nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

johnnyskeleton

This is the tenth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread, so Ive copied ACDs comments from the last thread to here. Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Imreoir2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Whats wrong with that? The last thing Id want to see is the EU getting into the prower projection stuff that the US and UK, and to a lesser extent France, are currently doing. An intranational organisation that encourages internal free movement, gets good trade deals and has committments to mutual defence and common values such as human rights, the rule of law etc is a great thing.

It has achieved and surpassed its goal of making war between European States practially unthinkable.

Why do we need to throw our weight around on the world stage? Can we not be content to sit back and adopt a live and let live policy? Particularly since so much of the turmoil in the world has been caused by European interference

Who said we need to throw our weight around? The point I was making is that the nationalist eurosceptic ideology proposes that all soverignty be vested in the nation state. It proposes a relationship where the Irish state extends no further than Irelands national boundries, the Belgian state extends no further than the Belgian national boundries etc. The European ideal proposes that each of our states can extend beyond our national boundries, into each other through a pooling of soverignty and a cooperative approch to solving problems that are beyond any individual nation states ability to address effectivly.

Europe can project power as well, but how it does so is key. Unlike the US, the EU projects economic power not military power. The EU at its core is a peace project that from its inception has used economic cooperation as a way to remove the incentive to resort to military conflict.

Podge_irl

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

Valhallapt

Podge_irl wrote: »

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

Any indications / polling done on a federal E.U. I am personally in favour of a United States of Europe. I think Ireland would do well in such a structure.

johnnyskeleton

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I agree...until it verges in to a federalised superstate.

We laugh at the Brits now. I just hope in 30 years time we are not wondering why we didn't do the same while we had the chance.

We will always have that chance. Article 50 allows any Member State to leave at any time

johnnyskeleton

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Who said we need to throw our weight around?

You did. By saying we needed to challenge other empires:

You could see that as a call for Europe to become an empire to challenge the other empires that exist and are emerging in the world

Also, in your post asking where anyone said Europe should throw its weight around:

Europe can project power as well, but how it does so is key. Unlike the US, the EU projects economic power not military power. The EU at its core is a peace project that from its inception has used economic cooperation as a way to remove the incentive to resort to military conflict.

In more practical, contemporary terms, Im not happy with the EU sitting in on G7 meetings. 4 EU Member States are G7 Members, so they dont need to be there, and the other 24 are not in G7.

Ultimately, I dont think the response to Brexit etc is to talk about the EU as a cohesive whole. The EU has shown great unanimity since Brexit started, but I dont think that should lead to calls for increased federalisation. If anything, I think the EU needs to cool off on things like introducing more Member States or talk of Empires etc

Zubeneschamali

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Are you suggesting that at some point the EU will prevent members from leaving?

If Brexit actually happens, it will be too late for all other EU nations to leave.

Because we will all have seen the horror movie example of the UK as the one who split off from the group to rescue the pet cat.

ElectronVolt

Akrasia wrote: »

It's a really poor choice of words, but he wrote a book about this 11 years ago 'The New Age of Empires' where he explained that the era of a monopolar world is ending with the decline of US dominance and the rise of other economic and political powers like China, India, Brazil etc

He is arguing that for Europe to challenge and compete, we need to work more closely together as a federation. He's a federalist which is no secret to anyone who is paying attention, given that he helped found the spenelli group which is pushing for a federal Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinelli_Group but stupidly insists on using the word empire so that the conspiracy theorists can run with it and pretend that it's all a 'new world order' plot to take over the world

He'd want to be a lot more careful about his language though as the word is just so extremely loaded in this part of the world and in the anglosphere generally (probably due to the history of most of us having been controlled by an Empire in the not to distant past). I mean, even if you look at the use of the word "Empire" in sci-fi, it's absolutely never the good guys. It's always some fictional space autocracy led by Darth Vader, the Klingons, the Terran Empire.

Perhaps it doesn't carry the same loaded meaning in Belgium (although it probably should given their own history in Congo) but it is just an abysmal choice of words, particularly when speaking about issues that involve the relationship between the UK and Ireland.

A Shropshire Lad

Interesting the Lib Dems have committed to cancelling Brexit if they get a majority. They clearly wont get an overall majority, in the current electoral system in the UK. But they are obviously trying to outflank Labour on the remain side. Labours Brexit position is so unclear it could win the Lib Dems a lot of seats

Zubeneschamali

Podge_irl wrote: »

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

In todays world, I don't seee any option. China and the US will eat smaller states, unless like Russia they are highly militarized. The EU will turn into a federal superstate for our protection.

Don't like it? Brexit!

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

The potential of what Dominic Cummings is trying to accomplish in real life makes The Thick Of It's Malcolm Tucker seem quite benevolent in comparison, though.

Yes. I started into that series recently as had a few people recommend it and never saw it at the time. It's pretty good but of its time IMO.
The issues at stake and the childish manoeuvrings of the sweary Scot spin-doctor Tucker (assume taking a cut at Alastair Campbell) do seem quaint now set alongside the political meltdown the UK's been undergoing since 2016.

Imreoir2

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You did. By saying we needed to challenge other empires.

Would you rather that we be at the mercy of other empires?

In more practical, contemporary terms, Im not happy with the EU sitting in on G7 meetings. 4 EU Member States are G7 Members, so they dont need to be there, and the other 24 are not in G7.

Ultimately, I dont think the response to Brexit etc is to talk about the EU as a cohesive whole. The EU has shown great unanimity since Brexit started, but I dont think that should lead to calls for increased federalisation. If anything, I think the EU needs to cool off on things like introducing more Member States or talk of Empires etc

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, personally I think the EU should continue to expand, be that physically or in terms of remit as and when there is a solid case for that expansion. I don't support expansion for the sake of expansion, nor do I support restriction for the sake of restriction. The EU, in my opinion has proven itself to be an effective and competant orgnaisation that delivers many benefits to its members. There is no reason not to make use of the EU and the benefits it provides where there is a case for the benefit of further integration.

Tell me how

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You did. By saying we needed to challenge other empires:

Also, in your post asking where anyone said Europe should throw its weight around:

In more practical, contemporary terms, Im not happy with the EU sitting in on G7 meetings. 4 EU Member States are G7 Members, so they dont need to be there, and the other 24 are not in G7.

Ultimately, I dont think the response to Brexit etc is to talk about the EU as a cohesive whole. The EU has shown great unanimity since Brexit started, but I dont think that should lead to calls for increased federalisation. If anything, I think the EU needs to cool off on things like introducing more Member States or talk of Empires etc

Agree with this. It's hard to know where exactly we are in the global cycle of nationalism which in turn fueled Trump, Brexit and many right wing governments in Europe amongst others (Duterte and Bolsonaro for example). Are they just getting going? Or have we reached a point where again, societies will largely look for more collaborative and socially inclusive governments for their countries.

I hope that once Brexit has occurred (or been shelved) that we do not see moves to make it difficult for countries to leave (I don't think they made it difficult for the UK, I think the UK did that for itself with it's red lines and 'we'll call all the shots attitude') or to reduce the level of sovereignty which they have.

We, as a country, need time to focus internally again after the last couple of years.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

I hope that once Brexit has occurred (or been shelved) that we do not see moves to make it difficult for countries to leave

I think we should make it much, much easier for countries to leave. Send in an A50 letter and you are out on the spot, f*ck right off, who needs you, no negotiations, no deals you are out on your ear.

Last we'll hear of A50 from anyone, ever.

fly_agaric

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU will turn into a federal superstate for our protection.

Or it'll fail and collapse + we'll get the wonderful Eurosceptic vision of the disunited nation states of Europe all sniping at each other (hopefully just across meeting tables) and dredging up old conflicts.

There's no law of nature that says a bunch of weak European statelets can't be the new playthings of the great powers in the 21st century. A backwater sort of place where where they will vie for spheres of influence among the local yokels or if we're really unlucky (ala the middle east currently) test out their shiny new weapons and theories of warfare!

Leroy42

All this talk about the Luxembourg PM should have been more restrained, or Juncker shouldn't use a certain type of word is nonsense. At the present time the UK government is in court because there is a very high chance that they lied to their own queen and tried to ignore the rules and conventions of their own parliament.

If they are willing to go against their own parliament, their own MP's, their own Justices and justice system, and even the monarch herself, how the Luxembourg PM talks to them is not really the issue here.

Is saying that, I do think he should have simply said nothing was discussed, nothing on the table blah blah and left it at that. I get his frustration, but they are dealing with a tantrum child, one that gets its kicks from the attention of being shouted out gets them. They are interested in logic, they aren't looking for a compromise. Johnson is too busy fighting at home to be worried about the EU.

Milosmith

Boris has a funny way of talking , his words don't mean anything

They're like rambling nursery rhymes

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think we should make it much, much easier for countries to leave. Send in an A50 letter and you are out on the spot, f*ck right off, who needs you, no negotiations, no deals you are out on your ear.

Last we'll hear of A50 from anyone, ever.

It doesn't need to be made easier, in fact 2 years is quite restictive, hence the transition period.

Most countries do not have the issue of NI and the GFA. Couple that with the fact that the UK didn't want to leave the EU they just wanted it to revert back to the EEC.

Zubeneschamali

fly_agaric wrote: »

There's no law of nature that says the a bunch of weak European statelets can't be the new playthings of the great powers in the 21st century.

Precisely why a bunch of weak states are teamed up as the EU, and aren't going split up just because the UK has taken leave of its senses.

Thargor

Pretty embarrassing for Jo Swinson at the start of her revoke A50 campaign:

https://twitter.com/adam_heilbron/status/1173398729304543239
https://twitter.com/adam_heilbron/status/1173398737743486982
https://twitter.com/adam_heilbron/status/1173398746891280384

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

It doesn't need to be made easier, in fact 2 years is quite restictive, hence the transition period.

I am proposing to make it less restrictive and hence easier. No 2 years, no 2 minutes - just ask and you are out on the spot. What could be easier than that?

The current "quite difficult actually" regime has encouraged the UK to vote Leave because campaigners could pretend a magical deal with Unicorns was possible.

So change that so that everyone knows nope - f*ck off out and join the back of the queue for a trade deal.

johnnyskeleton

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Would you rather that we be at the mercy of other empires?

Well we arent at the moment and I dont see things changing. If any other country threatened an EU State, the others are obliged to come to assistance and there is also thr NATO committment. I dont think there is a compelling case for the EU to do any more than that, and Id be actively opposed to them trying to e.g. impose their views on the Middle East or South China Sea as the US is doing.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it, personally I think the EU should continue to expand, be that physically or in terms of remit as and when there is a solid case for that expansion. I don't support expansion for the sake of expansion, nor do I support restriction for the sake of restriction. The EU, in my opinion has proven itself to be an effective and competant orgnaisation that delivers many benefits to its members. There is no reason not to make use of the EU and the benefits it provides where there is a case for the benefit of further integration.

In principle, i.e. where it is to everyones clear benefit, I dont see any reason why the EU cant have new members. But in practise, we are seeing that they have gone further than some Member States feel comfortable with. A big problem for the UK is the money they pay, a lot of which is paid over to Poland etc for development. A laudible aim, no doubt, but one which the UK voters were unhappy with. Germany likewise is uneasy with its contribution to the EU budget to be paid over to Eastern European countries.

This doesnt mean its wrong in principle, just that the EU increased its membership too quickly and perhaps have too rigid criteria for joining.

If the purpose of the EU is to prevent war in Europe, then it needs to ensure it doesnt become the source of tension between member states. Brexit aside, the existing tensions within the EU need to be looked at before it increases its competencies or introduces new Member States. If it doesnt, it exposes itself to the risk of being politically overstretched.

Im concerned that the reaction to Brexiteers claiming that the EU is trying to become an empire results in senior EU politicians talking about a European Empire

jochenstacker

I always find myself watching A Different Bias.
I love Phil's wry and sarcastic take on Brexit, it gives me a tiny bit of reassurance that not all the Brits have taken leave of their senses.
He has a few interesting points on "that" press conference.
My own theory, Boris didn't fancy it and threw a tantrum, nothing more. Of course the spam and troll bots are desperately trying to twist it into something else, some kind of ambush on Boris, that he bravely avoided, but nobody is buying that sh*t. You'd have to be daft to believe it was anything other than Boris throwing a wobbler.
If someone complains that he was humiliated, yes, by himself and nobody else. Disagree?
You're wrong. Simples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_eoqV5jEFA

L1011

Thargor wrote: »

Pretty embarrassing for Jo Swinson at the start of her revoke A50 campaign:

Lib Dems went rather overboard in opposing Lisbon (it was entirely possible to be against it and still go for an inside-pissing-out approach).

She was the wrong person to pick as leader particularly as she'll lose her seat to the SNP again unless she can get them to not run against her. Liability.

Although I'm not sure Davey was much better, bar probably keeping his seat!

reslfj

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think we should make it much, much easier for countries to leave. Send in an A50 letter and you are out on the spot, f*ck right off, who needs you, no negotiations, no deals you are out on your ear.

Last we'll hear of A50 from anyone, ever.

Isn't that tempting us to "fly to others that we know not of" ?

Something you absolutely shouldn't.

"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" /Mat 6:13

Lars

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The current "quite difficult actually" regime has encouraged the UK to vote Leave because campaigners could pretend a magical deal with Unicorns was possible.

I really don't think it made any difference. Facts were not the problem it was the people weren't listening. I remember listening to some interview or Podcast prior to the vote, where some professor of Law was summarising the issues of trying to sort out the complex interlinked laws and how long it would take. I don't recall exactly, but he said it would take years.

Nothing to do with trade EU citizens, NI. Just to sort of the law in the UK would take ages. But people didn't vote on that. And even now, No Deal is seen as a minor bump in the road, before the real negotiations can begin. That everything, it appears to me form what I have heard/read, will continue on as now, except that the UK will save on memberships fees.

If anything the 2 year timeframe is too short. 10 years. Notify A50 and 10 years later you can leave. This isn't a golf club, other countries have modified their systems on the basis on each other country, as we are seeing it causes a major headache to change the system.

[Deleted User]

Podge_irl wrote: »

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

How many referendums do you think it will need to get that approval (the correct answer).

lawred2

Podge_irl wrote: »

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

Not sure I'd have much concern with a federal superstate

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many referendums do you think it will need to get that approval (the correct answer).

A Shropshire Lad

L1011 wrote: »

She was the wrong person to pick as leader particularly as she'll lose her seat to the SNP again unless she can get them to not run against her. Liability.

So certain are you ?

ltd440

Deleted User wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote: »

It can't turn into a federalised superstate without our explicit approval so I don't really see the issue. It's pointless scaremongering.

How many referendums do you think it will need to get that approval (the correct answer).

The UK has had 2 so far (I think) how many do you want them to have