you.

theguzman · 16-01-2019 12:35AM

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah jaysus.

Just because someone you don't like is against something doesn't automatically mean it is good for you.

If its bad for them then its good for everyone else.

gmisk · 16-01-2019 12:35AM

theguzman wrote: »

If those lads are getting worried then its clear this is good for the ordinary guy, if the British establishment have the brass neck to try a Nice or Lisbon II stunt with Brexit it will be a 70% Leave Hard Brexit. When the corporate crooks are worried its always a good thing.

Brexit will give short term instability and upheavel but the long term outlook will be great to be away from undemocratic EU Franco/German Dictatorship.

You honestly believe 70% would vote for a hard Brexit now?
I would think if another vote the remain side would win by 5 to 10 points this time, some people clearly didn't know what they were voting for, I don't think that 350m a week for the NHS is going to materialise do you? Nigel Farage admitted that the day after No side won lol

Amirani · 16-01-2019 12:36AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

But the high up EU jobs are so diluted to the point its undemocratic. You can vote for a president in the US. You cant in the EU.

And a president with majority vote in the US doesn't necessarily get elected, super democratic.

The President of the EU doesn't have much power relative to the US President, because there is proper power sharing between the institutions; one of national Governments, and one directly elected by the citizenry.

The US political system is relatively badly designed and is certainly not a model for high democracy. EU ain't perfect either, but it doesn't lead to high concentration of power in 1 individual that has the power to shutdown the Government for extended periods...

prawnsambo · 16-01-2019 12:36AM

theguzman wrote: »

If those lads are getting worried then its clear this is good for the ordinary guy, if the British establishment have the brass neck to try a Nice or Lisbon II stunt with Brexit it will be a 70% Leave Hard Brexit. When the corporate crooks are worried its always a good thing.

Brexit will give short term instability and upheavel but the long term outlook will be great to be away from undemocratic EU Franco/German Dictatorship.

I'm imagining the mental contortions you went through to come up with this spin. Must have been painful.

The actual message from this is that these companies will actually start making decisions if the HoC doesn't. And those decisions will be irrevocable. Already hundreds of billions have left the UK. Some estimates reckon that almost two trillion pounds will have left by the end of March.

The little guys will be the first to suffer from this and the warning signs are already flashing with low sales figures on the high street over Christmas. There is no upside to this.

wiggle16 · 16-01-2019 12:36AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

There is so much wrong with that comparison. The USA is more democratic than the EU.

The way they EU is run is more like the Soviet Union or China.

That's a disgracefully flippant thing to say.

If we were in the Soviet Union or China, we could not have this conversation. You literally have no idea how lucky you are.

That is really the root of the problem with the rise of the far right in the West and populist nationalist phenomena such as Brexit, Trump, the current Polish govt, etc. We have had peace, opportunities and civil liberties guaranteed for so long that we no longer realise what the alternative means.

It's the same root cause of anti-vaxxer stuff: people of childbearing age are no longer familiar with polio or measles and don't realise how serious these diseases are. It's very much a case of the old "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" schtick.

The EU and Europe in general are far from perfect, but if you think the EU and the way it is run is anything like the USSR or the PRC then I don't know what to say to you. As another poster said, do you actually believe any of the drivel you've written?

Donald Trump · 16-01-2019 12:38AM

bob mcbob wrote: »

The US president can -
- Take the country to war
- Stop paying salaries for the government employees
- Build a wall

Can the EU president do any of this?

Not quite true.

President has to sign off on the allocation of funds. No funds and they don't get paid

However both houses could pass a bill. In the event that the president refuses to sign, it goes into law by default after 10 days.

Neither is the third one.

First one is arguably true.

Imreoir2 · 16-01-2019 12:39AM

EdgeCase wrote: »

That's just going to reinforce them and also the markets have clearly not priced and continue not to price a hard crash out scenario into anything which could result in an unbelievably bad crash in a few weeks time if the worst case scenario does happen. The traders are being incredibly optimistic.

They have not priced in a hard crash because they are growing in confidence that they don't have to. Brexit is a walking corpse, it's as dead as a very dead thing, it's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, this is an ex Brexit.

prawnsambo · 16-01-2019 12:42AM

theguzman wrote: »

If its bad for them then its good for everyone else.

If you believe that, your economic education is sorely lacking. There are situations when the above could be true. But you'd have to squint a lot and peek through your fingers to make it so.

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 12:43AM

bob mcbob wrote: »

The US president can -
- Take the country to war
- Stop paying salaries for the government employees
- Build a wall

Can the EU president do any of this?

Yes.

Trump started a trade war with China. The EU wants the same with the UK.
Not valid as the EU is not a government but likes to think it is.
The EU want Ireland in Schengen. We will have a wall if that happens. (UK will get the blame)

We are getting dragged into a United States of Europe that I doubt few want.

Russman · 16-01-2019 12:44AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

It would be the end of the EU if that happened. And there's actually no history of the EU caving at the last minute, that's just made up by Davis. The EU are noteworthy for delivering hard-nosed trade deals. Witness all the squealing in the US about having to meet EU standards.

You’d like to think so alright. Obviously while Brexit being cancelled is the ideal solution for everyone and nobody really wants a no-deal, at this point it’s hard to know what way it will swing. I think the hard core like Davis could be doing untold damage by articulating attitudes like that and not managing realistic expectations for the population over there, and no doubt (hopefully) hardening EU resolve.

Russman · 16-01-2019 12:47AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yes.

Trump started a trade war with China. The EU wants the same with the UK.
Not valid as the EU is not a government but likes to think it is.
The EU want Ireland in Schengen. We will have a wall if that happens. (UK will get the blame)

We are getting dragged into a United States of Europe that I doubt few want.

Why would the EU want a trade war with the UK ?

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 12:48AM

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They have not priced in a hard crash because they are growing in confidence that they don't have to. Brexit is a walking corpse, it's as dead as a very dead thing, it's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, this is an ex Brexit.

How? The UK voted leave so they will leave. Delusional to think Brexit is dead. Tonight if anything will make people more determined to see it happens.

ancapailldorcha · 16-01-2019 12:49AM

Mod: Some posts deleted. Serious discussion from here onwards please.

Anthracite · 16-01-2019 12:49AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

But the high up EU jobs are so diluted to the point its undemocratic. You can vote for a president in the US. You cant in the EU.

And you can't vote for the Queen either.

The idea of holding up the USA as an exemplar of democracy (where it looks like there is a very feasible possibility that their President is an agent of their number one global enemy) should suggest the bankruptcy of your argument.

If you want to have total control, live in a hut on a desert island. It's not exactly hard to understand that as you become part of larger and larger social organisations, your vote gets diluted.

Anthracite · 16-01-2019 12:51AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm imagining the mental contortions you went through to come up with this spin. Must have been painful.

Yes. Presumably if they objected to the planet getting destroyed by climate change, it must be good for 'ordinary people'.

bob mcbob · 16-01-2019 12:54AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

Yes.

Trump started a trade war with China. The EU wants the same with the UK.
Not valid as the EU is not a government but likes to think it is.
The EU want Ireland in Schengen. We will have a wall if that happens. (UK will get the blame)

We are getting dragged into a United States of Europe that I doubt few want.

Ok on these opinions, is it also your belief that it is the EU president who is the mastermind behind all of this?

Imreoir2 · 16-01-2019 12:54AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

How? The UK voted leave so they will leave. Delusional to think Brexit is dead. Tonight if anything will make people more determined to see it happens.

Let's not forget the reality of the Brexit vote, it was a glorified opinion poll. The people who matter now are the MPs, they have the power to quash Brexit and have very good reason to do so.

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 12:57AM

Russman wrote: »

Why would the EU want a trade war with the UK ?

Punishment. But there is a wee flaw in the EU plan.

As one poster said "exploding toasters". The likes of Lidl and Aldi will be fecked.

The standards in the UK have always exceeded the EU standards. Cheap **** from China sold by Lidl etc would become illegal.

Spanish Eyes · 16-01-2019 01:03AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

Punishment. But there is a wee flaw in the EU plan.

As one poster said "exploding toasters". The likes of Lidl and Aldi will be fecked.

The standards in the UK have always exceeded the EU standards. Cheap **** from China sold by Lidl etc would become illegal.

Now I could be wrong, but surely the EU has a trade agreement with China to import this stuff which must meet EU standards.

I think exploding toasters is a wrong thing to say about our German friends who have saved us a lot of money in food bills with great grub.

But I may have misinterpreted your post.

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 01:03AM

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Let's not forget the reality of the Brexit vote, it was a glorified opinion poll. The people who matter now are the MPs, they have the power to quash Brexit and have very good reason to do so.

If the vote had gone the other way would you still call it a glorified opinion poll?

I doubt it. It was a vote of people in the UK. The pro EU side is a joke as the majority are not even eligible to vote in UK referendums.

Just a rent-a-mob making up the numbers.

bob mcbob · 16-01-2019 01:08AM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Now I could be wrong, but surely the EU has a trade agreement with China to import this stuff which must meet EU standards.

I think exploding toasters is a wrong thing to say about our German friends who have saved us a lot of money in food bills with great grub.

But I may have misinterpreted your post.

You are missing the bigger picture - it is all part of the EU presidents cunning plan.

The toasters are just the start, if you don't draw the line at toasters then kettles, irons, even washing machines will be next.

Dyr · 16-01-2019 01:11AM

I think the odd thing here is that May has been revealed to have absolutely no game plan whatsoever, not even a Baldrickian cunning plan.

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 01:11AM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Now I could be wrong, but surely the EU has a trade agreement with China to import this stuff which must meet EU standards.

I think exploding toasters is a wrong thing to say about our German friends who have saved us a lot of money in food bills with great grub.

But I may have misinterpreted your post.

The UK standards were lowered in the 90s. Remember the kitemark? None of the krud sold today would pass that test.

Then you have the kids costumes. Sold as toys under EU law. Highly flammable. Illegal now in the UK but fine to sell in Ireland.

badtoro · 16-01-2019 01:14AM

Russman wrote: »

Just watched David Davis on BBC saying the EU always cave, “ ........they wait til the last month, week, day, hour, even second.....”
He reckoned the Irish farmers, German car makers and French wine producers will ensure the EU gives in and gives the UK what they want.
I honestly hope to God he’s wrong this time and the EU does hold firm, these people need a lesson in humility.

This Irish farmer would prefer that Ireland & the EU hold the line. The British are in a pickle here, if no deal then at some point they must start enquiring about a new trade deal. That is when the EU has them over a barrel. Davis is an idiot, I heard that press conference and he just waffled. Only Arlene was worse.

Out of those mentioned Irish farmers are likely worst off. People wanting bmw's, mercs and champagne are unlikely to be as affected by brexit as are ordinary folks.

In the long run, Ireland is better off to reduce our exposure to our nearest neighbour. If we have been taught anything in the past number of years it is how little they think of us and how easily they turn on us when it suits them.

De Gaulle was right.

BlitzKrieg · 16-01-2019 01:14AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

But the high up EU jobs are so diluted to the point its undemocratic. You can vote for a president in the US. You cant in the EU.

actually the election of the Commission President (closest comparison to US president) is almost identical to the election of the US president

Both candidates are nominated by the major parties.

So for example Trump won the Republican nominee

Juncker won the EPP nominee.

the EPP is the european peoples party and is made up of primarily conservative parties from germany, france, Ireland etc. the UK conservative party was part of it but left to form the ECR.

Both candidates won their nominations mostly the same way, only the juncker one was a lot less prolific.

Other EU parties hold similar processes, some of them are much more competitive.

When election comes around in the US each state elects a representative to the electorial college who then come december elects the president in a 2nd vote. In some states members of the electorial college can change their vote.

when election comes around in the EU every country elects meps to the european parliament who then a week after the election vote on the nominee for the european commission president. Again like the electorial college meps have the option to vote a different candidate and there can be cases of smaller parties making deals to support specific policies in exchange for their votes. No different to say the deal the DUP struck to put Theresa May in power.

Unlike the college though meps have other duties in the european parliament.

but this vote is their first and arguably most important role in their initial year.

And again like the us president once nominated the commission president builds his executive branch and those members are then questioned and examined by the parliament, much like Trump's nominees and eventually the parliament votes a 2nd time on the commission as a whole.

Unlike Trump and the US the commission president does not have control over who is in his commission, only what role they fill. The choice of commission members is squarely left to the member states who can choose their own member by whatever means they want. For example the British tend to pick a member of the house of lords to send over. The EU again has no control over this and they cannot actually block a member states choice, that power sits entirely with the member state.

Also unlike the Us president the commission president has to go through another vote after the parliament vote as he or she is voted on by the european council, a body made up of the leaders of each member state.

So to recap

The European Council, every member is directly elected by the people in their national elections

The Council of European Union/Minsiters, every member is a minister from the government of each member so is also directly elected in the national elections of each member state.

The European Parliament: every member is directly elected in the european elections

The European Commission: every member except the president is selected by each member state by whatever means they choose, the president is the nominee who's party won the most seats or support at the european elections.

And if you are asking why have I not heard about this?

blame the media in the uk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes

Outside of the UK (not sure about Ireland, I was living in london at the time) they covered the european commission president debates and it was fairly common knowledge that a vote for X party was also a vote for Y presidential candidate.

In the UK though it was not covered at all.

In fact it's incredibly depressing to bring to your attention that the UK alone could have blocked Juncker from being commission president as he only won by a few seats.

but almost half of all meps (conservative and UKIP meps) from the UK abstained from voting and they also made clear prior to the election that they wouldnt vote, so they made no attempt to even use their votes as leverage or to negotiate.

They simply threw them away and Juncker who people in the UK continue to complain about walked to the commission seat unchallenged

This will repeat itself this year so if you are not in the UK and in Ireland my advice is dont vote fine gael in the european elections, we dont need an EPP commission president for another 5 years, fianna fail or labour will put a vote for the other 2 major candidates, Sinn Fein as part of GUE I dont think put a candidate forward either.

honestly if you want to be tactical vote labour in the european elections. With mostly centre right governments in national office putting a centre left candidate as the commission president would be a good way of keeping EU policy in check in a lot of areas.

wiggle16 · 16-01-2019 01:30AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

If the vote had gone the other way would you still call it a glorified opinion poll?

I doubt it. It was a vote of people in the UK. The pro EU side is a joke as the majority are not even eligible to vote in UK referendums.

Just a rent-a-mob making up the numbers.

The majority of the people who voted Remain (and the overwhelming overall majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland) are not eligible to vote in UK referenda? Hmmm.
Or do you just mean opinion polls? Because as I understand it, any reputable poll of that nature will establish relevance, ie, "are you eligible to vote/over 18" etc.

The vote was only carried in England. Not a single Scottish constituency voted to Leave. Only a few constituencies in NI votes to leave and their majority was very slim. The result was also extremely slim in Wales. The result in London was a clear remain, with over 2.2 million votes in against leaving. Calling it a vote of the people in the UK is a joke.

A huge element of the Leave vote was a protest vote. A lot of people did not understand the magnitude of what they were voting in favour of and believed the out and out lies spun by Boris et al (such as the £350000000 a week to spend on the NHS plastered on the side of a [German made] bus).

The number of google searches the next morning along the lines of "what is the eu" speaks volumes about the true nature of that referendum. The result in EU funded Cornwall, where they didn't realise they would lose their EU funding if they left the EU, says it all: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/26/cornwall-fears-loss-of-funding-after-backing-brexit

Hurrache · 16-01-2019 01:38AM

theguzman wrote: »

try a Nice or Lisbon II stunt .

Explain?

Dyr · 16-01-2019 01:38AM

badtoro wrote: »

De Gaulle was right.

Never mind DeGaulle, this shower are proving that Wolfe Tone was right. Again

prinzeugen · 16-01-2019 01:59AM

wiggle16 wrote: »

The majority of the people who voted Remain (and the overwhelming overall majorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland) are not eligible to vote in UK referenda? Hmmm.
Or do you just mean opinion polls? Because as I understand it, any reputable poll of that nature will establish relevance, ie, "are you eligible to vote/over 18" etc.

The vote was only carried in England. Not a single Scottish constituency voted to Leave. Only a few constituencies in NI votes to leave and their majority was very slim. The result was also extremely slim in Wales. The result in London was a clear remain, with over 2.2 million votes in against leaving. Calling it a vote of the people in the UK is a joke.

A huge element of the Leave vote was a protest vote. A lot of people did not understand the magnitude of what they were voting in favour of and believed the out and out lies spun by Boris et al (such as the £350000000 a week to spend on the NHS plastered on the side of a [German made] bus).

The number of google searches the next morning along the lines of "what is the eu" speaks volumes about the true nature of that referendum. The result in EU funded Cornwall, where they didn't realise they would lose their EU funding if they left the EU, says it all: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/26/cornwall-fears-loss-of-funding-after-backing-brexit

Do reading. The Scottish vote was by council, not constituency area.

If it was done by constituency, the SNP would not be able to use it as propaganda!

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Comments