Brexit Referendum Superthread

Thomas_...

The view from the EU negotiator (also from the BBC News):

Brexit deal needed before 2019 elections - EU's Verhofstadt

The European Parliament's lead negotiator on Brexit, Guy Verhofstadt, says the EU needs to have an agreement on UK withdrawal before the next European elections in May or June 2019.
...
He will participate in the talks along with negotiators from the European Commission and the ministerial Council.

The talks are likely to start in 2017.
...
"I want the UK to trigger Article 50 as soon as possible, so we can finalise these negotiations by 2019. I can't imagine we start the next legislative cycle without agreement over UK withdrawal."

Mr Verhofstadt is sympathetic to the Scottish government's case for keeping Scotland in the EU. Whereas 52% voted to leave the EU in the UK as a whole, in Scotland 62% voted to remain.
...
The UK is expected to have at least two sets of negotiations on Brexit - one to deal with the technicalities of withdrawal and another to cover the UK's future relations with the EU, including all-important trade ties. The latter is expected to take longer - some say it could take a decade.
...
Mr Verhofstadt, leader of the liberal ALDE group in Europe, said "the position of the parliament is very clear - if the UK wants to remain part of the single market, it'll have to accept the free movement of our citizens.

"In the opinion of parliament the four freedoms of the Union are inseparable."

The other three freedoms are: free movement of capital, services and goods.
...

Good prospect for Scotland though and no quick settlement on trade between the UK and EU in a short time, rather the technical issues for the UK´s exit might get swifter.

Jim2007

Thomas_... wrote: »

The view from the EU negotiator (also from the BBC News):

It is the view of one of the three...

Jim2007

Thomas_... wrote: »

Mr Tusk sounds more conciliatory but he s not the one who can make the decisions, they will be made by all of the 27 remaining member states.

If there is no requirement for a treaty change, then all that is needed is agreement from the Commission, the Parliament and a majority decision from the Council of Ministers, representing 65% of the population of the EU.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

It is the view of one of the three...

Yes it is. Just that the other one of the three who is widely perceived as the most strongheaded and apparent grave digger of the EU already reiterated his stance which means that there will be no cherry picking for the UK and this one just confirmed that too.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

If there is no requirement for a treaty change, then all that is needed is agreement from the Commission, the Parliament and a majority decision from the Council of Ministers, representing 65% of the population of the EU.

As simple and easy as this sounds, the whole thing is much more complicated and tensions within the negotiating once it has commenced will go along with it until they achieve an agreement.

When this current trend in EU countries continues where more people are going to vote for right-wing or even far-right parties, it won´t get easier for all.

The UK is playing of time but this could as well backfire on them in case that in France the FN and Le Pen get stronger and even win the Presidential election, as in Germany next year that Merkel might face her downfall in the 2017 GE with the AfD getting stronger as well and in Italy with an upcoming referendum on which Renzi has ralted his political future to (that means that if he loses the referendum he´ll resign).

The refugee (migrant) crisis and linked to it also the terror of Islamists in Europe has an impact on all of that which shouldn´t be underestimated because it can lead to a change in the governments of the member states.

Zubeneschamali

Thomas_... wrote: »

The UK is expected to have at least two sets of negotiations on Brexit - one to deal with the technicalities of withdrawal and another to cover the UK's future relations with the EU, including all-important trade ties. The latter is expected to take longer - some say it could take a decade

One possibility might be for the UK to accept free movement and EU regulation for a transitional period to keep access to the single market, and negotiate trade and immigration together on that longer 10 year timeframe.

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

One possibility might be for the UK to accept free movement and EU regulation for a transitional period to keep access to the single market, and negotiate trade and immigration together on that longer 10 year timeframe.

That won´t do for the Brexiteers and their demand to see a curb on Immigration and Mrs May knows that. It is only an option when the UKIP is losing support from the public and faces a decline in elections.

I´m sure that Mr Cameron had never called or even thought about a EU Referendum if it wasn´t for the UKIP breathing down his neck and threatening to gain more voters at his expence from the Tory camp. He certainly had some good intentions, but that wasn´t enough to succeed and get back home with a better deal with the EU than what was on offer and I´m rather sure that the post-Brexit UK govt won´t get better conditions than those Mr Cameron got.

The Immigration subject might get an alteration in the event of more right-wing or even far-right parties are voted into power across the EU member states. Then there will be consense on the matter and they´d rather easily agree on a programm to re-patriate migrants with non-EU nationality. Left-wing and Centre governments are rather unlikely to take a u-turn on that matter and if they would, only by hard pressure from the far-right breathing down their necks on the basis of increasing support from the public.

Thomas_...

The problems that might bring the EU to the breaking point aren´t even attended to be solved and this Mr Juncker comes up with another stupid proposals that is more likely to bring a further split into the EU than anything:

From the BBC News:

EU's Juncker proposes headquarters for European army

The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.

Jean-Claude Juncker said the lack of a "permanent structure" resulted in money being wasted on missions.
...
The Brexit vote has given added impetus to plans for greater defence co-operation, because the UK has always objected to the potential conflict of interest with Nato.

But Mr Juncker said a common military force "should be in complement to Nato". "More defence in Europe doesn't mean less transatlantic solidarity."

A European Defence Fund would stimulate military research and development, he said.
...
Anti-EU MEPs lined up to criticise Mr Juncker's rallying cry.
...
◾Peter Lundgren of the anti-migrant Sweden Democrats said his country had always been neutral militarily. "We don't want to be forced into this type of military co-operation," he said
...

No statement from an Irish MEP so far, as Ireland is also a military neutral country like Sweden.

Junckers proposal is again bollix cos it doesn´t considers the neutrality of some of the EU member states. This man is really the wrong person on a very important post. The fact that he´s "unelected" makes it even worse.

wes

Thomas_... wrote: »

Junckers proposal is again bollix cos it doesn´t considers the neutrality of some of the EU member states.

If the proposal allows countries like Ireland to opt out, then I don't see any real issue. I do agree, stupid thing to announce at this point, but it won't go ahead without consent of the member states.

Thomas_...

Not quite related to the topic of this thread, but in this BBC News article, it shows what fruites the Brexit let grow somewhere else on this planet. Seems that the Australians have their own Farage and likeminded party there too, just that the subject in that case is not the EU but the UN, but EU and UN means quite one and the same to them and they take pattern on the Brexit:

bbc.com/news/world-australia-37335543

Malcolm Roberts: Australian senator wants 'OzExit' from UN

A newly elected senator has used his first speech to call for Australia to take inspiration from the UK's Brexit and leave the United Nations.

Senator Malcolm Roberts was elected by Queensland as a member of the anti-immigration One Nation party.
...
Mr Roberts told the Senate "We need an OzExit" to escape the "unelected swill" of the UN.

"Australia's values and way of life are also at risk from insidious institutions such as the unelected swill that is the United Nations," he said.

"The EU is a template for total socialist domination of Europe through unelected bodies, such as the IMF, forcing their frightening agenda on the people. It is also the UN's template, and Australia must leave the UN."
...
"We are not worried what the establishment says about us," Mr Roberts said.

"We are not here for the establishment. We are here for everyday people and our nation."
...
Ms Hanson, 62, who also delivered a speech to the senate on Wednesday, repeated her call for a ban on Muslim immigration.
...
"If we don't make changes now, have no doubt we'll be living under Sharia law," she said.

She also called for those who did not assimilate to Australia's culture to "go back from where you came from", according to The Sydney Morning Herald.

"I suggest you go back where you came from. I'll take you to the airport and wave you goodbye," she said.

A number of Green senators walked out of the chamber during her speech.

Jim2007

Thomas_... wrote: »

The problems that might bring the EU to the breaking point aren t even attended to be solved and this Mr Juncker comes up with another stupid proposals that is more likely to bring a further split into the EU than anything:

From the BBC News:

EU's Juncker proposes headquarters for European army

The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.

Jean-Claude Juncker said the lack of a "permanent structure" resulted in money being wasted on missions.
...
The Brexit vote has given added impetus to plans for greater defence co-operation, because the UK has always objected to the potential conflict of interest with Nato.

But Mr Juncker said a common military force "should be in complement to Nato". "More defence in Europe doesn't mean less transatlantic solidarity."

A European Defence Fund would stimulate military research and development, he said.
...
Anti-EU MEPs lined up to criticise Mr Juncker's rallying cry.
...
Peter Lundgren of the anti-migrant Sweden Democrats said his country had always been neutral militarily. "We don't want to be forced into this type of military co-operation," he said
...

No statement from an Irish MEP so far, as Ireland is also a military neutral country like Sweden.

Junckers proposal is again bollix cos it doesn t considers the neutrality of some of the EU member states. This man is really the wrong person on a very important post. The fact that he s "unelected" makes it even worse.

- The Irish government has a policy of neutrality, it's not the same thing.

- The proposal originates from Germany/France and has the support of most eastern states, it's Juncker's baby.

Thomas_...

wes wrote: »

If the proposal allows countries like Ireland to opt out, then I don't see any real issue. I do agree, stupid thing to announce at this point, but it won't go ahead without consent of the member states.

The idea is much displaced and unnecessary with no merit because that would bring countries which are already EU and NATO member states into a further military commitment and cost more money.

Mr Juncker can´t let go of his dream of the EU superstate that nobody but himself and some of his chums really want. NATO is good enough and even more effective than any EU Army will become. It simply costs too much money.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

- The Irish government has a policy of neutrality, it's not the same thing.

- The proposal originates from Germany/France and has the support of most eastern states, it's Juncker's baby.

There is already close co-operation among EU member states which are also members of NATO, there is even a German-French Brigade that works by now for 20 years or even longer.

I´m against this idea of an EU Army cos NATO can serve better for various reasons.

Jim2007

Thomas_... wrote: »

Mr Juncker can t let go of his dream of the EU superstate that nobody but himself and some of his chums really want.

It remains that Juncker owes is position to the fact that he was appointed by parties who support a more integrated Europe because the majority of voters across the EU voted them in.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

It remains that Juncker owes is position to the fact that he was appointed by parties who support a more integrated Europe because the majority of voters across the EU voted them in.

Yes, that was the way the deal was done and Juncker got his post. Though, I doubt that the voters you are referring to really knew that they would vote for such developments in 2014.

Jim2007

Thomas_... wrote: »

I m against this idea of an EU Army cos NATO can serve better for various reasons.

The sooner NATO closes down the sooner we (Europe) remove our link and support from war mongers like the US/UK.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

The sooner NATO closes down the sooner we (Europe) remove our link and support from war mongers like the US/UK.

For Europe, NATO has guarenteed peace and freedom for decades after 1945. Many of the Military operations carried out by the USA and UK were carried out on their own initiative and with support by NATO and others who joined such coalitions. NATO itself was rarely involved as the main actor herself, not even in 1999 when they bombed Serbia.

The Eastern European EU member states which, as you stated, support the idead of an EU Army do that out of their fear of Russia in the first place. The way Putin was invading Ukraine and the Crimea which he annexed (de facto) increased that fear in former Eastern Bloc countries like Poland and former SU Republics like the Baltic States.

The dissolution of NATO would make other Military operations with the aim of extending their influence of the Russians towards European countries even more likely.

People who live in Eastern Europe have a different view on such matters than People who live in Ireland and that for good reasons.

View

Thomas_... wrote: »

The problems that might bring the EU to the breaking point aren t even attended to be solved and this Mr Juncker comes up with another stupid proposals that is more likely to bring a further split into the EU than anything:

From the BBC News:

EU's Juncker proposes headquarters for European army

The European Union needs a military headquarters to work towards a common military force, the Commission president has told MEPs in Strasbourg.

Jean-Claude Juncker said the lack of a "permanent structure" resulted in money being wasted on missions.
...
The Brexit vote has given added impetus to plans for greater defence co-operation, because the UK has always objected to the potential conflict of interest with Nato.

But Mr Juncker said a common military force "should be in complement to Nato". "More defence in Europe doesn't mean less transatlantic solidarity."

A European Defence Fund would stimulate military research and development, he said.
...
Anti-EU MEPs lined up to criticise Mr Juncker's rallying cry.
...
Peter Lundgren of the anti-migrant Sweden Democrats said his country had always been neutral militarily. "We don't want to be forced into this type of military co-operation," he said
...

No statement from an Irish MEP so far, as Ireland is also a military neutral country like Sweden.

Junckers proposal is again bollix cos it doesn t considers the neutrality of some of the EU member states. This man is really the wrong person on a very important post. The fact that he s "unelected" makes it even worse.

In his speech, Juncker did NOT call for an EU Army or "a common military force"

His proposals were absolutely in line with what the EU Treaties say (as agreed by the member states).

For instance, the EU currently undertakes multiple UN peacekeeping and/or humanitarian missions most of them of a civilian and/or military nature. There are at least six HQs for these as they were initially set up on an ad hoc basis. There already was an attempt to establish such a HQ, which we supported I think, but it was vetoed by the U.K. That issue seems to have resolved itself and there is no reason for the member states not to adopt a joint HQ if they feel the need for it for the peacekeeping or humanitarian missions they take part in.

Calina

Thomas_... wrote: »

There is already close co-operation among EU member states which are also members of NATO, there is even a German-French Brigade that works by now for 20 years or even longer.

I´m against this idea of an EU Army cos NATO can serve better for various reasons.

NATO may not be reliable if Trump wins the US presidential.

Thomas_...

Calina wrote: »

NATO may not be reliable if Trump wins the US presidential.

The USA will get much less reliable if Trump wins. He might even withdraw the USA from NATO, the nutter that he is.

Thomas_...

View wrote: »

In his speech, Juncker did NOT call for an EU Army or "a common military force"

His proposals were absolutely in line with what the EU Treaties say (as agreed by the member states).

For instance, the EU currently undertakes multiple UN peacekeeping and/or humanitarian missions most of them of a civilian and/or military nature. There are at least six HQs for these as they were initially set up on an ad hoc basis. There already was an attempt to establish such a HQ, which we supported I think, but it was vetoed by the U.K. That issue seems to have resolved itself and there is no reason for the member states not to adopt a joint HQ if they feel the need for it for the peacekeeping or humanitarian missions they take part in.

I didn´t come across of what you said in that BBC article nor did I noticed it elsewhere. Still, although your explanations sound reasonable, the message of Juncker itself has been perceived in a much more different meaning than you said.

Thomas_...

bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37360383

Nigel Farage: EU Parliament 'declaring war' on Brexit talks

Nigel Farage has accused the European Parliament of "a declaration of war" on the UK's Brexit talks after naming Guy Verhofstadt as its chief negotiator.

The outgoing UKIP leader told MEPs the ex-Belgian prime minister was the "high priest" of federalism and should be replaced by someone "who likes the UK".
...
Mr Farage, who will officially step down as UKIP leader on Friday but remain as an MEP, criticised the appointment during a debate in Strasbourg, saying it showed the EU had not "learnt any lessons" from the UK's rejection of its membership.

"If you think of this building as a temple, then Mr Verhofstadt is the high priest," he said.
...

Just look at the arrogance of this Mr Farage clown and his disappointment that after his big mouth speeches he´s now to face the realities and getting upset that the EU is not to follow his demands. What an utter idiot he is.

wes

Ah, Farage, hasn't quite realized that as the UK, are leaving, that the opinions of the UK electorate, are of minimal concern to the EU.

Also, demanding that the EU appoint someone who likes the UK, the guy is having a laugh.

Thomas_...

wes wrote: »

Ah, Farage, hasn't quite realized that as the UK, are leaving, that the opinions of the UK electorate, are of minimal concern to the EU.

Also, demanding that the EU appoint someone who likes the UK, the guy is having a laugh.

He´s damn serious, as you can tell by his face that mirrors the high blood pressure he had.

Just look at him and behold the face that managed to get a majority of British People behind him to vote for his political aim to get the UK out of the EU and becoming the big hero as well as really believing that it will be his country who dictates the EU the conditions for a new relationship after the membership was quit.

That man is the very best example for the low level politicians of our days that have the "ability" to influence million of people because they normally have less to None interest in politics and believe everything people like Farage is telling them, even when he´s lying through his teeth.

Bob24

wes wrote: »

Ah, Farage, hasn't quite realized that as the UK, are leaving, that the opinions of the UK electorate, are of minimal concern to the EU.

Also, demanding that the EU appoint someone who likes the UK, the guy is having a laugh.

Yes of course the UK has no say about who the EU is appointing.

Having said that picking Verhofstadt probably is in no one's interest. The man has proven many times that he is an ideologist rather than a pragmatist, and for those negotiations to be successful (even from the EU's selfish point of view) pragmatism will come more handy than an ideology which is supported by a minority of Europeans (his group only holds 70 out of 751 seats in the European Parliament).

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes of course the UK has no say about who the EU is appointing.

Having said that picking Verhofstadt probably is in no one's interest. The man has proven many times that he is an ideologist rather than a pragmatist, and for those negotiations to be successful (even from the EU's selfish point of view) pragmatism will come more handy than an ideology which is supported by a minority of Europeans (his group only holds 70 out of 751 seats in the European Parliament).

There are less pragmatic politicians sitting in that EU parliament than muppets like Farage and the other chap. That´s the whole problem, parties across Europe have always used to send those old politicians to Brussels and Strassburg they wanted to get rid of in the first place and thus the qualities are as they are.

To get and have a seat in the national parliament is still much more important and attractive than to be sent to the EU and so the electorate, with a decline in interest and voting, votes for those available and the other politicians who like to get power don´t appear on the EP election party lists. Just when they have already served in their own country and nobody wants them there anymore, they get a Job in the EU Administration if sending them into the EP doesn´t work.

Farage is not liked by many of his fellow MEPs, apart from the far-right ones sitting in his bloc there.

At least, the days of Farage´s triumph are gone and that is than just good to me, it´s absolutely splendid to see him that upset.

Calina

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes of course the UK has no say about who the EU is appointing.

Having said that picking Verhofstadt probably is in no one's interest. The man has proven many times that he is an ideologist rather than a pragmatist, and for those negotiations to be successful (even from the EU's selfish point of view) pragmatism will come more handy than an ideology which is supported by a minority of Europeans (his group only holds 70 out of 751 seats in the European Parliament).

He's more pragmatic that Farage is. Farage is a single issue polemicist.

Bob24

Calina wrote: »

He's more pragmatic that Farage is. Farage is a single issue polemicist.

You can describe Farage in that way but then looking at his various interventions in the European Parliament it is clear you should also call Verhofstadt is a multi issue polemicist. Not sure which one is best for a negotiation but both are probably pretty poor.

View

Thomas_... wrote: »

View wrote: »

In his speech, Juncker did NOT call for an EU Army or "a common military force"

His proposals were absolutely in line with what the EU Treaties say (as agreed by the member states).

For instance, the EU currently undertakes multiple UN peacekeeping and/or humanitarian missions most of them of a civilian and/or military nature. There are at least six HQs for these as they were initially set up on an ad hoc basis. There already was an attempt to establish such a HQ, which we supported I think, but it was vetoed by the U.K. That issue seems to have resolved itself and there is no reason for the member states not to adopt a joint HQ if they feel the need for it for the peacekeeping or humanitarian missions they take part in.

I didn t come across of what you said in that BBC article nor did I noticed it elsewhere. Still, although your explanations sound reasonable, the message of Juncker itself has been perceived in a much more different meaning than you said.

There is nothing particularly new about news from the EU being "sensationalised" for a good headline, particularly in the U.K.

The important thing to remember is that it is the member states that decide whether any of this will actually happen. Right now, we are years, if not decades, away from the EU seamlessly operating UN missions together and until we can do that, defence will remain firmly under the member states control.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

He's more pragmatic that Farage is. Farage is a single issue polemicist.

You can describe Farage in that way but then looking at his various interventions in the European Parliament it is clear you should also call Verhofstadt is a multi issue polemicist. Not sure which one is best for a negotiation but both are probably pretty poor.

Verhofstadt is a former PM of Belgium. He held that office for almost a decade. You don't hold such office in any country, never mind in the bear pit of Belgian politics, without being a pragmatist (even if you'd prefer not to be).