Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
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?
Good afternoon,
Referring you to the treaty which shows the areas that the EU has competence over is a proper answer. It is much broader than immigration. You can see all the areas where a member state has given control to the European Union.
Articles 3 and 4 of TFEU should be of particular interest. There's nothing vague about the documentation.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.
More integration is only reasonable for countries who want more integration.
It is precisely because Britain doesn't want this level of integration that it voted to leave last year.
I agree, if the EU27 want to be more closely integrated they should go for it. There are different appetites within the EU itself on closer integration with France, Germany and Italy among the more enthusiastic and the Eastern European states among the least enthusiastic. A challenge for the EU going forward will be to balance these desires.
However, if Britain decides that the level of integration isn't for them, then it's good for them to decide that they want to take a different path. I personally believe that less integration is better and a looser union would have been better, but we are where we are.
I'm not of the view that more integration leads to more prosperity. More control is what benefited Britain during the financial crisis. The Bank of England had control of it's own affairs and it was able to take different decisions to the European Central Bank.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
But then, in the above (and preceding posts) you're in danger of misrepresenting a shared competence in some areas (-necessary to achieve and then maintain a level playing for SM trade, and with quite a variable geometry in view of the UK's very numerous opt-touts), for an exclusive one in all areas.solodeogloria wrote: »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.
For witness:
Alright, let's take a look:solodeogloria wrote: »<...>
Referring you to the treaty which shows the areas that the EU has competence over is a proper answer. It is much broader than immigration. You can see all the areas where a member state has given control to the European Union.
Articles 3 and 4 of TFEU should be of particular interest. There's nothing vague about the documentation.
Right, so that's the missions' statements over and done with ('nothing vague', you said? LOL!)TFEU wrote:Article 3
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in
conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.
3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific
and technological advance. It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women
and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child. It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity
among Member States. It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
Article 4
The Union shall establish an economic and monetary Union whose currency is the euro.
Where is the EU's exclusive competence in there, for any of these?
Are you telling me the UK hasn't always had free reign to manage its non-EU immigration levels? implement EU legislation in as self-serving a way as e.g. Dutch, Austrian, French <etc.> legislatures have done? devise and promulgate domestic Statutes about anything and everything under the sun beyond and outside the scope of market-harmonising EU legislation? successfully obtained a boat-load of time-indefinite opt-outs to just about every 'EU competence' listed in the above?
As View noted, even the UK's very own Brexit Ministry has in the end relented, that all this 'sovereignty guff' peddled by the likes of Leave is just that, guff: the legislative 'constraints' placed by the EU upon the UK, ever since 1973, are no different whatsoever to those placed by <insert other nation or group> upon the UK under <insert other international treaty, about whatever>; they're there for the object(s) and effect(s) of such agreements to take place as advertised.
The alternative is simple: isolation and autarky. I hear it works well for Pyongyang's inhabitants :pac:
I've never been one for debate suppressing, so don't take this the wrong way...but that's where you lost me I'm afraid.solodeogloria wrote: »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.
There was absolutely nothing honest about the referendum campaigns, nor anything honest about the referendum question and vote thereon, and still less about its political manipulation by politicians ever since.
Not one iota of it howsoever, under any stretches of meaning.
For witness: it took a private individual to take the government to court, and defend an appeal, to try and restore a semblance of constitutional due diligence about the whole exercise. As a great proponent of 'sovereignty' and 'democracy' (-no doubt), you might perhaps think on that for a minute. Because the defendants are still at the helm.
That's why schadenfreude feels quite good at times, and is downright delectable at others, thank you very much.0 -
Good afternoon,
Here's the European Union's definition of shared competence:What does "shared competence" mean?
"Shared competence" means that both the EU and its member states may adopt legally binding acts in the area concerned.
However, the member states can do so only where the EU has not exercised its competence or has explicitly ceased to do so.
Member states can apply legislation in areas where the European Union has not done so.
Here's the link I'm referring to for Article 3 and 4 under categories and areas of EU competence.
As for the emotive language comparing Britain to North Korea, it's just silly. You know it is too. You know that there are many other countries outside of the European Union who do rather well, and you know that Britain wants to continue a more appropriate relationship with the European Union after leaving.
Emotive language is entirely fruitless. The British Government has outlined the relationship it desires - let's see what they get. I'm nowhere near as pessimistic as you are.
As for bringing the referendum back into play. That was last year. The outcome is that Britain doesn't want to be a member state of the European Union. Therefore the discussion is about the future relationship. Voting leave does have consequences, but it doesn't mean armageddon. I'm convinced that there will be a reasonable outcome.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Ambro you are quoting the wrong treaty
Treaty for the functioning of the European Union is the 2nd one: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT
article 3:Article 3
1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:
(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;
(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;
(e) common commercial policy.
2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or in so far as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope.
It's also best to keep in mind the following article as the other area the EU has competence, but note the highlighted phrase:Article 6
The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation.
Though it's also best to keep in mind from the first treaty article 5: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXTArticle 5
(ex Article 5 TEC)
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. National Parliaments ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in accordance with the procedure set out in that Protocol.
4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties.
The institutions of the Union shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »
Emotive language is entirely fruitless. The British Government has outlined the relationship it desires - let's see what they get. I'm nowhere near as pessimistic as you are.
Interested by this. What the British Government desires and what they actually get could be two very different things. Because surely a good deal would send the message that breaking away could be a good idea for any existing member state.
Can you explain why you are not pessimistic about how the negotiations will play out for the UK?0 -
Advertisement
-
In fairness to solo, he already has. He thinks the EU need/want a trade deal as much or almost as much as the UK. If that were true then he'd have a point.Interested by this. What the British Government desires and what they actually get could be two very different things. Because surely a good deal would send the message that breaking away could be a good idea for any existing member state.
Can you explain why you are not pessimistic about how the negotiations will play out for the UK?
I don't think it is true. I think Solo and most Brits have failed to grasp that the European project is not really about trade at all. Trade is a means to an end. If you understand that then you quickly realise that the EU27 (especially the older Western European members) will certainly forgo a good deal if it weakens the union or in any way undermines any of its cornerstones.
One also has to remember that Ireland aside, a reduction in UK-EU trade will disproportionately affect the UK simply because the damage done to the EU is divided up among 440 million people. The damage done to the UK is divided up among 60 million. It's maths a 5 year old could understand.0 -
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. .
Not even a remote chance unless the entire EU agrees to change the treat provisions and good luck with that.0 -
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.
.
The UK and their referendums eh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
They absolutely rejected the **** out of the idea only 6 years ago.0 -
-
Solodeogloria sounds and writes like a professional.
IMHO, he can cling to the "that's what we voted, that's what the UK wants" line all he likes, but it is not true.
By the time brexit bites, a chunk of the little englanders who voted for it will be dead. A genuine democracy would look at how this is spiralling, reassess , put the options genuinely to the public and re-vote.
A hard brexit will eviscerate the ruling parties in Britain. To an extent, it will serve the general public right, but for any person or group to hold someone to a spur of the moment decision based upon a raft of misinformation and lies, a decision which is clearly not in their best interests, just because they want to cling to power, or inflict their own narrow opinion and f3ck the consequences as the elite won't really suffer, just pick up some cheap property and business opportunities, is utterly and absolutely immoral.
Please remember that 17 million voted to remain, despite what they had been fed.
I have a friend in business in England, a pro brexiteer, who said to me the other day that he just couldn't conceive how there couldn't be another vote, that it would be anti-democracy if there isn't, once whatever is vaguely agreed becomes apparent, along with the ramifications.0 -
Advertisement
-
Solodeogloria sounds and writes like a professional.
IMHO, he can cling to the "that's what we voted, that's what the UK wants" line all he likes, but it is not true.
By the time brexit bites, a chunk of the little englanders who voted for it will be dead. A genuine democracy would look at how this is spiralling, reassess , put the options genuinely to the public and re-vote.
A hard brexit will eviscerate the ruling parties in Britain. To an extent, it will serve the general public right, but for any person or group to hold someone to a spur of the moment decision based upon a raft of misinformation and lies, a decision which is clearly not in their best interests, just because they want to cling to power, or inflict their own narrow opinion and f3ck the consequences as the elite won't really suffer, just pick up some cheap property and business opportunities, is utterly and absolutely immoral.
Please remember that 17 million voted to remain, despite what they had been fed.
I have a friend in business in England, a pro brexiteer, who said to me the other day that he just couldn't conceive how there couldn't be another vote, that it would be anti-democracy if there isn't, once whatever is vaguely agreed becomes apparent, along with the ramifications.0 -
Well the Tories cannot offer another referendum. They will get obliterated at the next election.
Labour MIGHT be able to offer one in their manifesto depending on when the election happens and how much the public mood has shifted by then.
I'm afraid that the Tories might simply force a hard brexit through because it's the only way to cling on to power. If they soften too much the eurosceptics will bring them down. But there is enough discontent swelling around a hard brexit that this might seem like the least worst option. Remains to be seen just how far they are willing to go to stave off another election.0 -
By the time brexit bites, a chunk of the little englanders who voted for it will be dead.
Unfortunately the same applies to some who voted to remain.A genuine democracy would look at how this is spiralling, reassess , put the options genuinely to the public and re-vote.
I see so the UK isnt a genuine democracy according to you, and if we kept voting and re-voting on everything just because some didnt agree because we are a 'true democracy' then nothing would ever get solved one way or other.A hard brexit will eviscerate the ruling parties in Britain. To an extent, it will serve the general public right, but for any person or group to hold someone to a spur of the moment decision based upon a raft of misinformation and lies
Well that's your view but I believe the remain side were guilty of telling massive porkies which you have conveniently overlooked.a decision which is clearly not in their best interests,
Your view again but the people who voted to leave obviously believed it was in their interests so what is the problem?just because they want to cling to power,
I think you will find if you check the Primeminister voted to remain.or inflict their own narrow opinion
Are you not doing same here with your post?and f3ck the consequences as the elite won't really suffer, just pick up some cheap property and business opportunities, is utterly and absolutely immoral.
I didn't realise that. Thanks for the tip.Please remember that 17 million voted to remain, despite what they had been fed.
Both sides (all voters) were fed exactly the same info and everybody decided to make their minds up accordingly.0 -
Well the Tories cannot offer another referendum. They will get obliterated at the next election.
Labour MIGHT be able to offer one in their manifesto depending on when the election happens and how much the public mood has shifted by then.
I'm afraid that the Tories might simply force a hard brexit through because it's the only way to cling on to power. If they soften too much the eurosceptics will bring them down. But there is enough discontent swelling around a hard brexit that this might seem like the least worst option. Remains to be seen just how far they are willing to go to stave off another election.
Labour also supports a hard brexit0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Labour also supports a hard brexit
This is true Corbyn has never hid from the fact of his dislike of the EU and also he said a few weeks back that he voted to leave.
Also when the UK met to discuss the Brexit they told the EU they were leaving the EU and the single market and something else but I can't remember.
So there is a hard Brexit or soft Brexit that is in the minds who talk about it. There is simply Brexit.0 -
Labour is being very coy about what it wants from Brexit. They keep saying they want stuff that Barnier says is impossible.[Deleted User] wrote: »Labour also supports a hard brexit
They're just as split as the Tories.0 -
Good evening!In fairness to solo, he already has. He thinks the EU need/want a trade deal as much or almost as much as the UK. If that were true then he'd have a point.
I think on a practical level British businesses and European businesses need a favourable trading relationship with one another yes.
At the moment, I don't see how a good transition and a good trade deal aren't achievable. Moreover, on looking at MiFID II, there's also a possibility of third countries being able to trade financial derivatives and equities into the European Union if there's regulatory equivalence. Given that the UK is obliged to implement MiFID II on January 2nd next year there's a good case for arguing that there will be regulatory equivalence on the day the Brexit terms are agreed in 2019.I don't think it is true. I think Solo and most Brits have failed to grasp that the European project is not really about trade at all. Trade is a means to an end. If you understand that then you quickly realise that the EU27 (especially the older Western European members) will certainly forgo a good deal if it weakens the union or in any way undermines any of its cornerstones.
To be fair - I don't think I have. "The European project" and the lofty ideas of a federal Europe are precisely why Britain felt it couldn't stay in. I agree that there is a difference in political philosophy.
Britain isn't looking to be a part of "the European project" but is seeking to be a good partner on the outside.
I don't think this is an idea that the European Union don't understand. As discussed, they are willing to enter into trade discussions with third countries on a regular basis. That's what Britain is seeking.
The European Union seem to be seeking for Britain to be a member of the European project in all but name, but that isn't what the UK is looking for.
It's worth pointing out that I'm not British, I'm just an Irish person who is a Eurosceptic.
I think the misunderstanding that you have is that it isn't just the EU that is willing to act on it's principles. Both parties are willing to act on the basis of their principles. The British principle is returning control from Brussels. The European principle is furthering "the European project" and maintaining it into the future. It's time for Brussels to accept that Britain is resolved to leave the EU and it will do so.One also has to remember that Ireland aside, a reduction in UK-EU trade will disproportionately affect the UK simply because the damage done to the EU is divided up among 440 million people. The damage done to the UK is divided up among 60 million. It's maths a 5 year old could understand.
If you take the European Union as a whole - yes. However, different member states have different exposures to the UK. That's obvious. That's also true of the UK. The UK isn't exposed to all members of the EU27 equally.Solodeogloria sounds and writes like a professional.
IMHO, he can cling to the "that's what we voted, that's what the UK wants" line all he likes, but it is not true.
By the time brexit bites, a chunk of the little englanders who voted for it will be dead. A genuine democracy would look at how this is spiralling, reassess , put the options genuinely to the public and re-vote.
A hard brexit will eviscerate the ruling parties in Britain. To an extent, it will serve the general public right, but for any person or group to hold someone to a spur of the moment decision based upon a raft of misinformation and lies, a decision which is clearly not in their best interests, just because they want to cling to power, or inflict their own narrow opinion and f3ck the consequences as the elite won't really suffer, just pick up some cheap property and business opportunities, is utterly and absolutely immoral.
Please remember that 17 million voted to remain, despite what they had been fed.
I have a friend in business in England, a pro brexiteer, who said to me the other day that he just couldn't conceive how there couldn't be another vote, that it would be anti-democracy if there isn't, once whatever is vaguely agreed becomes apparent, along with the ramifications.
I don't know if I should take it as a compliment that you claim that I write like a professional :pac:. I try to make my case.
If by "hard Brexit" (I don't recognise these terms really) you mean the UK crashing out on WTO terms, I don't think either the UK or the European Union are looking for this. The UK is looking for a good third country relationship with the European Union, in a similar way to many other third countries have a relationship with the European Union. Britain also is supportive of defence arrangements and security relationships in Europe through it's participation in NATO.
As for what the UK wants, we've got good polling to help us determine this. A genuine democracy honours the result, and progresses to leave the European Union as the people determined on June 23rd. The Government promised it would act on the referendum when the referendum act was passed through parliament. The people voted on that understanding. Now, it is the time for the Government to get on with the job.
I think there were several reasons why the people voted to leave the European Union and I'm personally glad that both the Labour party and the Conservatives understand that they must respect the result.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Labour is being very coy about what it wants from Brexit. They keep saying they want stuff that Barnier says is impossible.
They're just as split as the Tories.
And they will keep on saying stuff that is impossible, as it seems to have gone down very well with the electorate. Mixed messages won referendums, and have worked a treat in elections.
All sides of the debate are having cake and eating it. The whole country is covered in this renewable cake stuff.
It will be interesting to see which Emperor's new clothes are shown up first. Nobody's speaking with any degree of realism from either realm. The centre ground of the debate has been utterly demolished too.
Bizarrely. And I mean this earnestly, the party with the most influence to prevent a hard Brexit who appear to also be willing to use some of that influence are the DUP!0 -
Solo... You apparently accept that both the EU and UK are prepared to suffer financially for their principles.
I agree.
But why then do you still insist a good deal will be struck?
The 440 million EU can weather a bad deal much better than the 60 million UK. Simple as that. And it is irrelevant to the UK if Ireland or France stands to lose more than Poland or Latvia. The EU is a single entity as far as trade is concerned and they are negotiating as one.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89910
Brexit the gift that keeps giving.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/0707/888582-brexit-europe/"Your huge trade surplus with the UK will crumble and other G20 nations will be licking their lips at the prospect of trading with and exporting to the UK," UKIP MEP Raymond Finch taunted other members in the European Parliament this week, as they debated this weekend's G20 summit in Germany.
But his confidence in the UK’s post-Brexit trade potential was derided by the Commission’s vice-president Frans Timmerman who compared him to John Cleese’s Monthy Python character, the Black Knight in the film The Holy Grail.
"Mr Finch really reminds me of the Black Knight, who after being defeated terribly and having all his limbs cut off says to his opponent 'let’s call it a draw'," he said.
"Let me know if there’ll be a Department of Silly Walks," quipped the chair of the debate, German Vice-president of the parliament, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff.
You'd have to laugh otherwise you'd cry.
BTW the thing about fishing is that three companies control three quarters of the UKs quota, so at best it'll be trickle down economics.0 -
Advertisement
-
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Brexit the gift that keeps giving.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2017/0707/888582-brexit-europe/
.
Well reporting from RTE always has been pro EU and biased towards Irelands government whoever is there.
But the comments you have raise about and from the EU's members.
If it was such a certain that it is pure folly by the UK and they don't need them or want them............then why make all the fuss they do? Why not say you want to leave then go and you are out tomorrow morning if the UK is just nothing to them?
It is getting quite childish now.0 -
123shooter wrote: »Well reporting from RTE always has been...
You're shooting the messenger for the news he's delivered. RTE is reporting what was said not offering an opinion on it.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »You're shooting the messenger for the news he's delivered. RTE is reporting what was said not offering an opinion on it.
I know I did say read my post but I was just stating about the public subsidized broadcasting company.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,672 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89910
Or pro Labour depending on who you ask. Lots of restrictive acts, defamation laws here etc, and dependance on state funding into the mix too.123shooter wrote: »Well reporting from RTE always has been pro EU and biased towards Irelands government whoever is there.
But the comments you have raise about and from the EU's members.
IIRC in a survey 85% of Irish people favoured staying in the EU , even if it caused some hardship. Considering the likely future impact of Brexit on this island I don't think many would be in favour of giving pro-Brexiteers equal airtime.0 -
Solo... You apparently accept that both the EU and UK are prepared to suffer financially for their principles.
I agree.
But why then do you still insist a good deal will be struck?
The 440 million EU can weather a bad deal much better than the 60 million UK. Simple as that. And it is irrelevant to the UK if Ireland or France stands to lose more than Poland or Latvia. The EU is a single entity as far as trade is concerned and they are negotiating as one.
Good morning!
Your point about it not affecting the European Union again doesn't consider the different levels of exposure different countries have to Britain. That's going to be significant later if the European institutions want to maintain a united front by member states. European countries will realise they need good access to debt and equity markets in London also.
A bad deal will be very bad for both. The UK is a big enough economy to weather it.
I think even though both parties are in theory willing to pay the price for their principles in the worst case scenario it is the worst case scenario. I think both parties will realise they need a better deal when the EU understands the UK is actually leaving and drops the posturing.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
The EU seem well resigned to the UK Leaving.
Brexit means Brexit and all that.
As someone observed early in the process when the UK was in it wanted opt outs, now that it is leaving it wants opt ins.0 -
The Tories will get obliterated at the next election regardless. They will be solely blamed for brexit and all that follows. The people who voted for brexit will be just as quick to blame the Tories for inflicting it on them as they are the EU for everything at present.Well the Tories cannot offer another referendum. They will get obliterated at the next election.
Labour MIGHT be able to offer one in their manifesto depending on when the election happens and how much the public mood has shifted by then.
I'm afraid that the Tories might simply force a hard brexit through because it's the only way to cling on to power. If they soften too much the eurosceptics will bring them down. But there is enough discontent swelling around a hard brexit that this might seem like the least worst option. Remains to be seen just how far they are willing to go to stave off another election.
Teresa May might cling to power ,on the back of terrorists and bigots bribed with money that isn't hers, but she will go down in ignominy.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Or pro Labour depending on who you ask. Lots of restrictive acts, defamation laws here etc, and dependance on state funding into the mix too.
IIRC in a survey 85% of Irish people favoured staying in the EU , even if it caused some hardship. Considering the likely future impact of Brexit on this island I don't think many would be in favour of giving pro-Brexiteers equal airtime.
You would be surprised at how many think the EU is bad for Ireland in Ireland and the internet allows people to find out more over msm.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The EU seem well resigned to the UK Leaving.
Brexit means Brexit and all that.
As someone observed early in the process when the UK was in it wanted opt outs, now that it is leaving it wants opt ins.
Really what are the opt ins you refer too?0 -
Advertisement
-
They would not be having so much trouble negotiating if they wanted nothing. The opt in they really want is single market membership without freedom of movement. Or sector by sector membership if the single market without freedom of movement.
They are also seeming to get ready to bully Ireland to get what they want. If they wanted nothing this would not be necessary.
The problem is that the UK doesn't want to leave. Otherwise they would just negotiate the divorce and hike off to their sunlit uplands, no hard feelings. But they are tearing themselves apart, lack a coherent policy and negotiating strategy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement