Is the EU actually about to break up?

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

...you seem to see that the arguments regarding the undemocratic aspects of the Euro, are a weak spot in your case, and you are making a point of avoiding that.

The Euro is a currency. The idea of there being undemocratic aspects of a currency is just silly. Currencies are administered by independent central banks. Independent of what, you ask? Of governments. In other words, they are insulated from the whims of democracies, by design.

And yet, I'm not hearing people railing against the undemocratic aspects of the Dollar, or of the Pound, or of the Rand.

Railing at the terms I use to encapsulate those arguments, instead of at my actual arguments (which, in the case of the Euro, you have stated you will avoid), doesn't help you to show this.

I've avoided getting into a discussion of monetary policy with you, because it's a rabbit hole.

KyussBeeshop

Except you don't have to discuss monetary policy to discuss the problems with the Euro and the structures underlying it - that is just your 'out' for avoiding discussion of the Euro - you already know my posts criticizing the Euro haven't discussed monetary policy...

The Dollar and the Pound and the Rand are not like the Euro - the former currencies are administered by a central bank in a single nation, with fiscal policy centralized at the same level - whereas the Euro is administered by a central bank among many nations, where there is no centralization of fiscal policy at the same level.

That's an enormous difference. That's the difference which has caused massive problems with the Euro, and the EU structures underlying it, with economic imbalances between EU nations which both exacerbated the build-up and aftermath of the economic crisis for many nations - which enormously impacts politics at a national level, in ways that nations effectively don't have a democratic say over, because necessary reforms of the Euro and the economic functioning of the EU, are blocked by minority vetos, while countries are effectively trapped in the Euro.

oscarBravo

Can you cite specific instances where a policy proposal that had majority support within the Euro area was vetoed by a minority?

demfad

I think Germany, who would be the main contributor to a full ECB would find it politically difficult (with good reason) to take that step. It would mean effectively German taxpayers being responsible for rescuing failing banks around the EU. They should be able to rightly expect fiscal competence throughout the Euro area before making this move. That would also require more centralised control of policy.
The order in my view would initially involve giving the parliament more of a democratic mandate followed by allowing the parliament more power relative to other EU institutions.
A small seeming change to offset EU parliament remoteness among electorate would be to force MEP candidates to campaign under their EU party. That would force them to explain party policy on the door, bring them in conflict with local politicians (as it should be) and increase the parlaiments democratic mandate and the electorates understanding of and connection to parliament.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you cite specific instances where a policy proposal that had majority support within the Euro area was vetoed by a minority?

Some variation of debt pooling had been supported by a majority of the EU population, but was effectively ruled out due to a minority of core (usually creditor) countries objections - with Germany being the most prominent opposition.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Some variation of debt pooling had been supported by a majority of the EU population, but was effectively ruled out due to a minority of core (usually creditor) countries objections - with Germany being the most prominent opposition.

An opinion poll, and an "effectively ruled out".

I guess that's a "no" to my question.

KyussBeeshop

Engaging in special pleading doesn't invalidate the example - majority support for debt pooling policies at the time, and unless you think e.g. Germany would have approved debt pooling (given that it would require unanimous support - i.e. their rejection counts as a veto), then a minority of countries "effectively ruled out" this policy option, i.e. their opposition effectively vetoed it.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Engaging in special pleading doesn't invalidate the example - majority support for debt pooling policies at the time, and unless you think e.g. Germany would have approved debt pooling (given that it would require unanimous support - i.e. their rejection counts as a veto), then a minority of countries "effectively ruled out" this policy option, i.e. their opposition effectively vetoed it.

OK, let's roll with it for a second. Let's imagine that an opinion poll where slightly more than half the population of Europe say, in effect, "we want Germany to pay our debts" is a rational basis for monetary policy.

If you're going to argue that it's undemocratic for Germany to veto such an idea, then you're guilty of the mindless majoritarianism that I've been talking about when I criticise the idea that "more democratic" equates unconditionally to "better".

Vetoes - or, more generally, QMV - or, more generally still, consensus - these are mechanisms designed to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the belief that if a majority of people want something, it's incontrovertibly the right thing to do.

You can call that "erosion of the quality of democracy" if you want, but my point stands that that's an empty criticism.

Sam Russell

The problem with the Euro started when the ECB allowed the bond rates for Euro-zone countries to diverge. If the Euro was a single currency then the bond rates should be identical, otherwise, what is the risk differential? Is one country going to default?

However, the ECB would require each countries CB to do something about it - more regulation, bank reserve ratios, or some such.

It was this divergence that started the rot that began the major bank failures.

The ECB would have had to step in much earlier, for example with the likes of Anglo and Nationwide taking the pxxx. The Irish CB would have been instructed by the ECB on what measures were required - not a complete solution but much better than what eventually happened.

oscarBravo

Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that there aren't issues, even deep structural issues, with the Euro as a currency (although the perennial predictions of its imminent demise are getting old). My issue is with wooly concepts like "democratic deficits" and "erosion of the quality of democracy", particularly in the context of a currency.

KingBrian2

Sam Russell wrote: »

The problem with the Euro started when the ECB allowed the bond rates for Euro-zone countries to diverge. If the Euro was a single currency then the bond rates should be identical, otherwise, what is the risk differential? Is one country going to default?

However, the ECB would require each countries CB to do something about it - more regulation, bank reserve ratios, or some such.

It was this divergence that started the rot that began the major bank failures.

The ECB would have had to step in much earlier, for example with the likes of Anglo and Nationwide taking the pxxx. The Irish CB would have been instructed by the ECB on what measures were required - not a complete solution but much better than what eventually happened.

It was left to each state serving their own interests instead of a coherent €zone consensus. That is why i worried when i saw Greece faltering while our crowd were cheering themselves for saving the ship. We use the same currency so what is bad for Greece or Italy is of course going to be dangerous for us. The powers still exist for the ECB to allow separate CB's to sort out their own banks so long as it is in accordance with a common European policy.

KyussBeeshop

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, let's roll with it for a second. Let's imagine that an opinion poll where slightly more than half the population of Europe say, in effect, "we want Germany to pay our debts" is a rational basis for monetary policy.

If you're going to argue that it's undemocratic for Germany to veto such an idea, then you're guilty of the mindless majoritarianism that I've been talking about when I criticise the idea that "more democratic" equates unconditionally to "better".

Vetoes - or, more generally, QMV - or, more generally still, consensus - these are mechanisms designed to avoid the pitfalls inherent in the belief that if a majority of people want something, it's incontrovertibly the right thing to do.

You can call that "erosion of the quality of democracy" if you want, but my point stands that that's an empty criticism.

That is not an accurate characterization of debt pooling - debt pooling, is all countries paying all countries debts - and neither is debt pooling a part of monetary policy.

Given that the Euro and the systems underlying it, are inherently flawed, leading to massive economic imbalances across the EU (benefiting some nations, at the expense of others - exacerbating the buildup to the crisis for some countries, and creating a worse aftermath afterwards) - and that these imbalances led to massive economic/political disruption for some countries, while allowing others to gain greater relative power in the EU at the expense of these other countries - I totally view it as unsuitable, for countries to have a veto for blocking necessary reforms that would fix the Euro's faults.

I view it as undemocratic in an additional way as well (beyond what I've already stated in previous posts), given the way the imbalances the Euro creates, greatly impinges and restricts the democratic say and political freedoms, of the countries worst affected, in their own future - while allowing the least affected, relative freedom from such concerns plus an enhanced democratic say over the future of their country (given how the structure of the Euro benefits them), and while granting them a veto as well to hold down the other worst affected countries, by denying proper reforms of the Euro.

I don't just view the halfway-house implementation of the Euro, as severely eroding the quality of democracy across the EU (as explained in previous arguments...), but I also view it as inherently breaking the spirit/intent/promise behind the Euro as well - as it was supposed to bring prosperity and greater economic power to all, not to severely disadvantage some nations to the benefit of others, due to its inherently flawed implementation, as has turned out to be the case.

oscarBravo

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

That is not an accurate characterization of debt pooling - debt pooling, is all countries paying all countries debts...

Oh, come on. Are you serious with this?

Analogy: two brothers. One cautious, good with money, has a good job, no credit card debt, modest mortgage mostly paid off, decent savings. The other is a chancer, with gambling debts, five credit cards maxed out, and two mortgages on the house. The latter proposes that they pool their debts. Why would the former go for it?

I mean, after all, it's not like he's asking his brother to pay his debts, right? He's suggesting that both brothers pay both brothers' debts.

Given that the Euro and the systems underlying it, are inherently flawed, leading to massive economic imbalances across the EU (benefiting some nations, at the expense of others - exacerbating the buildup to the crisis for some countries, and creating a worse aftermath afterwards) - and that these imbalances led to massive economic/political disruption for some countries, while allowing others to gain greater relative power in the EU at the expense of these other countries - I totally view it as unsuitable, for countries to have a veto for blocking necessary reforms that would fix the Euro's faults.

I view it as undemocratic in an additional way as well (beyond what I've already stated in previous posts), given the way the imbalances the Euro creates, greatly impinges and restricts the democratic say and political freedoms, of the countries worst affected, in their own future - while allowing the least affected, relative freedom from such concerns plus an enhanced democratic say over the future of their country (given how the structure of the Euro benefits them), and while granting them a veto as well to hold down the other worst affected countries, by denying proper reforms of the Euro.

I don't just view the halfway-house implementation of the Euro, as severely eroding the quality of democracy across the EU (as explained in previous arguments...), but I also view it as inherently breaking the spirit/intent/promise behind the Euro as well - as it was supposed to bring prosperity and greater economic power to all, not to severely disadvantage some nations to the benefit of others, due to its inherently flawed implementation, as has turned out to be the case.

Nice bit of polemic. If a Martian were to read it, he'd be convinced that much of the EU was a post-apocalyptic hellscape.

The bottom line is that the Euro most benefits countries that are fiscally responsible, and least benefits countries that are not. There's an obvious solution: all Eurozone countries should be fiscally responsible. But no: the proposal is that either the fiscally responsible countries should shoulder a share of the burden of the others, or that the others should have their own currencies so that they can be fiscally irresponsible at will.

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. Are you serious with this?

Analogy: two brothers. One cautious, good with money, has a good job, no credit card debt, modest mortgage mostly paid off, decent savings. The other is a chancer, with gambling debts, five credit cards maxed out, and two mortgages on the house. The latter proposes that they pool their debts. Why would the former go for it?

I mean, after all, it's not like he's asking his brother to pay his debts, right? He's suggesting that both brothers pay both brothers' debts. Nice bit of polemic. If a Martian were to read it, he'd be convinced that much of the EU was a post-apocalyptic hellscape.

The bottom line is that the Euro most benefits countries that are fiscally responsible, and least benefits countries that are not. There's an obvious solution: all Eurozone countries should be fiscally responsible. But no: the proposal is that either the fiscally responsible countries should shoulder a share of the burden of the others, or that the others should have their own currencies so that they can be fiscally irresponsible at will.

The flaws in the Euro were well known before it was introduced. It was always going to benefit Germany above all others. Why during these 'fiscally responsible' years since 2009 has every single country that has gone through with austerity now have more debt than before it began? Without inflation to ease the burden it's not going to get any better and the Germans do not like inflation... at all.

I'm pro-EU in a big way, but I can foresee problems ahead. and it has nothing to do with being fiscally-responsible, that's the great myth.

KingBrian2

Havockk wrote: »

The flaws in the Euro were well known before it was introduced. It was always going to benefit Germany above all others. Why during these 'fiscally responsible' years since 2009 has every single country that has gone through with austerity now have more debt than before it began? Without inflation to ease the burden it's not going to get any better and the Germans do not like inflation... at all.

I'm pro-EU in a big way, but I can foresee problems ahead. and it has nothing to do with being fiscally-responsible, that's the great myth.

I wouldn't call it a myth though their are a groups on the far right like Le Pen who want to bring down the EU entirely. She and Geert Wilders would not be heralding in a new era of democratic and free Europe. They don't care about the rules of ECB that France helped to draft.

KyussBeeshop

EDIT: Had replied to oscarBravo there, but I'm going to have to bow out of this one, as I don't have a way to tell when parts of what I post get into disallowed territory.

sameoldname

Havockk wrote: »

The flaws in the Euro were well known before it was introduced. It was always going to benefit Germany above all others. Why during these 'fiscally responsible' years since 2009 has every single country that has gone through with austerity now have more debt than before it began? Without inflation to ease the burden it's not going to get any better and the Germans do not like inflation... at all.

I'm pro-EU in a big way, but I can foresee problems ahead. and it has nothing to do with being fiscally-responsible, that's the great myth.

It has a lot to do with the fact that the Euro, a currency Germany didn't want and was forced upon it as a condition of reunification didn't help the German economy much at all up until after the crisis.

Since reunification the German economy grew at an average rate of 2% per year, so pretty much stagnant. While other countries such as Spain, Greece and ourselves were going through economic booms the German economy was barely growing. Due to this the German's had already made the hard choices and had enacted policies that were advantageous during an economic contraction.

That's the reason Germany has done ok since the crash, it didn't have an overheated economy to correct. Workers there had already taken their pay cuts. It's still averaging about 2% GDP growth per year which is still crap but it's better than most others.

It's now found itself as the lynchpin of the entire Eurozone. If she goes down we all go with her. That's unfortunately where we've found ourselves.

Also, for those calling for higher levels of inflation, that essentially means you'll be taking a pay cut in exchange for debt relief for the indebted nations. There's no free lunch here I'm afraid.

sameoldname

Just on the question of austerity, why do people act like austerity was forced on us by Germany? Austerity was forced on us by our credit rating.

People seem to now in hindsight of course, have this love affair with counter-cyclical spending.

Counter-cyclical spending means paying down debt during the good times (which we in this country did, other countries like Greece, not so much) and then borrow money during the bad times to spend on capital projects to stimulate the economy.

Our capital budget was the first thing to get cut and our taxation policies of having a large amount of government income funded by taxes on discretionary items (Which in a downturn people stop spending on) meant that we couldn't borrow from anyone to spend on capital projects.

Also, capital spending in a country that doesn't have an infrastructure deficit (Spain, Italy) won't help much at all.

demfad

THis machine will be working for Bannon/Putin's candidates in the upcoming European elections. This has contributed greatly to victories in Brexit and US election:

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b#.rl3zgs639

Sam Russell

demfad wrote: »

THis machine will be working for Bannon/Putin's candidates in the upcoming European elections. This has contributed greatly to victories in Brexit and US election:

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b#.rl3zgs639

Now that is frightening.

demfad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing that there aren't issues, even deep structural issues, with the Euro as a currency (although the perennial predictions of its imminent demise are getting old). My issue is with wooly concepts like "democratic deficits" and "erosion of the quality of democracy", particularly in the context of a currency.

I think perceptions are important. And how representative an MEP is and is seen to be also. A simple improvement like MEPs canvassing under their Euro parties would cut out the middle man (local party) and bring the EU citizen closer to the issues. I have no doubt this is mainly the fault of the local candidates/parties who find it easier to get in on the coattails of the local party.

You always here that EU elections are protest votes. This affect could be reduced somewhat by this change.

demfad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Now that is frightening.

Yes. I think a 9/11 investigation into Trump/Russia would take Cambridge down too. The 'trolls' used to support Cambridge were almost certainly St Petersburg based. Barring that and until then....

....More bad news is that Bannon/Trump want (may already have) Cambridge for the WH. Imagine Trump being able to plug all State info on citizens into this thing? I'm sure he could make a little money too.

I say 'may already have' because some (American) people have reported seeing Friendly personal ads (dark posts) towards DeVos' education vouchers.

As longa s Trump/Bannon survive the EU is under greater danger.

Let the brainwashing begin!

jmayo

demfad wrote: »

THis machine will be working for Bannon/Putin's candidates in the upcoming European elections. This has contributed greatly to victories in Brexit and US election:

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b#.rl3zgs639

That is interesting, but one section of that jumped out at me...

By correlating subjects’ Facebook Likes with their OCEAN scores — a standard-bearing personality questionnaire used by psychologists — the team was able to identify an individual’s gender, sexuality, political beliefs, and personality traits based only on what they had liked on Facebook.

If a fair chunk of this targeted propaganda is based in Facebook then how come the younger voters, the ones actually living on Facebook, are still seen to vote socially liberal or non conservative.

Also older voters, the ones blamed for voting for Brexit and Trump, are not anywhere near as active on the likes of Facebook.
How were they targeted and brainwashed ?

BTW I have no doubt that there is false information, twisting of truth, but lets not kid ourselves that it is only one side.

And one mindset is still desperately trying to find reasons why they lost two major electoral battles when one of the most obvious answers is "a lot of people are goddamn pi**ed off with the status quo and a lot of people have been left behind by the Facebooks, the twitters of the modern global world".

Bit cynical

I think if social media and the like was manipulated to influence the result it was done in more subtle ways.

Here's how I would have done it.

1. Spread videos of Russell Brand explaining why he doesn't vote and why young people also should not vote.
2. Get the Remain side upset about irrelevancies like the £350M figure on the side of a bus.
3. Spread the notion among the Remain side that Leave voters are idiots, aren't capable of deciding for themselves and aren't worth engaging with.
4. Allow the Remain side to believe that they are the majority and are likely to win the referendum.
5. Encourage the construction of "echo chambers" in social media and internet forums allowing Remainers to believe that their views are more mainstream than they actually are.

jmayo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think if social media and the like was manipulated to influence the result it was done in more subtle ways.

Here's how I would have done it.

1. Spread videos of Russell Brand explaining why he doesn't vote and why young people also should not vote.
2. Get the Remain side upset about irrelevancies like the £350M figure on the side of a bus.
3. Spread the notion among the Remain side that Leave voters are idiots, aren't capable of deciding for themselves and aren't worth engaging with.
4. Allow the Remain side to believe that they are the majority and are likely to win the referendum.
5. Encourage the construction of "echo chambers" in social media and internet forums allowing Remainers to believe that their views are more mainstream than they actually are.

You forgot that you need to get celebrity endorsements.

Better still get once well know pop stars who have done very well out of media investments to lecture voters about why they should vote to remain.
After all these ex pop stars share so much in common with the ordinary voters, so how could they not be listened to and their views not appreciated.

Meanwhile in America get some well known actors to ridicule one of the candidates.
Granted the candidate deserves to be ridiculed, but why get a Hollywood a lister who makes more money for working on a movie for a few weeks than some of the voters would make in their lifetime.

There is nothing like been told by some rich person, who doesn't have to work anymore, about how lucky you are and how better off you will be if you just do as they want. :rolleyes:

demfad

jmayo wrote: »

That is interesting, but one section of that jumped out at me...



If a fair chunk of this targeted propaganda is based in Facebook then how come the younger voters, the ones actually living on Facebook, are still seen to vote socially liberal or non conservative.

Also older voters, the ones blamed for voting for Brexit and Trump, are not anywhere near as active on the likes of Facebook.
How were they targeted and brainwashed ?

BTW I have no doubt that there is false information, twisting of truth, but lets not kid ourselves that it is only one side.

And one mindset is still desperately trying to find reasons why they lost two major electoral battles when one of the most obvious answers is "a lot of people are goddamn pi**ed off with the status quo and a lot of people have been left behind by the Facebooks, the twitters of the modern global world".

The vast majority of the electorate are on social media or use the internet. That's all you need. Internet ads are individually customised now.
The survey just gets an idea of the electorate and what might be the main ideas prevalent in a population about the issues in the target election.
Internet Information on the adult population of a country can then be bought.
For the US election CA had 13,000 webpages and 1.3 million link. If you click any of those links once it can then follow you around the internet, see what youre up to. Tailor ads accordingly.
Also that huge propaganda network of webpages can pass on and amplify fake news. So the electorate might here disparaging news on one of their main stream websites or TV stations that is only there because it was amplified on this network.
Then you need sources of fake news and literally to subcontract for bots and troll armies. Russia provided all this. The trolls argue and spreak the desired stories on Fora etc. Adding more authenticity.

To recap: If you have SM accounts you will see dark post attack ads: you will see the exact message that you personally need to hear to move you in the desired direction. Literally, like having a psychologist who knew you inside out prepare a tailored ad for you.

The majority of news in the last months of the US election was fake. Even if you dont get the tailored ads you'll get the desired message.

The effect on an electorate is significant.

twinytwo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope.

Brexit will demonstrate why the EU is a good idea.

How much of that will be because they left, or the EU stamping on the UK's throat to ensure no one else considers leaving. I mean come one, lets call a spade a spade

oscarBravo

twinytwo wrote: »

How much of that will be because they left, or the EU stamping on the UK's throat to ensure no one else considers leaving. I mean come one, lets call a spade a spade

Looks more to me like calling a spade a machine gun.

It's bizarre how many people have bought into the ridiculous fantasy that a non-member of a club can get a better deal from a club than the members can, and that denying membership privileges to non-members is "stamping on throats".

Seriously, try it some time. Join a gym for a year, then at the end of the year tell them you're not renewing your membership but want to be able to use the facilities for free. If they refuse, complain loudly about how they're stamping on your throat.

Let us know how you get on.

twinytwo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looks more to me like calling a spade a machine gun.

It's bizarre how many people have bought into the ridiculous fantasy that a non-member of a club can get a better deal from a club than the members can, and that denying membership privileges to non-members is "stamping on throats".

Seriously, try it some time. Join a gym for a year, then at the end of the year tell them you're not renewing your membership but want to be able to use the facilities for free. If they refuse, complain loudly about how they're stamping on your throat.

Let us know how you get on.

There seems to be this delusion around that the only way is the current EU way.

How about I pay for the gym only to be told what equipment i can and cannot use, have them change the rules after I have joined, tell me i have to pay for other people and fine me when I try to leave.;)

oscarBravo

twinytwo wrote: »

There seems to be this delusion around that the only way is the current EU way.

How about I pay for the gym only to be told what equipment i can and cannot use, have them change the rules after I have joined, tell me i have to pay for other people and fine me when I try to leave.;)

And then there's the delusion that "the EU" is some sort of independent body that actively works against its members' interests.

The UK, as a member, has agreed to the rules. Those rules are codified in the Treaties, to which the UK is a signatory.

Let me repeat that in case you missed it: the UK negotiated and ratified the EU Treaties.

The narrative that the EU is some sort of shadowy cabal that's treating the poor downtrodden UK unfairly is a ridiculous one.

Tell me: do you subscribe to the view that "eating your cake and having it too" is a perfectly reasonable negotiating position?

ArthurDayne

oscarBravo wrote: »

And then there's the delusion that "the EU" is some sort of independent body that actively works against its members' interests.

The UK, as a member, has agreed to the rules. Those rules are codified in the Treaties, to which the UK is a signatory.

Let me repeat that in case you missed it: the UK negotiated and ratified the EU Treaties.

The narrative that the EU is some sort of shadowy cabal that's treating the poor downtrodden UK unfairly is a ridiculous one.

?

Exactly, and following on from that -- it does seem to have become a worrying but evident element of the Conservative party that it is willing to gamble the general wellbeing of the state in the drive to consolidate its position of power. That is, after all, what the Brexit referendum was all about -- Cameron would put the binary simplistic referendum question to the [widely misinformed, as it turned out] populace and in one fell swoop bury the Eurosceptic debate for a generation while also taking credit for putting the question to the people unlike Blair/Brown. The gamble failed spectacularly.

And now, I fear we are seeing it again: a Conservative party who are using the pretence of giving effect to the 'will of the people', led by a Prime Minister who was pro-Remain but who much like her predecessor, has since traded sense for political expediency. Instead of seeing rational reflection from those who should know better, instead of seeing calls for cool heads and advice for the British people to reflect carefully on the decision that was made in June and acknowledge the complexity and nuance of what is to come -- we see bullishness, jingoism and a narrative that the Tories are fighting to re-establish Britain as ...whatever it used to be at some unspecified point in the past...against the best efforts of the Bosch, the Bonapartes and the Brussels Bureaucrats who are apparently willing Britannia's demise.

Jim2007

twinytwo wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looks more to me like calling a spade a machine gun.

It's bizarre how many people have bought into the ridiculous fantasy that a non-member of a club can get a better deal from a club than the members can, and that denying membership privileges to non-members is "stamping on throats".

Seriously, try it some time. Join a gym for a year, then at the end of the year tell them you're not renewing your membership but want to be able to use the facilities for free. If they refuse, complain loudly about how they're stamping on your throat.

Let us know how you get on.

There seems to be this delusion around that the only way is the current EU way.

How about I pay for the gym only to be told what equipment i can and cannot use, have them change the rules after I have joined, tell me i have to pay for other people and fine me when I try to leave.;)

Well done, whatever you do don't let the facts interfere with your opinion.  Build on your success by moving to the next level - craft your own facts and seek out others who accept them, you'll find comfort in numbers should the outside word come crashing in.

nhunter100

ArthurDayne wrote:

And now, I fear we are seeing it again: a Conservative party who are using the pretence of giving effect to the 'will of the people', led by a Prime Minister who was pro-Remain but who much like her predecessor, has since traded sense for political expediency. Instead of seeing rational reflection from those who should know better, instead of seeing calls for cool heads and advice for the British people to reflect carefully on the decision that was made in June and acknowledge the complexity and nuance of what is to come -- we see bullishness, jingoism and a narrative that the Tories are fighting to re-establish Britain as ...whatever it used to be at some unspecified point in the past...against the best efforts of the Bosch, the Bonapartes and the Brussels Bureaucrats who are apparently willing Britannia's demise.

By 'reflect' do you prehaps mean vote again?

View

nhunter100 wrote: »

By 'reflect' do you prehaps mean vote again?

[/quote]

The meaning of a "reflection" is entirely up to the UK Parliament; Parliament being sovereign etc.

I suspect if asked we'd hear some sort of mantra like "Reflect means reflect" or perhaps even that "Reflect" means a "Red, White & Blue reflection". :-)

ArthurDayne

nhunter100 wrote: »

By 'reflect' do you prehaps mean vote again?

No actually, I don't. The referendum passed in favour of Brexit but there is no excuse in this age of accessible information for all those who support Brexit not to be able to reflect rationally on the actual practicalities of what it is they want to achieve. People wanted to 'take back control' of their sovereignty and borders, and they deemed that the way to achieve that was via Brexit. The warnings from the much-maligned 'experts' on the actual complex technicalities of leaving the EU and indeed the nuances and difficulties the UK would face at the negotiating table were dismissed as being part of 'Project Fear'. Well, now those experts are tasked with delivering Brexit and somehow negotiating the UK into a stronger position than it was during its time as a member of the EU. It's not quite as simple as 'taking back control' when you dislodge yourself from one of the most powerful economic blocs on the planet and, with a bullish attitude on what you want from the negotiations, expect it to yield wholly to terms which are blatantly against its interests.

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's bizarre how many people have bought into the ridiculous fantasy that a non-member of a club can get a better deal from a club than the members can, and that denying membership privileges to non-members is "stamping on throats".

Seriously, try it some time. Join a gym for a year, then at the end of the year tell them you're not renewing your membership but want to be able to use the facilities for free. If they refuse, complain loudly about how they're stamping on your throat.

Could you provide evidence that this is a widespread idea? Specifically, a belief among brexiters that the UK after brexit will have freer trade with EU members after after brexit than that which the UK has currently.

I can find plenty of statements from the likes of Martin Schultz, the PM of Malta and others saying statements like "the UK can't expect a better access to the single market while not being a member of the EU", but I can't find anything from brexit campaigners suggesting that that would be the case.

It seems to me that a bit of a "straw man" is being created here.

Of course brexiters are going to downplay both the possibility and effects of a potential bad deal with the EU, I've never heard any of them say that market access to EU member states will be better than current EU membership.

Could the creation of straw men arguments such as this be one of the reasons that the remainers lost credibility and the referendum?

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Could you provide evidence that this is a widespread idea? Specifically, a belief among brexiters that the UK after brexit will have freer trade with EU members after after brexit than that which the UK has currently.

I'm not going to provide evidence for that, because I didn't say it. I said "a better deal".

demfad

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looks more to me like calling a spade a machine gun.

It's bizarre how many people have bought into the ridiculous fantasy that a non-member of a club can get a better deal from a club than the members can, and that denying membership privileges to non-members is "stamping on throats".

Seriously, try it some time. Join a gym for a year, then at the end of the year tell them you're not renewing your membership but want to be able to use the facilities for free. If they refuse, complain loudly about how they're stamping on your throat.

Let us know how you get on.

Also that the ex member will be able to use the facilities that suit it best while not bothering with the facilities it doesn't like. Even if the gym accepted it, the world gym organisation wouldn't and in trade matters the WTO doesn't.

Full FTA or NO FTA are the rules, and if the UK cannot secure an FTA in the time then UK focus should really be about persuading the EU to accept some kind of transition where current terms are held over a longer period.

The UK Gov focus seems to be to manipulate itself and the EU into a position where only a hard Brexit is possible. If success is measured by Brexiting then this has highest chance of 'success'. This will satisfy her opposition (UKIP and Eurosceptic Tories) who look at any transition with scepticism.

As Tony Blair pointed out the only type of economy that is possible in this scenario is the low tax haven model which cant support social democracy.

In this scenario there wont be a negotiation with Wilbur Ross on a US 'deal'. He will hand them the deal for signing, they will sign with no other choice and they will gut the UK as they are gutting the US now.

If Trump has bypassed WTO and the global economy is protectionist then the UK is lost. A wise policy has to be a slow wait and see Brexit.

They dont even want to know if A50 is revocable, in fact those who try and find out are coded as traitors.

Things will get real and grown up when all power is handed to the EU after A50.

A Little Pony

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I hope not. I believe that it adds a lot more than it takes. Short term, the main threat is the possibility of France leaving. That'll be it IMO. The UK leaving is bad for the EU but the British have always been half-hearted members of the club at best when you consider the rebate, their veto, etc.. One thing which will hopefully help save the project is that people will see that voting against the establishment simply for the sake of it has very real consequences. The other is that the young will hopefully actually turn out and vote instead of letting older, more conservative voters decide their futures for them.

Young people do grow older you know and actually learn more about the world.

johnp001

Latest German inflation figures at 2.2% exceeding expectations
How long will ECB rates be held at zero while eurozone inflation increases?
Euro area inflation figures are already running at ECB inflation target having increased sharply in last couple of months