Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bob24

Harika wrote: »

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.

And who will decide when and where to use that army?

smjm

Harika wrote: »

This is what you can solve by having one army, and not 27.

We could solve a lot of problems in this country by having one bin company, and not 27 - or whatever the number is! Not sure which of those two things is the most likely!

Harika

smjm wrote: »

We could solve a lot of problems in this country by having one bin company, and not 27 - or whatever the number is! Not sure which of those two things is the most likely!

Here you compare the market, where it is good for you as consumer, to have competition, with armies, that are thankfully not competing against each other.

smjm

Amerika wrote: »

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?

I don't personally see Russia or China as growing threats on a large scale. NATO's just fine as it is; no need for sabre rattling or greatly increasing its strength. An EU Army would be more likely to cause a war than prevent it, IMO!

whatever_

smjm wrote: »

Harika wrote: »

This is what you can solve by having one army, and not 27.

We could solve a lot of problems in this country by having one bin company, and not 27 - or whatever the number is! Not sure which of those two things is the most likely!

You may end up with one big army, but the chances that they shoot at any agreed enemy and not at each other are remote !

Harika

Bob24 wrote: »

And who will decide when and where to use that army?

Good question, I have no idea what would be best to ensure the army is operational and democratic legitimated at the same time.

smjm

whatever_ wrote: »

You may end up with one big army, but the chances that they shoot at any agreed enemy and not at each other are remote !

I'm not advocating an EU Army, in case you think otherwise!

Nody

Harika wrote: »

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.

An EU Army can only happen if EU becomes one nation with one government; even then you'd have arguments over what region's solders got sent "to get killed". The simple fact is EU should not, and will not, become a single country anytime soon short of extreme external pressure (think Russia going to war with USA while Aliens invade).

What EU should focus on is to become a better trade union and streamline things such as trade, RD&Q, transport, harmonization of internal transport etc., deal with the multi billion scams and stop BS such as moving the offices to Strasbourg twice a year (at a cost over 250MM EUR) or overpaying a ton of politicians tax free in the parliament for life. EU Army, financial tax for funding themselves etc. is not what they should focus on. Prove that they can do their current job and cut the bloat; then we can talk about integrating further (which will also help sell the project to the people in the countries by showing they are actually capable of doing their job). Thankfully this is also the direction several leading national politicians such as Merkel appears to be looking towards; to bad EU will do what every bureaucracy does and sabotage it for it's own survival rather than for the people it was set up to serve.

cml387

Amerika wrote: »

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?

NATO existed long before there was a European Union.

This is a thread derailing argument.

Jimoslimos

smjm wrote: »

I don't personally see Russia or China as growing threats on a large scale. NATO's just fine as it is; no need for sabre rattling or greatly increasing its strength. An EU Army would be more likely to cause a war than prevent it, IMO!

Ukraine says hello!

Indeed which state in that region has done more to prevent greater integration between Ukraine and Europe?

I wonder who would benefit most from the fracturing of the European Union...

Harika

Nody wrote: »

An EU Army can only happen if EU becomes one nation with one government; even then you'd have arguments over what region's solders got sent "to get killed". The simple fact is EU should not, and will not, become a single country anytime soon short of extreme external pressure (think Russia going to war with USA while Aliens invade).

We already having similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup So far unused. So to deepen that, shouldn't be an issue.

Nody wrote: »

What EU should focus on is to become a better trade union and streamline things such as trade, RD&Q, transport, harmonization of internal transport etc., deal with the multi billion scams and stop BS such as moving the offices to Strasbourg twice a year (at a cost over 250MM EUR) or overpaying a ton of politicians tax free in the parliament for life. EU Army, financial tax for funding themselves etc. is not what they should focus on. Prove that they can do their current job and cut the bloat; then we can talk about integrating further (which will also help sell the project to the people in the countries by showing they are actually capable of doing their job). Thankfully this is also the direction several leading national politicians such as Merkel appears to be looking towards; to bad EU will do what every bureaucracy does and sabotage it for it's own survival rather than for the people it was set up to serve.

In reality, they can do both as for each area you have specialists/ministers that will handle the tasks. And a lot of problems you mention are caused by lacking integration. As long as a country can create e.g. tax loopholes to profit it will do so. And back in Strasbourg then, they will ensure it keeps that way, as it is best for their country and ensures their re-election.

Amerika

cml387 wrote: »

This is a thread derailing argument.

No it isn’t. The UK has the second most powerful military, after France, in the EU nations. I believe it to be a rational question, as a US citizen, to wonder if because of the Brexit that the EU will find a way to form a better cohesion of their remain member country militaries, or expect the US to take up the slack.

smjm

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Ukraine says hello!

Indeed which state in that region has done more to prevent greater integration between Ukraine and Europe?

I wonder who would benefit most from the fracturing of the European Union...

I said

I don't personally see Russia or China as growing threats on a large scale

You highlighted the wrong bit.

Harika

Amerika wrote: »

No it isn’t. The UK has the second most powerful military, after France, in the EU nations. I believe it to be a rational question, as a US citizen, to wonder if because of the Brexit that the EU will find a way to form a better cohesion of their remain member country militaries, or expect the US to take up the slack.

Since the Ukraine War, Nato has become far more active in eastern Europe again, ironically before that the US moved their focus away to the Pacific.

micosoft

swampgas wrote: »

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

I agree but that is aside from the fact that you just can't have a single market without freedom of movement. There seems to be an odd idea that they are not interrelated concepts. You can't have one without the other.

Freedom of movement balances out a large economy like the EU by giving, for example, for the UK free access to dominate the financial services sector in the EU while allowing states that can't compete in that space such as Poland have workers migrate to the UK for gainful employment.

Otherwise you are quite literally forcing poorer countries to open their markets to hyper-competitive rich countries with no escape valve for their people to go get employment in the economy that benefits (the UK in this case).

Sam Russell

micosoft wrote: »

I agree but that is aside from the fact that you just can't have a single market without freedom of movement. There seems to be an odd idea that they are not interrelated concepts. You can't have one without the other.

Freedom of movement balances out a large economy like the EU by giving, for example, for the UK free access to dominate the financial services sector in the EU while allowing states that can't compete in that space such as Poland have workers migrate to the UK for gainful employment.

Otherwise you are quite literally forcing poorer countries to open their markets to hyper-competitive rich countries with no escape valve for their people to go get employment in the economy that benefits (the UK in this case).

There is a proposal for a transaction tax within the EU. The UK government opposed it as it would affect the City of London adversely. It could be the price exacted by the EU for a free market access for the UK. That would be a shot in the foot for the UK.

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

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

Sure, but this idea that Germany will bend over backwards to accommodate the UK just so they can keep selling them cars is fanciful to say the least.

Godge

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is a proposal for a transaction tax within the EU. The UK government opposed it as it would affect the City of London adversely. It could be the price exacted by the EU for a free market access for the UK. That would be a shot in the foot for the UK.

If the UK wants access to the Single Market, it will have to obey all the rules of the Single Market without having any say in it. If the EU makes a new rule - say transaction tax - the UK would just have to swallow that.


http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

See at 15:36 "Leave campaigner on trade and the Tory leadership race"

"The UK may or may not be "at the back of the queue" for a trade deal with the United States, as President Obama has said, but it would be at "the front of the queue for a trade deal with Taiwan", according to Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg."


Oh boy, oh boy, the delusions of the Leave campaigners. What in the world has Taiwan to offer the UK?

djpbarry

jpfahy wrote: »

Go Nigel, agree with him completely.

Which bit do you agree with exactly? I ask because, along with the rest of the Leave campaigners, he seems to be changing his arguments on a daily basis.

Immigration

The campaign claim: Immigration levels could be controlled if the UK left the EU. This would relieve pressure on public services.

The current claim: Immigration levels can't be radically reduced by leaving the EU. Fears about immigration did not influence the way people voted.

…

Contributions to the EU budget

The campaign claim: We send £350m a week to Brussels, which could be spent on the NHS instead.

The current claim: The claim was a mistake, and we will not be able to spend that much extra on the NHS.

…

The single market

The campaign claim: Some on the Leave side suggested the UK does not need preferential access to the single market.

The current claim: The UK should get preferential access to the single market but will not have to accept freedom of movement to get it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36641390

Sam Russell

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure, but this idea that Germany will bend over backwards to accommodate the UK just so they can keep selling them cars is fanciful to say the least.

The people in the UK that currently buy Mercs, Beamers, and other premium brands are not going to stop buying them just because they are a little dearer - they are already very dear now - so a few percent more just makes them more desirable.

micosoft

Sam Russell wrote: »

There is a proposal for a transaction tax within the EU. The UK government opposed it as it would affect the City of London adversely. It could be the price exacted by the EU for a free market access for the UK. That would be a shot in the foot for the UK.

Any solution the UK walks away with is going to be worse. It's an interesting idea but the question is
- Would the countries affected by lack of Freedom of Movement accept that as a sufficient recompense for the removal of the escape valve to the UK?
- Who gets the transaction tax money? My understanding is that national governments would collect in their jurisdiction. I think the EU taxing the City of London would be beyond belief!
- Does it set a precedent (perhaps France would like fewer migrant workers)?
- How does Irish exceptionalism work?
I think there are enough members to veto this tbh.

And that is completely leaving aside the fact the British Economy actually needs these workers!

Harika

Sam Russell wrote: »

The people in the UK that currently buy Mercs, Beamers, and other premium brands are not going to stop buying them just because they are a little dearer - they are already very dear now - so a few percent more just makes them more desirable.

Most of those cars are produced anyway in the UK, the problem exists if cars for the EU market are produced in UK and those companies have to deal with import and export regulations. Hungary already send out advertisements to those companies to show their willingness to make place for their factories.
And to which UK brand can the loyal UK customer switch?

micosoft

Godge wrote: »

If the UK wants access to the Single Market, it will have to obey all the rules of the Single Market without having any say in it. If the EU makes a new rule - say transaction tax - the UK would just have to swallow that.


http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

See at 15:36 "Leave campaigner on trade and the Tory leadership race"

"The UK may or may not be "at the back of the queue" for a trade deal with the United States, as President Obama has said, but it would be at "the front of the queue for a trade deal with Taiwan", according to Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg."


Oh boy, oh boy, the delusions of the Leave campaigners. What in the world has Taiwan to offer the UK?

LOL. Rees-Mogg forgetting the small matter of how China will view any relations with Taiwan.... just try and negotiate trade deals with both Peoples Republic of China and Republic of China simultaneously to understand you are a minnow... It seems that a section of the British Public and body politic actually have been infected with Mad Cow disease.

micosoft

micosoft wrote: »

LOL. Rees-Mogg forgetting the small matter of how China will view any relations with Taiwan.... just try and negotiate trade deals with both Peoples Republic of China and Republic of China simultaneously to understand you are a minnow... It seems that a section of the British Public and body politic actually have been infected with Mad Cow disease.

[

http://www.snopes.com/mad-cow-versus-brexit/

CLAIM: Areas that voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 'Brexit' vote were the same areas effected by Mad Cow Disease in 1992.

FALSE

(just before anyone thinks that's you're suggesting it's valid!)

smjm

"European Council President Donald Tusk has turned down a meeting with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon" - Sky News

Also, Labour MPs have backed a motion of no confidence in party leader Jeremy Corbyn by 172 to 40.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

No it isn’t. The UK has the second most powerful military, after France, in the EU nations. I believe it to be a rational question, as a US citizen, to wonder if because of the Brexit that the EU will find a way to form a better cohesion of their remain member country militaries, or expect the US to take up the slack.

Short answer is Brexit will have little affect on a EU army.

K-9

Godge wrote: »

If the UK wants access to the Single Market, it will have to obey all the rules of the Single Market without having any say in it. If the EU makes a new rule - say transaction tax - the UK would just have to swallow that.


http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

See at 15:36 "Leave campaigner on trade and the Tory leadership race"

"The UK may or may not be "at the back of the queue" for a trade deal with the United States, as President Obama has said, but it would be at "the front of the queue for a trade deal with Taiwan", according to Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg."


Oh boy, oh boy, the delusions of the Leave campaigners. What in the world has Taiwan to offer the UK?

Ah MP Jacob Rees Mogg, the honorable member for the 19th century!

He's a likeable sort.

Bob24

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure, but this idea that Germany will bend over backwards to accommodate the UK just so they can keep selling them cars is fanciful to say the least.

Again lets not use hyperbole and look at the facts.

The UK is the country with second largest trade surplus for Germany and the single largest for France.

With the two most influential remaining EU members having more to lose than to gain in terms of trade balance if trade barriers are introduced, while they won't "bend over backwards" they will at least be open to discussion.

K-9

Harika wrote: »

Most of those cars are produced anyway in the UK, the problem exists if cars for the EU market are produced in UK and those companies have to deal with import and export regulations. Hungary already send out advertisements to those companies to show their willingness to make place for their factories.
And to which UK brand can the loyal UK customer switch?

The biggest market will have the most pull naturally enough, so British car manufacturers will have to bend to EU requirements by and large. If the EU makes regulations regarding emissions the British can't just ignore or even do a deal on them. But unfortunately a lot of the leave campaign was based on this idea, 5th largest economy, forgetting you are leaving the worlds largest trading bloc.

And as you pointed out, Hungary or Slovakia will be targeting any company that might think this isn't worth all this, Ireland in other sectors too.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

Again lets not use hyperbole and look at the facts.

The UK is the country with second largest trade surplus for Germany and the single largest for France.

With the two most influential remaining EU members having more to lose than to gain in terms of trade balance if trade barriers are introduced, while they won't "bend over backwards" they will at least be open to discussion.

This is just the trade surplus and gives a misleading picture. The UK only accounts for 6-7% of the 27 other members' exports (Source).