Brexit discussion thread II

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement. Michel Barnier is pointing to a CETA like arrangement. If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate. That aside I've explained why the 6 month limit on employment is insufficient. The UK needs to have the right to issue controls on contested sectors of employment and be able to decide if people are of good character (criminal record checks) before allowing them into the UK.

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder is there an actual figure for pure UK WTO trade, not governed by a FTA or other bilateral deal between the EU and third countries. I suspect it's a vanishingly small percentage of total UK trade.

It's probably zero. Countries rarely trade on pure WTO rules. Apart from FTAs, you have bilaterals, multilaterals etc. The WTO is basically to facilitate these other ways to trade.

demfad

Russian ambassador responds to growing coverage in British media of Russian interference in Brexit.

https://m.rusemb.org.uk/article/ambassador-alexander-yakovenkos-response-to-the-media-question

Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's response to the media question

Question: Accusations that Russia “undermines the British democracy” and was somehow involved in the result of the Brexit referendum appear more and more often in the British media. How could you comment on that?

Response: In fact, there are persistent attempts to impose on the British public opinion the notion of Russia standing behind the outcomes of the EU membership referendum. We believe these accusations are outright insulting, both for the British political leadership as well as for the British people. The idea to launch the referendum didn’t come from Russia – it was a key promise in David Cameron’s election campaign in 2015, and, making that promise, he didn’t seem to think much about Russia. At the referendum, the British voters used their legal right to decide, and to speak of Russian intervention is incorrect here, at the very least.

As we see that Brexit talks turn into the main foreign policy challenge for London, the temptation is obviously there to find a scapegoat, a third party responsible for all, in this case Russia. This is totally unacceptable. Russia doesn’t intervene into internal affairs of other states, and this is a key principle of our foreign policy. I am calling on the unscrupulous journalists and politicians: stop imposing this fake agenda, don’t try to solve your problems at our expense!

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

It's objectively untrue. According to the Lord Ashcroft polls, only 33% of people voted on the basis of immigration control. Even if you include the 49% who cited sovereignty as their primary motivation, you lose nearly 20% of the 52% of people who voted. Therefore, a Brexit deal which retains free movement isn't a betrayal of the majority who cast ballots.

Gerry T

murphaph wrote: »

I wonder is there an actual figure for pure UK WTO trade, not governed by a FTA or other bilateral deal between the EU and third countries. I suspect it's a vanishingly small percentage of total UK trade.

Not really, the attached shows where the UK exports to, it's 2015 so out of date but gives a good picture of where its at. All of this is done under EU deals, which the UK has to re-negotiate.


https://www.statista.com/chart/4476/britains-exports-what-are-they-and-where-do-they-go/

The Rape of Lucretia

demfad wrote: »

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

It is no betrayal. Since what existing the EU was not defined before the referendum (hence the present Mayhem), there can be no failure to deliver it. Sure, different people had different ideas on what they expected it to be - we really only heard the hard/soft-Brexit concept after the result. But there was no clear prior picture of what that was. So it can now be anything. As long as the 28 becomes 27, anything goes, and there can be no claim of betrayal of the electorate and their decision to Brexit.

The Rape of Lucretia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's objectively untrue. According to the Lord Ashcroft polls, only 33% of people voted on the basis of immigration control. Even if you include the 49% who cited sovereignty as their primary motivation, you lose nearly 20% of the 52% of people who voted. Therefore, a Brexit deal which retains free movement isn't a betrayal of the majority who cast ballots.

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

Enzokk

demfad wrote: »

Can you provide any actual evidence to back up the section in bold?

I don't think you can keep saying this without doing so. Even if its just your opinion, please back it up.

Anything would be a betrayal of something, because the question was so binary but the reality is so much more complicated. If there is some give on free movement of labour to have a little access to the single market its not what people voted for. If there is a customs union to make sure there is no cliff edge its a betrayal of the wonderful trade deals that can be signed. If they have to pay for access to the EMA to EURATOM its money that was supposed to be going towards the NHS and is thus a betrayal.

The only way to ensure a outcome of the referendum is to cut all access and ties with the EU. But that means no more CTA and a border within Ireland. There is nothing that can be done other than the hardest of Brexits that will satisfy Brexiteers and everyone has been advising against. But like the prophesies of doom that hasn't happened yet (its all going so well since the election) this will be ignored and people will run head first into wall and expect no damage at all.

Peregrinus

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

Even accepting your calculations, 64% of Brexit voters is a minority of voters as a whole, and therefore in restricting migration May is doing something not sought by the majority of the electorate. Not] doing that could hardly be characterised as a betrayal of the voters given that, mostly, they haven't expressed any desire for her to do it.

ancapailldorcha

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

I should have clarified. I meant 33% of people who voted to leave the EU.

demfad

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Yes. 33% of those who voted. But would it be correct(ish) so say that 33% were in the 52% that voted Brexit. So 64% of Brexit voters voted on the basis of immigration control. So a very significant factor for those who voted exit, and so the decisive motivation determining the overall outcome ?

A large amount wanted to stay in the SM. Which cake should they eat: stay in SM or curb FOM?

The Brexit campaign deliberately didn't specify a version of Brexit. They couldnt agree on one then and they cant agree on one now.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

A large amount wanted to stay in the SM. Which cake should they eat: stay in SM or curb FOM?

The Brexit campaign deliberately didn't specify a version of Brexit. They couldnt agree on one then and they cant agree on one now.

Which explains the insecurity which leads them to equate any disagreement with the particular version of Brexit that any one of them happens to favour with treason and betrayal.

Professor Moriarty

If one takes a giant step back, analysis of the vote and the intentions of those who voted Leave is relatively meaningless. Those who voted Remain knew what they were voting for. Those who voted Leave had no idea as to what "exiting the EU" actually meant. Not least because the terms and conditions of that exit had not been negotiated.

demfad

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If one takes a giant step back, analysis of the vote and the intentions of those who voted Leave is relatively meaningless. Those who voted Remain knew what they were voting for. Those who voted Leave had no idea as to what "exiting the EU" actually meant. Not least because the terms and conditions of that exit had not been negotiated.

This meant that they all voted for their imagined version of Brexit.
If you take remain in the EU as a single version of the EU/UK relationship then arguably people voted for this particular relationship massively above any other particular relationship. This is given we don't even know now what particular relationship actual Brexit will produce.


The people who really still believe they will get their fantasy are those trying to push the UK off the cliff:

1. (millionaire) Walter Mitty Tory ideologues
2. Hard right nationalist, xenophobic, mysoginist groups like UKIP
3. Their international US, change the world order, Hard Right backers like the Mercers and Bannon.
4. Disaster capitalists like the Legatum Institute (Steve Baker second to Davis in Brexit dept formerly one of these). Made their money in post Soviet Union, and post Sino-British agreement Hong Kong. Loads of shares in Gazpron interestingly. Some of these guys are in category 3, such as Mercer and his hedge fund renaissance technologies.
5. Right wing US group ALEC: They were the other end of the Atlantic Bridge with Liam Fox before he was disgraced. They want a desperate UK to do a low regulation deal with them so they can flood the UK with their cheap products and services.

Professor Moriarty

demfad wrote: »

This meant that they all voted for their imagined version of Brexit.
If you take remain in the EU as a single version of the EU/UK relationship then arguably people voted for this particular relationship massively above any other particular relationship. This is given we don't even know now what particular relationship actual Brexit will produce.


The people who really still believe they will get their fantasy are those trying to push the UK off the cliff:

1. (millionaire) Walter Mitty Tory ideologues
2. Hard right nationalist, xenophobic, mysoginist groups like UKIP
3. Their international US, change the world order, Hard Right backers like the Mercers and Bannon.
4. Disaster capitalists like the Legatum Institute (Steve Baker second to Davis in Brexit dept formerly one of these). Made their money in post Soviet Union, and post Sino-British agreement Hong Kong. Loads of shares in Gazpron interestingly. Some of these guys are in category 3, such as Mercer and his hedge fund renaissance technologies.
5. Right wing US group ALEC: They were the other end of the Atlantic Bridge with Liam Fox before he was disgraced. They want a desperate UK to do a low regulation deal with them so they can flood the UK with their cheap products and services.

Exactly. Remain voters voted for the status quo. All Leave voters voted for their own unique version of Leave.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

The Brexit campaign deliberately didn't specify a version of Brexit.

The Telegraph is probably the most respectable Leave paper, and they called loud and often for the Leave campaign to explicitly call out the Norwegian model as the goal of the Leave campaign. How many voters agreed? We don't know.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Telegraph is probably the most respectable Leave paper, and they called loud and often for the Leave campaign to explicitly call out the Norwegian model as the goal of the Leave campaign. How many voters agreed? We don't know.

That assertion speaks volumes about the British press. Not in a good way.

demfad

Just confirmation that many of the problems that the British are having now are self made. Ivan Rodgers the chief British EU diplomat who resigned in January stated that the huge Brexit related error (apart from holding teh referendum) was triggering A50 when they weren't ready to. The other errors such as calling the snap election, creating a Brexit department from scrtach, challenging Gina Millar only compounded this original disastrous error.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-ivan-rodgers-eu-ambassador-article-50-screwed-a8019991.html

Sir Ivan added that he had advised waiting until ministers were sure the negotiating timetable was going to work for the benefit of the UK, before they triggered Article 50 last March.

However, he said that he had been “heavily opposed” by “various people in London”.

“My advice as a European negotiator was that that was a moment of key leverage, and if you wanted to avoid being screwed on the negotiations in terms of the sequencing you had to negotiate with the key European leaders and the key people at the top of the institutions, and say ‘I will invoke Article 50, but only under circumstances where I know exactly how it is going to operate.”’

Sir Ivan said that in the event, the EU side had done “exactly as you would expect” and insisted that they were not prepared to discuss the future partnership arrangements, including a free trade deal, until the terms of Britain’s withdrawal had been agreed – including the financial settlement.

cnocbui

I like Michael Bloomberg's comment:

I did say that I thought it (Brexit) was the stupidest thing that a country has ever done — but then we trumped it,

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/25/michael-bloomberg-says-brexit-is-single-stupidest-thing-a-country-has-ever-done-besides-trump.html

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Telegraph is probably the most respectable Leave paper, and they called loud and often for the Leave campaign to explicitly call out the Norwegian model as the goal of the Leave campaign. How many voters agreed? We don't know.

The Telegraph seems to have completely succumbed to corporate interests now. A symtom of the general issue with western media and journalism.
This would normally be too unbelievable to believe. From the Guardian:

Those refused access to Xi’s statement to the media include the BBC, the Financial Times, the Economist, the New York Times and the Guardian. Chinese officials offered no formal explanation for the decision.

The Daily Telegraph, which regularly publishes Communist party propaganda in the UK as part of a reported £800,000 annual contract with Beijing’s China Daily, is understood to have been granted an invitation to Xi’s event.

carrickbally

murphaph wrote: »

It's not fair to blame the English exclusively. London voted remain. If all the Scots had voted remain it would have gone the other way.

England's population is 84% of the total population of the UK.

Scotland 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%.

England decides since they are vastly in the majority.

carrickbally

carrickbally wrote: »

England's population is 84% of the total population of the UK.

Scotland 8%, Wales 5% and Northern Ireland 3%.

England decides since they are vastly in the majority.

1,000,000 people in Scotland voted leave. If they voted remain, this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

1,000,000 people in Scotland voted leave. If they voted remain, this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

That's asking for a near 100% win for remain which would be completely unrealistic.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Isn't this discussion of blaming X, Y or Z demographic for Brexit is now effectively entirely obsolete?

The discussion within the UK isn't about whether the UK leaves or stays because the vote has nullified the latter from being a realistic option in the current climate.

The discussion is about how to deliver Brexit in the best way possible. In the long term I'm still of the mind that regaining as much control as possible over the headline issues of the campaign (law, borders, money, and trade policy) is the best option.

Of course that should be done whilst seeking the best trading relationship possible within the parameters. This is why I think it's sensible for Barnier to propose a CETA like arrangement as he did this week. It's true that Brexit is effectively Britain asking for more distance from the EU in order to draw closer to the wider world. It's sensible to attempt to find the correct balance.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The discussion is about how to deliver Brexit in the best way possible. In the long term I'm still of the mind that regaining as much control as possible over the headline issues of the campaign (law, borders, money, and trade policy) is the best option.

So now the plan is not to take full control but to take as much control as possible? So I guess the discussion is how much loss of control is too much?

carrickbally

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Isn't this discussion of blaming X, Y or Z demographic for Brexit is now effectively entirely obsolete?

The discussion within the UK isn't about whether the UK leaves or stays because the vote has nullified the latter from being a realistic option in the current climate.

The discussion is about how to deliver Brexit in the best way possible. In the long term I'm still of the mind that regaining as much control as possible over the headline issues of the campaign (law, borders, money, and trade policy) is the best option.

Of course that should be done whilst seeking the best trading relationship possible within the parameters. This is why I think it's sensible for Barnier to propose a CETA like arrangement as he did this week. It's true that Brexit is effectively Britain asking for more distance from the EU in order to draw closer to the wider world. It's sensible to attempt to find the correct balance.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The UK decided what their 'correct balance' was in 1973 when they joined the European Community.

In consequence they signed a treaty to join.

As a result of decades of anti-EU propaganda by the gutter London media since they now want to tear up that treaty.

So they UK voted to leave the EU.

The UK's politicians negotiating on its behalf define that as leaving both the customs union and the single market.

That is their decision.

No member of the EU 27 forced them to do that.

That is a hard Brexit.

But it has to be repeated that is the decision of the UK alone.

The consequences of that decision will, therefore, be the responsibility of the UK.

They have taken the initiative to leave and are now trying to dictate terms.

Since they have shown contempt for the most advanced and best organised effort in international cooperation in the world they do not deserve much sympathy.

Since the motivation for Brexit was racist contempt for those smaller and poorer democracies which they regard as the lower orders in Europe their brazenness has to be seen to be believed.

Their arrogance is indefensible.

Blaming everyone else in Europe for the present situation, as the gutter London press is now doing, is ignoring these facts.

Thargor

Oh my God, and you cant just say "oh its just the Daily Mail" either, this all started with a Tory MP asking universities to hand over details about what was being thought about Brexit...

Firblog

carrickbally wrote: »

Since they have shown contempt for the....

The way you seem to be taking Brexit you'd think that they'd gotten your sister pregnant and dumped her penniless in a strange city.. don't take it personally, it wasn't because they didn't like rest of us in Europe, it was because they got really tired of the rules.

carrickbally wrote: »

for the most advanced and best organised effort in international cooperation in the world

Is this the advanced organisation that has auditors that have problems signing off the accounts? Where nearly 4% of the budget has been spent in error?

Is it the best organised because it moves the parliament between 2 cities costing about a cool €100,000,000 per year?

carrickbally wrote: »

Since the motivation for Brexit was racist contempt for those smaller and poorer democracies which they regard as the lower orders in Europe their brazenness has to be seen to be believed.

We are smaller and poorer than them, were they racist towards us? Please post link to proof of your post.

On the other hand, I remember the votes on the European Constitution, do you? France and Netherlands voted against it.. It was dropped, dead. Now think back to when we voted against any European treaty in a referendum, was it dead when we rejected it?

Now tell me who has shown contempt for smaller countries?

Who forced us to accept the payment of unsecured bond holders for the banks?

Now tell me who has the contempt for poorer countries? (I'll give you a clue, the funds that were really bailed out had big French and German investments)

carrickbally wrote: »

Their arrogance is indefensible

Quite honestly the only arrogance I've seen in Europe recently is from Junker and Merkel,

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

1) I don't see any indication Theresa May is going to agree to continued free movement...If she does it's a betrayal to the British electorate.

Its not really though, is it? The British voted to leave the EU, not to end free movement. Anything stated to the contrary simply isnt factual.

I'm sorry but I'm vastly sceptical of both the idea that the UK couldn't succeed outside the EU and I'm vastly sceptical of the claim that the EU was Britain's saviour or indeed not being in the EU was was brought Britain's downfall.

Well, the UK hasn't even left the EU and its already looking quite grim. Good luck!

The logical response to this argument shouldn't be that the UK needs the EU to manage its trade policy. It should be to realise that it is a problem, take back control of it and work hard to build up both trading relationships and a trade negotiation capacity. It's in Britain's interests to have this for itself without relying on the EU.

If the talks so far have demonstrated anything, its that the UK really does need the EU to manage its trade policy.

carrickbally

Firblog wrote: »

We are smaller and poorer than them, were they racist towards us? Please post link to proof of your post.

On the other hand, I remember the votes on the European Constitution, do you? France and Netherlands voted against it.. It was dropped, dead. Now think back to when we voted against any European treaty in a referendum, was it dead when we rejected it?

We are a democracy. We changed our minds. That is what happens in a democracy.

Now tell me who has shown contempt for smaller countries?

Who forced us to accept the payment of unsecured bond holders for the banks?
Now tell me who has the contempt for poorer countries? (I'll give you a clue, the funds that were really bailed out had big French and German investments)

Quite honestly the only arrogance I've seen in Europe recently is from Junker and Merkel,

Have you forgotten eight centuries of colonial domination stolen land, deprevation of the right to own property, education or participate in commerce.

Starvation of a million people while food was exported to England, failure to implement an Act of their own parliament giving self rule to the island of Ireland etc.

All the countries that were bankrupt by the decisions of their own most powerful citizens were bailed out by their fellow citizens in the EU.

The people who made the decisions to borrow the money were the Irish financial institutions. They tripled bank lending in a few short years. Most other countries in the EU did not do that.

The EU is made up of nearly thirty democracies each of which signed a treaty to cooperate in matters of mutual interest.

We are a democracy. We changed our minds. That is what happens in a democracy.

The democratically elected politicians of each country in the EU meet with the other democratically elected politicians of the other countries regularly to make decisions.

The only country that has torn up that agreement is the UK.

That is the result of arrogant racism promoted by the gutter London media for decades.

Nody

On the other hand, I remember the votes on the European Constitution, do you? France and Netherlands voted against it.. It was dropped, dead. Now think back to when we voted against any European treaty in a referendum, was it dead when we rejected it?

Once again if you actually had bothered to do a basic research on the subject you'd know it was altered to specifically address the issues Ireland raised and was hence amended accordingly and Irish people asked if the amended treaty is now ok so yes the original treaty was dead when the Irish rejected it.

Now tell me who has shown contempt for smaller countries?

You mean they update the treaty to give Ireland all they asked for and that's somehow contempt for Ireland?

Who forced us to accept the payment of unsecured bond holders for the banks?

The Irish government who went and guaranteed all deposits and all debts against the advice of their advisers (on their own accord) and who failed to enforce their lax regulation in the first place which once again has been proven on boards multiple times and you have yet again failed to do basic research on. In fact if they had followed their adviser they would have burned $10 billion in junior debt but that would also been the whole hair cut.

Now tell me who has the contempt for poorer countries? (I'll give you a clue, the funds that were really bailed out had big French and German investments)

I'll give you a clue; your claims are baseless which has been disproved multiple times inc. by the Irish government. The big losers if there would have been haircuts were the IRISH pension funds and US sources and not EU banks which is the popular yet utterly false claim (the 135 billion German liability was to the IFSC and not to Irish banks for example) because the Irish banks turned to US to borrow money when the European banks prudently stopped giving them even short term credits. In fact I suggest you read page 251 which clearly states who took this decision and it was not the ECB (ECB's comment are on page 246 forward and I quote "No contact between the Irish Government and either me (Jean-Claude Trichet) or the ECB or to my knowledge, their governments" when asked on ECBs involvement in the guarantee).

Quite honestly the only arrogance I've seen in Europe recently is from Junker and Merkel,

So Boris claim he can have the cake and eat it is what, truth? Daniel Davis claim it will be the easiest negotiation was what, truth? May's Brexit means Brexit and she'll be a iron lady ending up pleading for a deal she can sell to the EU leaders a year later was what, humility? May triggering A50 without even a plan or aligned government was what, a master stroke?

Firblog

carrickbally wrote: »

Have you forgotten eight centuries of colonial domination stolen land, deprevation of the right to own property, education or participate in commerce.

Starvation of a million people while food was exported to England, failure to implement an Act of their own parliament giving self rule to the island of Ireland etc.

Sorry I thought we were talking about the behaviour of countries of the European union.. didn't know you were going back 800 years. Is it only 800? or can we go back further? Never mind, I'll stay in the last 100 years, lets see.. easy peasy, how about the fun loving Germans, gas people eh? Lovely, and their biggest collaborators, the French ah yes roll over and do what ever whoever is in charge in Berlin asks.

carrickbally wrote: »

All the countries that were bankrupt by the decisions of their own most powerful citizens were bailed out by their fellow citizens in the EU.

Can't believe that you think we were bailed out by our 'fellow citizens in the EU' We were forced to bail out the banks, pay back unsecured bond holders, and then they 'bailed us out' by loaning us money at multiples of the interest they themselves were charged to borrow it... how kind they were to us, makes me want to get on my knees every morning to give thanks

Brits on the other hand loaned us €5bn approx at - I believe .25% above the rate at which they borrowed it.

carrickbally wrote: »

The democratically elected politicians of each country in the EU meet with the other democratically elected politicians of the other countries regularly to make decisions.

The democratic credentials of the EU are very tenuous indeed There were democratically elected leaders of countries in the EU who have been forced out by the EU/ECB because they didn't like their policies.

The EC once put sanctions on a fellow member; Austria. What was the crime the Austrians committed?

They elected the wrong people in a democratic election... how's that for the great proponent of democratic principles that is the European project?

carrickbally wrote: »

The only country that has torn up that agreement is the UK.

What do you mean they tore up the agreement? Article 50 is part of the agreement, how can they be tearing it up if they are implementing one of its articles?

carrickbally wrote: »

That is the result of arrogant racism promoted by the gutter London media for decades.

yup, the media is always to blame.

Firblog

I posted earlier, and you quoted

On the other hand, I remember the votes on the European Constitution, do you? France and Netherlands voted against it.. It was dropped, dead. Now think back to when we voted against any European treaty in a referendum, was it dead when we rejected it?

Nody wrote: »

Once again if you actually had bothered to do a basic research on the subject you'd know it was altered to specifically address the issues Ireland raised and was hence amended accordingly and Irish people asked if the amended treaty is now ok so yes the original treaty was dead when the Irish rejected it.

Perhaps your own research could be brushed up a little, Ireland didn't even have a vote on the European Constitution, France and Netherlands voting against it killed it. heres wiki on it

Couldn't really be arsed reading the rest of your post if you couldn't get that right

sink

Firblog wrote: »

On the other hand, I remember the votes on the European Constitution, do you? France and Netherlands voted against it.. It was dropped, dead. Now think back to when we voted against any European treaty in a referendum, was it dead when we rejected it?

Except they didn't, 90%+ of the structural reforms in the European Constitution were carried over into the Lisbon treaty. Most of what was dropped was more symbolic than functional and it's approach differed in that it was an amendment to existing treaties rather than complete repeal and replacement. Granted the changes were bigger than the changes between Nice/Lisbon 1 & 2 however it was deemed politically necessary in order to be ratified if in the countries which rejected the constitution.

In Ireland the government could have chosen not to hold second referendums and there would have been nothing the EU could have done about it, directly at least. The most they could have only given us the cold shoulder should we come asking for any favours. In the end the government were proven right by getting both treaties passed in subsequent democratic referendums.

Junkyard Tom

Another twitter thread from a German perspective dismantling the Tory bluff that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. At the very least it displays that the there is a major belief asymmetry when it comes to Brexit wing-growers and the EU.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

1,000,000 people in Scotland voted leave. If they voted remain, this conversation wouldn't be taking place.

Scotland did actually speak with a clearer voice; they voted 62:38 to remain.

The English were much more evenly divided - 53:47 to leave.

But, because the English don't express a strong preference, its the Scots' fault that the UK is leaving? Because their vote to remain wasn't even more decisive than it actually was?

This is a pretty clear example of a strongly-expressed preference on the part of Scotland being overriden by a much weaker preference of the English, because the English are vastly more numerous.

It is simply not the job of the Scots to save the English from themselves, and it is unreasonable to expect them to. Scotland voted decisively to remain, but the UK is leaving because the English voted to leave. That is not the Scots' fault.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Scotland did actually speak with a clearer voice; they voted 62:38 to remain.

The English were much more evenly divided - 53:47 to leave.

But, because the English don't express a strong preference, its the Scots' fault that the UK is leaving? Because their vote to remain wasn't even more decisive than it actually was?

This is a pretty clear example of a strongly-expressed preference on the part of Scotland being overriden by a much weaker preference of the English, because the English are vastly more numerous.

It is simply not the job of the Scots to save the English from themselves, and it is unreasonable to expect them to. Scotland voted decisively to remain, but the UK is leaving because the English voted to leave. That is not the Scots' fault.

no one is blaming Scotland, you need to go back and reread the thread.

Chips Lovell

carrickbally wrote: »

Have you forgotten eight centuries of colonial domination stolen land, deprevation of the right to own property, education or participate in commerce.

Starvation of a million people while food was exported to England, failure to implement an Act of their own parliament giving self rule to the island of Ireland etc....

Firblog wrote: »

Who forced us to accept the payment of unsecured bond holders for the banks?

Now tell me who has the contempt for poorer countries? (I'll give you a clue, the funds that were really bailed out had big French and German investments)

Quite honestly the only arrogance I've seen in Europe recently is from Junker and Merkel,

Folks,
Lets get back on topic please. And that topic is Brexit, not bondholders, 800 years of oppression etc.

Samaris

Definitely a spread in "It's all the big bad EU's fault!" going around as things start to look really poor. "The EU are stalling!", "The EU are making our government look bad", "The EU are undemocratic."

Which is a little ironic for a country with a hereditary aristocracy that help run the place, but okay.

The EU made three perfectly reasonable demands for their position - what happens to EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU (you'd think this would be of mild interest to the UK), and are willing to offer a reciprocal deal if the UK would make a clear point.

What happens with the new EU/non-EU border, taking into account that it is really awkward for Ireland and risks a peace agreement. I'm not really sure why this is considered unreasonable.

That the UK should commit to paying towards what it signed up to in the last five-year budget. That they chose to have the referendum one year into a five-year budget is absolutely and entirely a British choice.

So far the responses have hovered around;
"We'll totally look after the EU citizens - where is that pile of deportation papers, quick, send them out!"
"Uhm. We expect to come up with a strong, stable and flexible solution as soon as someone else thinks of one."
"Yes - well, maybe - do we have to - WAAAAH! NO!" /toys out of pram.

blanch152

Firblog wrote: »

Can't believe that you think we were bailed out by our 'fellow citizens in the EU' We were forced to bail out the banks, pay back unsecured bond holders, and then they 'bailed us out' by loaning us money at multiples of the interest they themselves were charged to borrow it... how kind they were to us, makes me want to get on my knees every morning to give thanks

Brits on the other hand loaned us €5bn approx at - I believe .25% above the rate at which they borrowed it.

.

This is complete rubbish, akin to a conspiracy theory and has been debunked many times.

The FF government made an absolute cock-up on 30 September 2008 by guaranteeing the banks without consulting anyone in Europe possibly to bail out their friends at the top level of the banks. Now, we elected that FF government, so we are equally responsible because we gave them the power to make that monumentally stupid decision.

It is nice and comforting to blame someone else for our problems, but we brought it all on ourselves.

demfad

Firblog wrote: »

The way you seem to be taking Brexit you'd think that they'd gotten your sister pregnant and dumped her penniless in a strange city.. don't take it personally, it wasn't because they didn't like rest of us in Europe, it was because they got really tired of the rules.

Please post a link to where the reason for Brexit was given as getting 'tired for the rules' or else post some substantiation for your opinion.

Is this the advanced organisation that has auditors that have problems signing off the accounts? Where nearly 4% of the budget has been spent in error? Is it the best organised because it moves the parliament between 2 cities costing about a cool €100,000,000 per year?

Links?
It best you may prove that every organisation makes mistakes. We know this thks. Can you demonstrate how the EU is particularly wasteful?

We are smaller and poorer than them, were they racist towards us? Please post link to proof of your post.

Ireland has a CTA agreement with UK so not comparing like with like.

On the other hand, I remember the votes on the European Constitution, do you? France and Netherlands voted against it.. It was dropped, dead. Now think back to when we voted against any European treaty in a referendum, was it dead when we rejected it?

France and the Netherlands have a combined population of almost 100 million people. Ours was 3million+ at the time. It is only fair that this is taken into account. Also, the treaty was changed to reflect our concerns. For example the archaic Irish idea that having a commisioner was all important was reflected. Also in the second referendum the Fake news that was spread by Declan Ganley and others about abortion and EU armies was put straight.
We could have rejected it second time: it was passed overwhelmingly.

Who forced us to accept the payment of unsecured bond holders for the banks?

Same thing happened in US and all over the world. It is the system dominated by Global Finance. We take full advantage of this system via our tax/regulatory regime. You wont change this outside the EU.

Quite honestly the only arrogance I've seen in Europe recently is from Junker and Merkel,

The UK used arrogant/aggressive/militaristic language all through and post referendum. The Europeans were constrained. Sure Junker can mouth off, but you have 50 like him in the UK.

demfad

solodeogloria wrote: »

The discussion within the UK isn't about whether the UK leaves or stays because the vote has nullified the latter from being a realistic option in the current climate.

The discussion is about how to deliver Brexit in the best way possible. In the long term I'm still of the mind that regaining as much control as possible over the headline issues of the campaign (law, borders, money, and trade policy) is the best option.

Of course that should be done whilst seeking the best trading relationship possible within the parameters. This is why I think it's sensible for Barnier to propose a CETA like arrangement as he did this week. It's true that Brexit is effectively Britain asking for more distance from the EU in order to draw closer to the wider world. It's sensible to attempt to find the correct balance.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Remain is still a viable alternative within the UK and is gaining steam. Nigel Farage and several thousand bots threatening to take up arms wont change that.

Unfortunately for the UK the have the cake and eat it transition they were hoping for seems to be off the cards. Weber, head of the conservative group in the EU parliament has said that a country outside the EU given this sweet a deal will only encourage fringe (Russian backed) EU sceptic parties.
There will have to be a penalty such as giving up Financial pass-porting rights.

So the British may get this watered down transition. May has already said that a CETA type deal will greatly damage the UKs economy. That will take 5 years minimum so the UK is looking at at least 2 years out in the cold.
Remember during the transition all British deals with other countries (via EU) cease. It infact it takes them (a lot) further away from trading with the rest of the world.

Assuming green politics/economics has gripped the world in the next 10-15 years the folly of attempting to deal with countries far away while being locked out of the single market will just compound the pain and certainty of knowing that there is no way out of the austere poverty.

carrickbally

Nody wrote: »

Once again if you actually had bothered to do a basic research on the subject you'd know it was altered to specifically address the issues Ireland raised and was hence amended accordingly and Irish people asked if the amended treaty is now ok so yes the original treaty was dead when the Irish rejected it.

You mean they update the treaty to give Ireland all they asked for and that's somehow contempt for Ireland?

The Irish government who went and guaranteed all deposits and all debts against the advice of their advisers (on their own accord) and who failed to enforce their lax regulation in the first place which once again has been proven on boards multiple times and you have yet again failed to do basic research on. In fact if they had followed their adviser they would have burned $10 billion in junior debt but that would also been the whole hair cut.

I'll give you a clue; your claims are baseless which has been disproved multiple times inc. by the Irish government. The big losers if there would have been haircuts were the IRISH pension funds and US sources and not EU banks which is the popular yet utterly false claim (the 135 billion German liability was to the IFSC and not to Irish banks for example) because the Irish banks turned to US to borrow money when the European banks prudently stopped giving them even short term credits. In fact I suggest you read page 251 which clearly states who took this decision and it was not the ECB (ECB's comment are on page 246 forward and I quote "No contact between the Irish Government and either me (Jean-Claude Trichet) or the ECB or to my knowledge, their governments" when asked on ECBs involvement in the guarantee).

So Boris claim he can have the cake and eat it is what, truth? Daniel Davis claim it will be the easiest negotiation was what, truth? May's Brexit means Brexit and she'll be a iron lady ending up pleading for a deal she can sell to the EU leaders a year later was what, humility? May triggering A50 without even a plan or aligned government was what, a master stroke?

That is a brilliant post and puts the facts of the case so well.

It challenges the 'alternative facts' that has been repeated in the gutter London media and in much of our own media that the EU is to blame for all our problems.

Before EU membership we were alone under the thumb of the large neighbour next door.

Since EU membership we are one of a number of democracies that signed a treaty to cooperate in matters of mutual interest.

Much of the motivation for Brexit is that the English resent having to put up with those lower order countries not knowing their place as they expected them to do in imperial/colonial times.

Their reaction is to tear up the treaty they signed with them.

Read the London media and the discussions on the net as a result of their articles.

The contempt they express for Eastern Europe especially is something to behold.

Nate--IRL--

blanch152 wrote: »

This is complete rubbish, akin to a conspiracy theory and has been debunked many times.

The FF government made an absolute cock-up on 30 September 2008 by guaranteeing the banks without consulting anyone in Europe possibly to bail out their friends at the top level of the banks. Now, we elected that FF government, so we are equally responsible because we gave them the power to make that monumentally stupid decision.

It is nice and comforting to blame someone else for our problems, but we brought it all on ourselves.

It must never never be forgotten that this was completely FF fault. They put us all on the hook for the bankers bad debts with that guarantee.

Nate

Mezcita

Coveney pretty much nailed it yesterday:

“What has been promised politically in the UK is simply undeliverable,” he said. “The realisation of that is dropping slowly.
“We must work towards a deal that recognises there are consequences to leaving the EU. That’s not a punishment. It is simply a fact that membership of the EU brings privileges, such as the trading structure.
“Leaving the EU cannot result in holding onto all the trade benefits of membership, while at the same time convincing your people that you can get all these other goodies. It can’t be done. It won’t be done, and it cannot be negotiated.”
Mr Coveney said the British people had made a “huge mistake” in its vote to leave the EU.
“The consequences of leaving the EU are now being laid bare,” he said. “This is a huge mistake by the British people, but it is their mistake to make. We have to accept the reality of it.
“The outcome we want is as close to the status quo as we can get. I’m not sure that view is necessarily shared – and understandably so – by other EU members states.”"

Quin_Dub

All - A little bit too much soap-boxing going on here.

Let's try to have open debate.

Thanks

Professor Moriarty

Mezcita wrote: »

Coveney pretty much nailed it yesterday:

“What has been promised politically in the UK is simply undeliverable,” he said. “The realisation of that is dropping slowly.
“We must work towards a deal that recognises there are consequences to leaving the EU. That’s not a punishment. It is simply a fact that membership of the EU brings privileges, such as the trading structure.
“Leaving the EU cannot result in holding onto all the trade benefits of membership, while at the same time convincing your people that you can get all these other goodies. It can’t be done. It won’t be done, and it cannot be negotiated.”
Mr Coveney said the British people had made a “huge mistake” in its vote to leave the EU.
“The consequences of leaving the EU are now being laid bare,” he said. “This is a huge mistake by the British people, but it is their mistake to make. We have to accept the reality of it.
“The outcome we want is as close to the status quo as we can get. I’m not sure that view is necessarily shared – and understandably so – by other EU members states.”"

At the same conference, the Head of the AIB, Richard Pym, put it bluntly:

We must plan for the worst possible car crash Brexit if the headbanger Brexiteers, who are determined to push for a hard Brexit, get their way.

And:

On immigration, there is ample evidence they can’t run the current system - never mind form a new one. Their currency has tanked, inflation is increasing, and euro zone growth now exceeds the UK’s.

I have no doubt that his comments would have had Coveney's tacit imprimatur. Refreshingly honest. Good man, Richard.

LeinsterDub

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGjkcQs4W_c

Real companies moving real jobs and real money out of the UK and into the EU and this is before an real panicking occurs. Imagine what happens in 3 months time if the current messing continues?

blanch152

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

It must never never be forgotten that this was completely FF fault. They put us all on the hook for the bankers bad debts with that guarantee.

Nate

Unfortunately, going by the polls, it has been forgotten already

blanch152

Mezcita wrote: »

Coveney pretty much nailed it yesterday:

“What has been promised politically in the UK is simply undeliverable,” he said. “The realisation of that is dropping slowly.
“We must work towards a deal that recognises there are consequences to leaving the EU. That’s not a punishment. It is simply a fact that membership of the EU brings privileges, such as the trading structure.
“Leaving the EU cannot result in holding onto all the trade benefits of membership, while at the same time convincing your people that you can get all these other goodies. It can’t be done. It won’t be done, and it cannot be negotiated.”
Mr Coveney said the British people had made a “huge mistake” in its vote to leave the EU.
“The consequences of leaving the EU are now being laid bare,” he said. “This is a huge mistake by the British people, but it is their mistake to make. We have to accept the reality of it.
“The outcome we want is as close to the status quo as we can get. I’m not sure that view is necessarily shared – and understandably so – by other EU members states.”"

What worries me most about that statement is the last sentence.

Ireland wants an open border, the UK claims to want an open border, but if the UK won't stay in the single market and the customs union, the EU may rightly and correctly insist that we impose border controls.