Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

djpbarry wrote: »

This idea that the German economy is somehow massively dependent on the UK is a piece of fiction produced by the British media. Sure, Germany trades plenty with the UK, but it trades plenty with lots of countries – the UK is far more dependent on trade with the EU than Germany is on trade with the UK.

I also very much doubt that 20 of the 27 EU nations which must ratify the UK-EU trade deal will care much about the German car manufacturers who apparently run the Bundestag.

smjm

swampgas wrote: »

Indeed, but consider that Cameron already tried to negotiate concessions already, and got very little then. Why? Because the UK were looking to change the fundamental principles of the EU. I think both sides already know where the other stands.

The Leave movement want an end to freedom of movement. The EU simply can't concede that.
[...]

Yes, but the UK was trying to change fundamental principles and stay a member of the EU - that's not the case any more. The UK/EU negotiations will now be held on the clear understanding that the UK will not be a member of the EU at the end of them. Previous negotiations thus have no bearing on negotiations now. I just read a short but interesting article called 'the Lichtenstein solution' written by Richard North, the UKIP founder. If people ignore the source and concentrate on the substance, it's quite informative and shows that the freedom of movement principle within the single market is not set in stone.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122

smjm

smjm wrote: »

Yes, but the UK was trying to change fundamental principles and stay a member of the EU - that's not the case any more. The UK/EU negotiations will now be held on the clear understanding that the UK will not be a member of the EU at the end of them. Previous negotiations thus have no bearing on negotiations now. I just read a short but interesting article called 'the Lichtenstein solution' written by Richard North, the UKIP founder. If people ignore the source and concentrate on the substance, it's quite informative and shows that the freedom of movement principle within the single market is not set in stone.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122

As useful as referring to Greenland's exit process as a template for the UK's.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

This idea that the German economy is somehow massively dependent on the UK is a piece of fiction produced by the British media. Sure, Germany trades plenty with the UK, but it trades plenty with lots of countries – the UK is far more dependent on trade with the EU than Germany is on trade with the UK.

No one said massively dependant. Just that they will want to keep selling what they are currently selling.

You can also add France to the list: the UK is the country with which it has the largest trade surplus.

El Inho

Satire piece I threw together. Bit more sensational perhaps than the tongue in cheek it was meant to be!

Brexit: Is the United Kingdom on track for a dystopian future?

http://goos3d.ie/brexit-prequel-dystopian-future/

smjm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I also very much doubt that 20 of the 27 EU nations which must ratify the UK-EU trade deal will care much about the German car manufacturers who apparently run the Bundestag.

Ah, that's what I wanted to know, thank you. Only 20 of the 27 have to agree and Ireland does not have a veto. That could work out very badly for Ireland! Enda needs to have a loud voice at the table!

smjm

Deleted User wrote: »

As useful as referring to Greenland's exit process as a template for the UK's.

I disagree, and I see the two as separate issues, but time will tell!

swampgas

smjm wrote: »

Ah, that's what I wanted to know, thank you. Only 20 of the 27 have to agree and Ireland does not have a veto. That could work out very badly for Ireland! Enda needs to have a loud voice at the table!

Just as well we weren't banging on tables and threatening to bring the house down around us last time then, isn't it?

Amerika

With the vote in and Brexit winning, what is the thinking now of the EU plans to merge the member states militaries into a giant Euro army? And if a Euro army is established, who controls it and where would their allegiances lie?

smjm

smjm wrote: »

I disagree, and I see the two as separate issues, but time will tell!

The scale of the issues means that they're not appropriate for use as a template to anything!

ancapailldorcha

smjm wrote: »

Ah, that's what I wanted to know, thank you. Only 20 of the 27 have to agree and Ireland does not have a veto. That could work out very badly for Ireland! Enda needs to have a loud voice at the table!

I think the EEA option is likeliest with a high fee for access to the single market as a punitive measure. No idea how vetoes were allocated unless it was by economic size and contribution. 28 vetoes would be a disaster.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

With the vote in and Brexit winning, what is the thinking now of the EU plans to merge the member states militaries into a giant Euro army? And if a Euro army is established, who controls it and where would their allegiances lie?

Simple. There aren't any beyond the musings of a few Eurocrats.

Nody

smjm wrote: »

I just read a short but interesting article called 'the Lichtenstein solution' written by Richard North, the UKIP founder. If people ignore the source and concentrate on the substance, it's quite informative and shows that the freedom of movement principle within the single market is not set in stone.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86122

Excluding minor issues such as the land area being a key driver in that decision making the whole thing not comparable there's also no chance in hell UK will get that kind of approval from Poland etc. in the first place.

UKIP can talk it up all they want but if you listen to the people who actually need to make things happen the one thing repeated is they expect free movement of all EU citizens after exit as well.

Amerika wrote: »

With the vote in and Brexit winning, what is the thinking now of the EU plans to merge the member states militaries into a giant Euro army? And if a Euro army is established, who controls it and where would their allegiances lie?

Same as before which is it will never happen; at "best" it would become a UN peace force type of deal where members are allowed to contribute X to a EU peace force if they so desire from their national armies.

smjm

Deleted User wrote: »

The scale of the issues means that they're not appropriate for use as a template to anything!

The article points out that there are existing mechanisms in place that counteract the notion that freedom of movement is an absolute requirement of participation in the single market for non-EU states. All I'm trying to say!

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

Excluding minor issues such as the land area being a key driver in that decision making the whole thing not comparable there's also no chance in hell UK will get that kind of approval from Poland etc. in the first place.

UKIP can talk it up all they want but if you listen to the people who actually need to make things happen the one thing repeated is they expect free movement of all EU citizens after exit as well.

Currently, the EEA option does not include access to the single market for financial services which constitute about 80% of the UK's GDP so that's not a great option in and of itself. The Icelandic example there was in 2008, ie the financial crash and the country was an economic headcase for quite a while. As I stated above, 20 out of the 27 remaining EU states must agree to the deal which will include most of the status quo and possibly exclude services.

swampgas

smjm wrote: »

The article points out that there are existing mechanisms in place that counteract the notion that freedom of movement is an absolute requirement of participation in the single market for non-EU states. All I'm trying to say!

It's a non-starter. It would set a dangerous precedent, and would be seen as a massive U-turn by the EU.

Enzokk

Nigel Farage really is his own worst enemy. He wants to be part of the EU negotiation team, or have a seat at the table discussing the exit deal yet he acts like a small child without any manners whenever he is at a grown up table. He also isn't asking for much, just a tariff free deal without any immigration. Apparently he thinks those people that buy BMWs, Audis and Mercs in the UK will gladly switch over to UK assembled cars at a moments notice. A BMW 320d is no match for the new Nissan Note though...

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Currently, the EEA option does not include access to the single market for financial services which constitute about 80% of the UK's GDP so that's not a great option in and of itself. The Icelandic example there was in 2008, ie the financial crash and the country was an economic headcase for quite a while. As I stated above, 20 out of the 27 remaining EU states must agree to the deal which will include most of the status quo and possibly exclude services.

This article says differently for the EEA though if they want a special deal (which means the EU deal would probably be easier than a EEA deal).

But Michael Dougan, professor of EU law at Liverpool University, said that even if such a trade bloc was likely, it was "not nearly as desirable as what we are just giving up."

He said that membership of the EEA would require the unanimous consent of all 27 member states, the European Parliament, and the four European Free Trade Association states, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

"That's 32 vetoes," he told The Independent.

ancapailldorcha

Enzokk wrote: »

Nigel Farage really is his own worst enemy. He wants to be part of the EU negotiation team, or have a seat at the table discussing the exit deal yet he acts like a small child without any manners whenever he is at a grown up table. He also isn't asking for much, just a tariff free deal without any immigration. Apparently he thinks those people that buy BMWs, Audis and Mercs in the UK will gladly switch over to UK assembled cars at a moments notice. A BMW 320d is no match for the new Nissan Note though...

He's acting like a petulant child at this stage. I think it is pathetic to be honest.

Nody wrote: »

This article says differently for the EEA though if they want a special deal (which means the EU deal would probably be easier than a EEA deal).

The Economist said the same thing. I'd be inclined to go with that. However, I found a PDF saying 20 out of 27 here.

Nody

[QUOTE=ancapailldorcha;100187549The Economist said the same thing. I'd be inclined to go with that. However, I found a PDF saying 20 out of 27 here.[/QUOTE]I think the difference is the deal being struck, EEA requires 34/34 votes but the EU deal (which does not necessary include a deal with the EEA) only requires 20/27 votes.

Amerika

Nody wrote: »

Same as before which is it will never happen; at "best" it would become a UN peace force type of deal where members are allowed to contribute X to a EU peace force if they so desire from their national armies.

I understand the UK has always stood in the way of any plans for an EU army, making it a pipe dream. But now that the UK have voted to leave the EU, isn’t there now a higher likelihood of it coming to fruition down the line? What are the powerful EU countries thoughts on the subject?

An EU army would be beneficial for the US. It would mean we could diminish the cost of having such a large military presence in Europe. (But knowing us, we would probably just move the operations to the UK.)

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

I understand the UK has always stood in the way of any plans for an EU army, making it a pipe dream. But now that the UK have voted to leave the EU, isn’t there now a higher likelihood of it coming to fruition down the line? What are the powerful EU countries thoughts on the subject?

An EU army would be beneficial for the US. It would mean we could diminish the cost of having such a large military presence in Europe.

The French vetoed the idea when it was floated in 1975. It's a fantasy, plain and simple. It would require the assent of all EU member states which would be impossible given the current climate.

ancapailldorcha

This, from the BBC might be helpful:



Source.

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Amerika wrote: »

I understand the UK has always stood in the way of any plans for an EU army, making it a pipe dream. But now that the UK have voted to leave the EU, isn t there now a higher likelihood of it coming to fruition down the line? What are the powerful EU countries thoughts on the subject?

An EU army would be beneficial for the US. It would mean we could diminish the cost of having such a large military presence in Europe.

The French vetoed the idea when it was floated in 1975. It's a fantasy, plain and simple. It would require the assent of all EU member states which would be impossible given the current climate.

Plus an army makes sense if you can build a coherent foreign policy and nominate a commander in chief. Since the EU currently is a club of countries with strong ties and common values, but not always overlapping national interests, I don't see how it could provide any of those at this stage.

smjm

Bob24 wrote: »

Plus an army makes sense if you can build a coherent foreign policy and nominate a commander in chief. Since the EU currently is a club of countries with strong ties and common values, but not always overlapping national interests, I don't see how it could provide any of those at this stage.

Certainly not at this stage, but clearly a long-term ideal for some EU enthusiasts, many of whom are probably happy to see the back of the UK.

Harika

smjm wrote: »

Certainly not at this stage, but clearly a long-term ideal for some EU idealists, many of whom are probably happy to see the back of the UK.

An EU army would make sense, if you look at the states of nearly all EU national armies. Underfunded, with outdated material and no clear focus. By removing 27 organisational structures, you can streamline this and with the overall savings update gear and training. And managed by an EU minister you can focus on what is important to EU interests, like securing the Mediterranean borders. To manage this is the hardest part and a lot of national interest is at play here. On the other side you have a lot of people that are afraid of an EU army.

whatever_

Harika wrote: »

smjm wrote: »

Certainly not at this stage, but clearly a long-term ideal for some EU idealists, many of whom are probably happy to see the back of the UK.

An EU army would make sense, if you look at the states of nearly all EU national armies. Underfunded, with outdated material and no clear focus. By removing 27 organisational structures, you can streamline this and with the overall savings update gear and training. And managed by an EU minister you can focus on what is important to EU interests, like securing the Mediterranean borders. To manage this is the hardest part and a lot of national interest is at play here. On the other side you have a lot of people that are afraid of an EU army.

Tell me this is a joke ! The EU cannot even agree on a strategy for dealing with migrants, let alone on who it is going to shoot at !

jpfahy

Go Nigel, agree with him completely. The EU is a joke

Harika

whatever_ wrote: »

Tell me this is a joke ! The EU cannot even agree on a strategy for dealing with migrants, let alone on who it is going to shoot at !

This is what you can solve by having one army, and not 27. What you describe is the situation atm in a lot of areas where national interests are always playing against EU interests. The Brexit is now the chance to create reforms that are a leap ahead. Main problem are our politicians that are maintainers and no creators. We don't have a strong Axis like Mitterand-Kohl in the 80s. We have a weak Hollande with Merkel that is lacking a vision for Europe.

Amerika

whatever_ wrote: »

Tell me this is a joke ! The EU cannot even agree on a strategy for dealing with migrants, let alone on who it is going to shoot at !

So with growing threats from Russia (and to a lesser extend China) - and with the exit of the UK from the EU - and lackluster militaries in EU member nations - and in lieu of an EU army, does Europe expect the United States to become a stronger leader and more active in the NATO alliance?