Brexit Referendum Superthread

Bob24

View wrote: »

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).

Being a pragmatist to remain in power and progress your career, yes all politicians are (including Farage). But when it comes to actually defend the interest of the people, different story!

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

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.

In my view, they are both clowns, one worse than the other and both have their big egos, big mouths and usually just talk hot air.

Schulz might be rather one to which I would assign to be a pragmatic politician, but he´s apparently too Close with Juncker and Merkel and therefore, as well as on the grounds of the power the EP has, is rather without power. But when it Comes to Farage, nobody outside of the far-right faction likes him and he´s done much to it that it is as it is. He liked to make himself more enemies than friends in the EP and now he´s facing the result of it.

Farage should better STFU, pack off and just F.O. cos nobody wants him there anymore and if he had even a grain of decency, he would have left right after the Brexit referendum result to show that he means business and not hinding behind his "excuse" to "oversee the transformation process of his country leaving the EU", as if he would be an observer just for that purpose. He can observe it as long as he´s holding his MEP seat, but apart from his own vote, his silly speeches, outrages and stupid remarks, he has now power whatsoever to get things done the way he likes them to have it done.

What one can see by now in Farage is a man who won his cause, but lost it all cos he never held any power there, not more than any other MEP but less than those who really make decisions and that´s not him. He´s just a cheap populist that dragged his country in the worst mess the UK has to face for decades. He won´t be sitting there anymore after the 2019 EP elections because the seats of the UK won´t be there anymore and the UK itself won´t vote in that election anymore as well.

The only thing he´s doing there is to cash in his salaries, allowances and other privileges and making silly speeches. Well, that´s also quite a waste of the taxpayers money. So it goes, Farage wanted his life back and still wants to have the EP and thus the EU pay him his salary to finance his life.

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

Being a pragmatist to remain in power and progress your career, yes all politicians are (including Farage). But when it comes to actually defend the interest of the people, different story!

I couldn´t say it better.

Calina

Bob24 wrote: »

Being a pragmatist to remain in power and progress your career, yes all politicians are (including Farage). But when it comes to actually defend the interest of the people, different story!

Farage could not get elected to his own national parliament. His party has never come close to power and his record in the EP particularly on the matter of fisheries for which he was on a relevant committee is abysmal. Compared to Verhofstadt he is nothing more than an attention seeker.

Bob24

Calina wrote: »

Compared to Verhofstadt he is nothing more than an attention seeker.

You should watch/rewatch Verhofstadt 's speaches in the European Parliament. "attention seeker" describes him very well.

Note I am not praising Farage or anything, just saying that Verhofstadt is an ideologist and probably not the finest negotiator the EU could have picked.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

View wrote: »

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).

Being a pragmatist to remain in power and progress your career, yes all politicians are (including Farage). But when it comes to actually defend the interest of the people, different story!

The people of Belgium clearly did not share your opinion since they returned him to office on multiple occasions. Neither also do MEPs share your opinion, since they as directly elected representatives have chosen to have him as one of the EU negotiators.

Calina

Bob24 wrote: »

You should watch/rewatch Verhofstadt 's speaches in the European Parliament. "attention seeker" describes him very well.

Note I am not praising Farage or anything, just saying that Verhofstadt is an ideologist and probably not the finest negotiator the EU could have picked.

I have. Both his pieces on Orban and Tsipras were memorable. I saw both of them live actually.

Here's the point. Farage is incandescent about this. So are the British media. This suggests that he may have been an extremely good choice. The reaction of the opposite side is always interesting. And in this case...

wes

Calina wrote: »

Here's the point. Farage is incandescent about this. So are the British media.

The arrogance of the Brexiters is really breath taking. They made there choice and now the need to learn to live with it. They won't get everything they want, and if they adopt a realistic approach, we can get on with things, and get this whole Brexit thing done and over with.

Bob24

View wrote: »

The people of Belgium clearly did not share your opinion since they returned him to office on multiple occasions. Neither also do MEPs share your opinion, since they as directly elected representatives have chosen to have him as one of the EU negotiators.

The people of Belgium don't directly elect their PM, and whoever gets the roles is more the result of political bargaining than anything else (when Verhofstadt became PM in 1999 his party only had 23/150 seats in the parliament and 14.3% of the votes).

This broken political system is what gave Belgium the infamous Molenbeek - too many competing layers of government, no clear leader, and ideology over pragmatism all led to inaction as the situation was slowly getting more and more rotten.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

View wrote: »

The people of Belgium clearly did not share your opinion since they returned him to office on multiple occasions. Neither also do MEPs share your opinion, since they as directly elected representatives have chosen to have him as one of the EU negotiators.

The people of Belgium don't directly elect their PM, and whoever gets the roles is more the result of political bargaining than anything else (when Verhofstadt became PM in 1999 his party only had 23/150 seats in the parliament and 14.3% of the votes).

Neither do the people of any other country. And all PMs hold their positions as a result of "political bargaining" be it explicit and external in multi-party governments or implicit and internal in single party governments.

Bob24 wrote: »

This broken political system is what gave Belgium the infamous Molenbeek - too many competing layers of government, no clear leader, and ideology over pragmatism all led to inaction as the situation was slowly getting more and more rotten.

Paris has its banlieu (suburbs). London also has areas that have exploded into rioting in the past. And I can think of areas in both Stockholm & (outside) Amsterdam which could just as easily go off the rails also. Belgium is hardly unique in that regard.

View

Duplicate post deleted

Thomas_...

bbc.com/news/uk-37369917

Brexit: No substantive talks for 12 months, Herman Van Rompuy predicts

Substantive Brexit talks between the UK and the rest of the EU are unlikely to start much before the end of 2017, a former European Council president says.
...
He said negotiations were unlikely until a new German government was formed after next September's election.
...
He told BBC Radio Four's Today programme: "Before the German elections and before there is a new German government, I think no serious negotiations will take place.

"You can always start with more technical matters, but the hardcore, the difficult topics, will be tackled after the constitution of a new German government and that will be October/November."
...
He said: "Any negotiation will be a difficult negotiation, independent of the personalities.

"Of course we want an agreement which represents some kind of mutual benefit.

"There are huge economic interests, but there are also red lines. It is very well known that freedom of movement [of EU nationals] is a red line."
...
Mr Van Rompuy rejected suggestions that the EU should have given former Prime Minister David Cameron a better deal after he sought reform of the UK's relationship with the EU, saying the main reason for the Brexit vote "lies in Britain".

He said the UK already had a "very special status" within the EU, which was illustrated by it not being a member of the eurozone or the Schengen Agreement.

But this meant it was also "not fully a member of the hardcore where decisions are taken".

"Britain had not many friends anymore," Mr Van Rompuy said.

This had been shown during the election of Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission in 2014, when Britain was "isolated" in its opposition to him, he added.
...
Mr Van Rompuy said despite this, European leaders still viewed Brexit as a "political amputation of the first degree".

He added: "Because Europe was for many countries still a model, a model that you can achieve peace among peoples and states that waged wars for centuries, so it was a model of co-operation and integration.

"That image of a strong Europe, that is tarnished a lot after Brexit."

That all means another year in limbo. Not quite what the Brexiteers expected and sold to the electorare. Well, reality seldom goes hand in hand with promises made by politicians, even worse when made by the likes of Farage and Johnson. Both of them won´t be pleased about that, I guess.

"It´s a long way to Tipperary, it´s a long way to go ..."

Calina

Thomas_... wrote: »

bbc.com/news/uk-37369917



That all means another year in limbo. Not quite what the Brexiteers expected and sold to the electorare. Well, reality seldom goes hand in hand with promises made by politicians, even worse when made by the likes of Farage and Johnson. Both of them won´t be pleased about that, I guess.

"It´s a long way to Tipperary, it´s a long way to go ..."

The UK could pre-empt that by invoking Article 50. The point that I think is screwing them, is that they probably need to do a review of the legislation before they start negotiating the exit and that's a fairly mammoth job which they have barely started I guess.

Calina

Bob24 wrote: »

The people of Belgium don't directly elect their PM, and whoever gets the roles is more the result of political bargaining than anything else (when Verhofstadt became PM in 1999 his party only had 23/150 seats in the parliament and 14.3% of the votes).

This broken political system is what gave Belgium the infamous Molenbeek - too many competing layers of government, no clear leader, and ideology over pragmatism all led to inaction as the situation was slowly getting more and more rotten.

I hope you don't think that Belgium is that much worse than Ireland in terms of political systems being broken. And let's face it, the situation in the UK where it is possible to get a majority in Parliament while winning 35% of the popular vote is hardly a good aspiration as well.

Verhofstadt's contributions to the EP are often impassioned but they are also generally consistent. He is able to do deals as well, and has done in a country which can be extremely divided. The only reason Farage could possibly have for screaming blue murder about this is that he knows Verhofstadt is more competent and coherent than the team on the other side of the table.

For the purposes of people in Ireland, this is good as we are still within the European Union.

Farage quit as leader of UKIP. He is not doing anything to follow through on this and I'd expect him to have stayed on in his party and target a seat in the Parliament (despite his execrable record in UK parliamentary elections) to build Britain post-Brexit. That he hasn't done this and that he is terrified by the choice of negotiators on the opposite side of the table tells you everything you need to know about him.

Molenbeek is not unique, and nor can its roots be explained simply by Belgium's political structure.

Thomas_...

Calina wrote: »

The UK could pre-empt that by invoking Article 50. The point that I think is screwing them, is that they probably need to do a review of the legislation before they start negotiating the exit and that's a fairly mammoth job which they have barely started I guess.

Well, one can assume that they should have know about that long before they started the Brexit campaign and should have told that the electorate that it won´t be a quick Exit from the EU, shouldn´t they?

As it turns out, it´s been all a bad miscalculation on the side of the Brexiters.

Calina

Thomas_... wrote: »

Well, one can assume that they should have know about that long before they started the Brexit campaign and should have told that the electorate that it won´t be a quick Exit from the EU, shouldn´t they?

As it turns out, it´s been all a bad miscalculation on the side of the Brexiters.

They have been blaming the Cameron government for that. I think contingency planning would have been helpful but at the same time, the lack of a coherent vision and direction on the Brexit side is dreadful too.

Thomas_...

Calina wrote: »

I hope you don't think that Belgium is that much worse than Ireland in terms of political systems being broken. And let's face it, the situation in the UK where it is possible to get a majority in Parliament while winning 35% of the popular vote is hardly a good aspiration as well.

That´s their electoral system.

Verhofstadt's contributions to the EP are often impassioned but they are also generally consistent. He is able to do deals as well, and has done in a country which can be extremely divided. The only reason Farage could possibly have for screaming blue murder about this is that he knows Verhofstadt is more competent and coherent than the team on the other side of the table.

He´s passionate in his speeches, often comes across like some bundle of nerves by his gesticulations. But that´s simply his personality. What is more important is, that the EP has less power and he as MEP has not much more power even by his recent appointment. He certainly is a passionate European, no doubt, but he´s not a politician I´d see as one of my favourits. The power in the EU is by others.

For the purposes of people in Ireland, this is good as we are still within the European Union.

Everything that´s good for Ireland, I´m fine with it and I tell you that as being no Irish myself.

Farage quit as leader of UKIP. He is not doing anything to follow through on this and I'd expect him to have stayed on in his party and target a seat in the Parliament (despite his execrable record in UK parliamentary elections) to build Britain post-Brexit. That he hasn't done this and that he is terrified by the choice of negotiators on the opposite side of the table tells you everything you need to know about him.

He´s just confirmed to be the very big mouth coward that he is. In fact he´s really the only one in the whole EP I really detest and always disliked.

Molenbeek is not unique, and nor can its roots be explained simply by Belgium's political structure.

Quite right, such places can be found in many greater towns across Western Europe. That´s also a reason for why the Eastern European EU member states don´t like to take in their share of Muslim refugees and asylum seekers. The see what happened in the West and they don´t want to have it for themselves.

Thomas_...

Calina wrote: »

They have been blaming the Cameron government for that. I think contingency planning would have been helpful but at the same time, the lack of a coherent vision and direction on the Brexit side is dreadful too.

The only vision the Brexiteers and at the front of them all Farage had was to just get out of the EU and see to what is to be done afterwards.

What is also displayed in the BBC article I´ve quoted is, that the other EU member states were simply fed up with all the special deals for the Brits cos they were always with one foot in and with the other half out the door. Such things don´t work well for a long time and it´s no wonder when Rompuy stated that the UK has not many friends (left) in the EU. It´s the typical attitude of some People who like to do the cherry picking which means take all the Advantages and merits but seek to avoid the obligations and commitments.

Cameron might have had his good intentions and ideas, just there was rather less of it which went published of These ideas and what was announced at the end of the negotiations might have been just a bit of the whole. Fact is, you can´t make sufficient Reformation on the EU with Juncker in charge of the EU Commission cos he doesn´t likes that, as well as Merkel doesn´t like it too. The appeals that came from within the EP, namely from Mr Verhofstadt were just words and the last appeal after the Brexit referendum hasn´t been followed yet.

They all know what is at stake but they still appear to hesitate to take the first step towards reformation and the EU badly needs reformation to survive. The leaving of the Brits might give it a better chance, but it´s left to the remaining EU member states to make the EU better and thus giving the Brits the most bitter regret they could have, when they are outside of the club and things don´t work out for them as they have thought or anticipated for themselves as non-EU country.

Hinkley goes ahead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37369786

Government confirms Hinkley Point C project following new agreement in principle with EDF

Bob24

View wrote: »

Neither do the people of any other country. And all PMs hold their positions as a result of "political bargaining" be it explicit and external in multi-party governments or implicit and internal in single party governments.

I didn't say they elected them. But as we can see our Taoiseach is struggling to find legitimacy in the public eye with FG controlling 50 out of 158 seats in the Dail. How representative do we think Belgians found Verhofstadt as a PM when his party was controlling 23 out of 150 seats?

And note that other European countries (such as France) do indeed have different electoral systems which designate a national leader directly elected by a clear majority of voters (and/or are designed to give produce clear majorities in the parliament).

View wrote: »

Paris has its banlieu (suburbs). London also has areas that have exploded into rioting in the past. And I can think of areas in both Stockholm & (outside) Amsterdam which could just as easily go off the rails also. Belgium is hardly unique in that regard.

Mind you, I didn't say the Belgian issues and the ideology which causes these problems don't exist elsewhere in Europe.

To avoid subjective statements I will just give one factual figure showing how Belgium still is special: even though Belgium doesn't have the largest Muslim population in Europe (in proportion of the total national population), it has by far the highest proportion of citizens fighting with jihadist groups in Iraq/Syria: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20151121_FBM831_1.png
So in short Belgian Muslims are much more likely than other European Muslims become jihadists.
Also regardless of their nationalities (Belgium, French, or other) a majority of the terrorists who attacked French targets in the past 2 years had a rear base in Molenbeek: http://www.france24.com/fr/20160323-attentats-paris-bruxelles-molenbeek-pourquoi-chemins-jihadisme-terrorisme

So yeah - pretty special place ...

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

Hinkley goes ahead

The shopping tour of the Chinese continues. Big prospect for the post-Brexit UK.

Thomas_...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37396805

A group of Central European EU members known as the Visegrad Four is ready to veto any Brexit deal that would limit people's right to work in the UK, Slovakian PM Robert Fico says.

In an interview with the Reuters news agency, Mr Fico said Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia would be uncompromising in negotiations.

His comments come a day after the EU's first major meeting without the UK.
...

Zubeneschamali

Thomas_... wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37396805

I assume this made more sense before being cut down for a newspaper story.

EU countries cannot veto Brexit, and they cannot dictate how their citizens will be treated by the UK when it is no longer a member.

Perhaps Fico said that he would veto a deal to allow the UK special access to the single market unless it includes free movement, or something like that. I don't see a fuller version even at Reuters site.

Lemming

I always took it to mean that they would sink any favourable terms otherwise negotiated with the UK by the EU if the UK insisted on singling out free movement of their nationals.

Pro Hoc Vice

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I assume this made more sense before being cut down for a newspaper story.

EU countries cannot veto Brexit, and they cannot dictate how their citizens will be treated by the UK when it is no longer a member.

Perhaps Fico said that he would veto a deal to allow the UK special access to the single market unless it includes free movement, or something like that. I don't see a fuller version even at Reuters site.

By vetoing the negotiations from the star they are ensuring a two year max then UK out, that is a serious veto in any persons books. They are saying in simple terms we want free movement of our people with out that you out.

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I assume this made more sense before being cut down for a newspaper story.

EU countries cannot veto Brexit, and they cannot dictate how their citizens will be treated by the UK when it is no longer a member.

Perhaps Fico said that he would veto a deal to allow the UK special access to the single market unless it includes free movement, or something like that. I don't see a fuller version even at Reuters site.

That is the essence of the article and it goes the same way as it has always been said all along, that without free movement of people and good, the UK will have no full access to the single market. This is the way I understand this article.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I assume this made more sense before being cut down for a newspaper story.

EU countries cannot veto Brexit, and they cannot dictate how their citizens will be treated by the UK when it is no longer a member.

They can veto "any Brexit deal that would limit people's right to work in the UK", though.

If they did, there'd be no "Brexit deal". There would still be a Brexit, of course, but on terms that would give the UK any special rights vis-a-vis the EU at all.

What Fico is saying (reportedly) is that the UK will not get any concessions, rights, special deals or anything else they want unless, in return, they accept an unlimited right to work in the UK.

Bob24

Thomas_... wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37396805

When you take into accoutn that "a Slovak foreign ministry source told the BBC Mr Fico had been referring only to those EU citizens living in the UK at the time of the referendum", this doesn't look like any big news.

The UK also needs to ensure its citizens living elsewhere in the EU are not kicked-out at the time of Brexit - so some kind of bilateral agreement to facilitate UK citizens currently living in the EU and EU citizens currently living in he UK was always going to be on the table.

The real question is around citzens moving there after Brexit.

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

When you take into accoutn that "a Slovak foreign ministry source told the BBC Mr Fico had been referring only to those EU citizens living in the UK at the time of the referendum", this doesn't look like any big news.

The UK also needs to ensure its citizens living elsewhere in the EU are not kicked-out at the time of Brexit - so some kind of bilateral agreement to facilitate UK citizens currently living in the EU and EU citizens currently living in he UK was always going to be on the table.

The real question is around citzens moving there after Brexit.

I think that this topic is already and will remain a big issue for the UK EU Exit negotiations from the very start of it. Mrs May has refused to give any reliable stances assurance regarding those who already lived in the UK at the date of the Referendum and that leaves the many EU nationals living there in limbo, as those UK citizens living across the EU member states as well and there are not too less of them, especially around the Med (Portugal, Spain, Greece, Malta (has many pensioners living there) and some of them in Italy and France).

Peregrinus

She's playing her cards close to her chest, as you'd expect before negotiations begin. But it's plainly in the interests of the UK government not to have British citizens deported from the EU-27, and few people in the UK would tolerate the deportation of EU nationals already living in the UK. And exactly the same considerations apply in reverse on the EU side. So once negotiations begin both sides will readily agree, at a minimum, that the rights of EU nationals already in the UK will not be diminished, and vice versa. If they can't agree on that then there is realistically no prospect for an agreement on Brexit terms at all.

I agree, the real issue is about continued rights of free movement. May is signalling that she wishes to limit migration from the EU, and exclusion from full participation in the single market is a consequence that she is willing to accept.