Brexit Referendum Superthread

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

Sorry but this is delusional. The EU is not going to concede much if anything. The leavers made a huge mistake in thinking that German car makers would be able (or willing) to force through a favourable deal for the UK.

How do the Brexiters explain the EU allowing free trade with Japan in the context of how that would affect German Car Makers ?


Also the EU has been talking to other Asian countries. Another place where the UK isn't at the head of the queue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-asean-idUSKBN16H0S7

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

recedite's point was that other countries have free trade agreements without free movement.

You're correct. I had misread the post you quoted

solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why did you vote Remain then?

Good morning!

I've explained why I've voted remain many times before. I voted remain due to concerns about the economy, not because I'm deeply passionate about "the European project".

Like many of the 48% from last June - I'm a Eurosceptic. I don't think further integration is a good thing, nor am I convinced that the European Union is an all benevolent body. I was hopeful of Britain arguing for less integration and a reform of the European Union in Brussels. Less centralisation and increased sovereignty is much better than more centralisation.

I'm now convinced that that was never possible. If you can't agree with the aims of the bloc, then it is best to leave and find a more appropriate relationship.

Brexit was always the riskier option (which is why I didn't vote for it at the time), but I'm convinced that Britain can be a successful global facing country outside the European Union (as many countries outside the EU obviously are) whilst maintaining a more appropriate relationship with it. I'm not convinced of doom stories. I think both sides will be pragmatic enough to decide a good deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

recedite

solodeogloria wrote: »

Of course if the EU were being consistent - there's no reason why the UK could not have a free trade agreement on a similar basis. People are confusing this with single market membership again. Neither of these deals are single market memberships. Rather they are free trade deals that provide access to the single market.

I agree.
Also I'd go further and say that following a free trade deal between EU and UK, there is no reason why Ireland would not conclude its own deal with the UK on the free movement of people. This would be merely a modification of the existing CTA, which would only apply to citizens of both states as opposed to anyone resident. So it would not apply to non-Irish EU citizens, or to non-european migrants wandering around within the EU.

No sign yet of Irish politicians waking up to this oportunity though.
They prefer to mope around while a Frenchman does all the negotiating. We need to wake up to the fact that EU negotiators may be more interested in punishing the UK than in facilitating the people living and working around the border areas of the 26 and 6 counties of Ireland.

There is a lot of unease in Netherlands, France, Italy and Greece with the EU. The last thing the eurocrats want is for this unease to be encouraged, as it would be if Brexit was seen to be an instant success.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

as it would be if Brexit was seen to be an instant success.

What about what has already happened to the British economy convinces you that it has a hope in hell of being an 'instant success'?

First Up

recedite wrote:

No sign yet of Irish politicians waking up to this oportunity though.

You can rest assured that Irish politicians (and officials) are wide awake to all the opportunities. They are also wide awake to all the potential complications that haven't occured to you.

recedite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What about what has already happened to the British economy convinces you that it has a hope in hell of being an 'instant success'?

Its too early to say.

seamus

solodeogloria wrote: »

How does Brexit threaten peace in Europe?

It doesn't. Not in any great way unless it inspires other countries to leave.

murphaph's point is that the UK is coming from a point of view that it's all about economics. That when faced with the potential loss of the UK market, German car manufacturers will be up in arms and demanding the UK be given a softer ride.

What the Brexiteers miss is that the EU is not about economics. The Germans - and most of the EU - would rather push their economies into recession than put the stability of the union at risk.

This is not some misty-eyed sentimentality about the EU project but rather the base realism that a divided Europe is almost always a warring Europe. And even if the countries aren't fighting with one another, when divided are far more open to outside influence/attack and far less able to take on big challenges.

FrancieBrady

recedite wrote: »

Its too early to say.

As I asked somebody earlier who refused to answer.
How long will it take to pronounce it a success or failure?

recedite

First Up wrote: »

You can rest assured that Irish politicians (and officials) are wide awake to all the opportunities. They are also wide awake to all the potential complications that haven't occured to you.

I don't share your confidence in our politicians. In fact I think the main reason the Irish are much more pro-EU than the British is that we have a lot less confidence in the competence of our own politicians.
We like the idea that they have supervisors.
But the British find that demeaning, and believe they could do a better job running things themselves.

Sam Russell

recedite wrote: »

Its too early to say.

That is what the Chinese (Chou En Lai - iirc) said about the French Revolution.

First Up

recedite wrote: »

I don't share your confidence in our politicians. In fact I think the main reason the Irish are much more pro-EU than the British is that we have a lot less confidence in the competence of our own politicians.
We like the idea that they have supervisors.
But the British find that demeaning, and believe they could do a better job running things themselves.

The main reason the Irish are pro-EU is because it has transformed the country and we experience the benefits across all aspects of Irish society. Some of those benefits accrue from our exposure to how it is done better elsewhere and our involvement in a bigger scheme of things. As an island nation with a legacy of narrow nationalism, that's welcome and no bad thing.

murphaph

recedite wrote: »

I don't share your confidence in our politicians. In fact I think the main reason the Irish are much more pro-EU than the British is that we have a lot less confidence in the competence of our own politicians.
We like the idea that they have supervisors.
But the British find that demeaning, and believe they could do a better job running things themselves.

I used to think our politicians were much less competent than those in the UK but not any more.

ambro25

recedite wrote: »

There is a lot of unease in Netherlands, France, Italy and Greece with the EU. The last thing the eurocrats want is for this unease to be encouraged, as it would be if Brexit was seen to be an instant success.

There is far less 'unease' about the EU in the countries you mention, than there seems to be in the UK.

Witness the Greek's steadfast pro-EU vote at the height of the financial crisis in 2015, the Dutch sending Wilders packing last year, the French sending Marine packing this year <...>

All this 'the EU is on the rocks' is just evidence of denial by Leavers, because the facts simply don't support the opinion.

Of course, this isn't advocacy to the effect they all find the EU rosy and peachy, far from it. But the Continental consensus, as expressed at the ballot boxes across the Member States for the past few years -and still, and recently at that- is that a majority of Europeans know a good thing when they see it/are living it.

Brexit won't ever be seen or perceived as an 'instant success', for the elementary reason that it simply cannot be, practically: once the UK is Brexited, invoiced, and even if it's quickly FTA'd (wherein an FTA is orders of magnitude less favourable to trade currents than club membership or even its diluted variants: just ask any country not in the CU), it will take the UK the best part of a decade to rebalance its socio-economic circumstances and recover from the shock.

Never less so than because, once out there in the big wide world, its entire economy will be in direct and unfettered competition with the BRICs and their followers. Who are never past elbowing WTO rules when it suits, to dump as best they can for gaining a competitive leg up.

Until then, it's only pain an privations for the Brits, relative to the non-Brexited baseline I'm afraid.

And you know what? Boo-f***ing-hoo, tbh.

murphaph

Yeah I think Brexit really needs to happen for the UK to come out the other side a little chastened. It can then reapply for EU membership as a normal member, signing up to monetary union and Schengen.

It might be best for the EU in the long run too if the UK is actually a committed member.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah I think Brexit really needs to happen for the UK to come out the other side a little chastened. It can then reapply for EU membership as a normal member, signing up to monetary union and Schengen.

It might be best for the EU in the long run too if the UK is actually a committed member.

Good afternoon!

Why do you think the UK would want back in once it's acclimatised to it's status outside?

This notion that the UK is somehow going to be desperate to divest of even more of it's sovereignty after leaving is bizarre.

The UK weathered the Euro crisis precisely because it wasn't in the monetary union and precisely because they hadn't divested monetary sovereignty to Frankfurt.

Given the challenges that migration has posed amongst lower wage workers in Britain - why would you want to give back more control to Brussels.

You've claimed that I'm delusional. What's delusional is the idea that Britain will be begging the EU for re-entry at the cost of yet more sovereignty. It takes a real passion for Euro-federalism to see things this way.

It is precisely the problem of the European Union that it demand more and more concessions in terms of sovereignty at every passing moment. That isn't a strength. It's a straightjacket.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why do you think the UK would want back in once it's acclimatised to it's status outside?

The same reasons they joined in the first place.

solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The same reasons they joined in the first place.

Good afternoon!

The EEC was a very different body than the European Union is post-Maastricht and post-Lisbon.

There was always going to be a point where an undefined "ever closer union" was going to become too much for one member.

More and more divestment of sovereignty was going to become an issue at some point.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

swampgas

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah I think Brexit really needs to happen for the UK to come out the other side a little chastened. It can then reapply for EU membership as a normal member, signing up to monetary union and Schengen.

It might be best for the EU in the long run too if the UK is actually a committed member.

IMO real reform is needed to the electoral system in the UK. Until PR comes in and the two big parties break up into smaller parties, representing the various factions currently fighting amongst themselves, the UK will continue to have governments which very poorly reflect the wishes of the electorate. I can't see any appetite for electoral reform; in my experience there is as much distrust of PR in the UK as there is of the EU, among the general population. The two big parties are unlikely to want to change the system, as it gives both of them lots of seats that they might not otherwise win. So ultimately, long term, I think the UK is going to keep on flip-flopping between warring ideologies. The Tories are so divided on the EU that they will try to put Brexit behind them and carry on as best they can outside the EU. And I can't see a Labour leader running an election campaign on re-joining the EU anytime soon either.

Where that leaves Ireland and Northern Ireland and the GFA are anyone's guess. It's pretty depressing TBH.

.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why do you think the UK would want back in once it's acclimatised to it's status outside?

This notion that the UK is somehow going to be desperate to divest of even more of it's sovereignty after leaving is bizarre.

The UK weathered the Euro crisis precisely because it wasn't in the monetary union and precisely because they hadn't divested monetary sovereignty to Frankfurt.

Given the challenges that migration has posed amongst lower wage workers in Britain - why would you want to give back more control to Brussels.

You've claimed that I'm delusional. What's delusional is the idea that Britain will be begging the EU for re-entry at the cost of yet more sovereignty. It takes a real passion for Euro-federalism to see things this way.

It is precisely the problem of the European Union that it demand more and more concessions in terms of sovereignty at every passing moment. That isn't a strength. It's a straightjacket.

Maybe you will be able to give an answer, but what sovereignty has the UK given up to the EU? And before you say immigration please remember that the UK government saw it fit that non-EU immigration exceeds immigration from the EU for times in the past, so obviously if they wanted immigration to end they would have ended the part they can control.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why do you think the UK would want back in once it's acclimatised to it's status outside?

Because Brexit is going to be an unmitigated disaster economically for the UK and the older generation who largely swayed the leave vote will be dead by then.

The UK could be a good member when it stops thinking of itself than better than the rest of us, which is what it has done since the war, barely noticing that its economy was declining so badly up until the 1970s that the IMF had to be called in.

Joining the EEC helped reverse the UK's fortunes and despite what some people believe, London really established itself as the global financial centre it is today under Thatcher in the 1980's, after joining the EEC.

I would love to be wrong and to see the UK do well because that would do the least damage to Ireland but it's just not going to happen.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe you will be able to give an answer, but what sovereignty has the UK given up to the EU? And before you say immigration please remember that the UK government saw it fit that non-EU immigration exceeds immigration from the EU for times in the past, so obviously if they wanted immigration to end they would have ended the part they can control.

Good afternoon!

I'd almost question how serious you're being by asking that question.

You can read the division of competences that the European Union has in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EEC was a very different body than the European Union is post-Maastricht and post-Lisbon.

The UK was a very different place prior to joining the EU as well. It was bankrupt before they joined. Since joining, their economy has blossomed - because of the EU. The single market has allowed their service industry to expand such that it is now the driver of its economy.

In 1948 they had to devalue the pound by 42% because their economy could not function despite still having war-time rationing in place. They had foreign exchange controls like a banana republic. They were bust.

Again in 1968, they had to devalue again, this time by 17% - because they could not export their products like those great cars they made, and the huge ships they made on the Clyde and at H&W in Belfast. (How is the ship building going these days?)

As for the Euro, it has not damaged the German economy one bit. Maybe if they had joined it would have benefited them as well. (I forgot, they crashed out of the snake on Black Wednesday - because their economy had tanked).

Oh, well, maybe they might do well on their own.

Billy86

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe you will be able to give an answer, but what sovereignty has the UK given up to the EU? And before you say immigration please remember that the UK government saw it fit that non-EU immigration exceeds immigration from the EU for times in the past, so obviously if they wanted immigration to end they would have ended the part they can control.

Good afternoon!

I'd almost question how serious you're being by asking that question.

You can read the division of competences that the European Union has in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Translation: "I don't know and/or won't say because I'm not confident in it standing up."

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

This notion that the UK is somehow going to be desperate to divest of even more of it's sovereignty after leaving is bizarre.

This notion that the UK somehow gave its sovereignty away to the EU is equally bizarre.

Clinging to this notion is even more bizarre, in view of the top-to-bottom review of the issue by, and the clarifications subsequently handed down by, the UK Supreme Court 6 months ago.

And heights of bizarreness are reached, once you realise how much influence the UK gained, and exerted, over the decades, both to frame EU legislation and to appropriate special self-serving measures.

I genuinely can't hardly wait to see Brit faces, when Barnier eventually presents Davis with the ultimatum of either surrendering all of the UK opt-outs and the rebate, as consideration for 'forgetting' the Article 50 notification, or crashing out on their arse :pac:

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

Billy86 wrote: »

Translation: "I don't know and/or won't say because I'm not confident in it standing up."

How could I not know when every area is listed very clearly in the Treaty for anyone to read?

These threads are here for meaningful discussion, not for silly point scoring.

How can we better use this thread to actually meaningfully discuss the issues? This is a good question. I'd suggest one way we could improve the quality of discussion is not asking questions which anyone can find out easily.

ambro25 wrote: »

This notion that the UK somehow gave its sovereignty away to the EU is equally bizarre.

Clinging to this notion is even more bizarre, in view of the top-to-bottom review of the issue by, and the clarifications subsequently handed down by, the UK Supreme Court 6 months ago.

And heights of bizarreness are reached, once you realise how much influence the UK gained, and exerted, over the decades, both to frame EU legislation and to appropriate special self-serving measures.

I genuinely can't hardly wait to see Brit faces, when Barnier eventually presents Davis with the ultimatum of either surrendering all of the UK opt-outs and the rebate, as consideration for 'forgetting' the Article 50 notification, or crashing out on their arse :pac:

Every member state does. That's what you do by agreeing that the European Union has competence in varying areas that are outlined in the Treaty.

Some people argue that divesting sovereignty in these areas is worthwhile. Perhaps it is for many. The British people have decided that they don't want to do this any more by virtue of the referendum.

That's a choice, and I agree with you that the choice has consequences. I don't think the UK is going to be begging to rejoin. I also don't know why there's so much sour lemons over an honest reflection of the relationship that Britain has had with the European Union.

Surely, if Britain's membership of the European Union has resulted in dragging progress in the desired integration of other member states, then it is good for them to seek a more appropriate relationship.

Likewise, if Britain's membership of the European Union isn't desired by the British people, then it is good to seek a more appropriate relationship.

This is just mature reflection. There's no need to have schadenfreude for a scenario that will more than likely not happen.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK was a very different place prior to joining the EU as well. It was bankrupt before they joined. Since joining, their economy has blossomed - because of the EU. The single market has allowed their service industry to expand such that it is now the driver of its economy.

In 1948 they had to devalue the pound by 42% because their economy could not function despite still having war-time rationing in place. They had foreign exchange controls like a banana republic. They were bust.

Again in 1968, they had to devalue again, this time by 17% - because they could not export their products like those great cars they made, and the huge ships they made on the Clyde and at H&W in Belfast. (How is the ship building going these days?).

Margaret Thatcher deserves as much of the credit for that as the eu does.

It also serves as a pretty good idea why the UK is very reluctant to believe in socialist policies like Jeremy Corbyn's.

View

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

Maybe you will be able to give an answer, but what sovereignty has the UK given up to the EU? And before you say immigration please remember that the UK government saw it fit that non-EU immigration exceeds immigration from the EU for times in the past, so obviously if they wanted immigration to end they would have ended the part they can control.

Good afternoon!

I'd almost question how serious you're being by asking that question.

You can read the division of competences that the European Union has in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

And you should read the White paper on Brexit produced by the UK's own Brexit Ministry which stated clearly that the UK had NOT given up sovereignty as part of the UK's ECs/EU membership.

I presume you don't intend to call them liars? :-)

View

recedite wrote: »

Also I'd go further and say that following a free trade deal between EU and UK, there is no reason why Ireland would not conclude its own deal with the UK on the free movement of people. This would be merely a modification of the existing CTA, which would only apply to citizens of both states as opposed to anyone resident. So it would not apply to non-Irish EU citizens, or to non-european migrants wandering around within the EU.

Your "mere modification" would constitute a massive violation of the EU Treaties by Ireland.

Post-exit, we would clearly by discriminating against our fellow EU citizens and in favour of non-EU ones were we to conclude such an agreement.

FoM gives first preference to EU citizens and member states are only supposed to admit non-EU citizens if they can't find suitable EU citizens. Your "modification" clearly violates that.

UK citizens will have to join the queue like every other non-EU citizen whether they like it or not.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

How could I not know when every area is listed very clearly in the Treaty for anyone to read?

These threads are here for meaningful discussion, not for silly point scoring.

How can we better use this thread to actually meaningfully discuss the issues? This is a good question. I'd suggest one way we could improve the quality of discussion is not asking questions which anyone can find out easily.



Every member state does. That's what you do by agreeing that the European Union has competence in varying areas that are outlined in the Treaty.

Some people argue that divesting sovereignty in these areas is worthwhile. Perhaps it is for many. The British people have decided that they don't want to do this any more by virtue of the referendum.

That's a choice, and I agree with you that the choice has consequences. I don't think the UK is going to be begging to rejoin. I also don't know why there's so much sour lemons over an honest reflection of the relationship that Britain has had with the European Union.

Surely, if Britain's membership of the European Union has resulted in dragging progress in the desired integration of other member states, then it is good for them to seek a more appropriate relationship.

Likewise, if Britain's membership of the European Union isn't desired by the British people, then it is good to seek a more appropriate relationship.

This is just mature reflection. There's no need to have schadenfreude for a scenario that will more than likely not happen.

I am asking because I haven't seen a proper answer anywhere on what has been given up by the UK for the EU. The main one that everyone knows is free movement of people, but as I mentioned in my post when you are admitting more people from outside the EU into your country than people that come here freely from the EU it does seem that immigration isn't that much of an issue for the politicians as your country needs immigration.

So that is why I am asking you. We have had many other posters who cannot answer the question either. I only ask when a poster actually posts about "taking back sovereignty" and do not ask anyone without a prompt from the poster themselves. I am trying to learn as well, because if you can show me where you feel the loss of sovereignty it could well be important for others that are in the EU to consider. Seeing that only vague answers like yours are given or the subject is changed, should I assume it is a red herring that people has been led to believe?

Regarding more integration from the EU, surely if you have countries that are very closely integrated regarding trade and in most cases have the same currency, you would expect a common policy on how to ensure that something like the GFC would not cause your whole system to crash around you. If you are sharing a currency with other economies it makes sense to ensure those economies are run responsibly to avoid the talk of the collapse of the euro in time of crises.

Seeing that the UK doesn't share the euro with the other EU countries the need for more integration doesn't seem to be there. But at the same time the UK is sharing the single market, which is what people voted to join, so while I understand the reluctance when the EU talks of more integration the benefits of that integration would surely mean more prosperity for all involved instead of a fractured system where each one does what they want and a basket case in one country that threatens the whole system.