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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Brexit discussion thread II
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
That's still only vapourware at this time, so the DExEU better get to draft that tech specification quick-smart. There's about a week left to submit it. Tic-toc-tic-toc-<...>I think that's the key point here and clearly that is what the UK will need to achieve with its soft / electronic border at the frontier itself. I'm fairly confident that they can do this to the satisfaction of the WTO and still put no hardware at the border. It is less likely that Ireland and the EU can achieve the same from our side.
It is your prerogative to recognise those factors as roots of the voting decision if you wish. And it is also your prerogative to claim these roots to be "the real" roots. But that does not make you right: just opinionatedClearly it serves our purposes qua EU members to paint the UK negotiators as utterly confused and chaotic. That picture has been built up since before the start of the talks and the Tories are doing a great job of playing into our hands. However.. That picture of chaos only really helps the EU if it leads to a Corbyn govt. + A really EU friendly fudge.. basically a Brexit which doesn't mean Brexit.
Which is presumably why we here and many of the hardened remainers in the UK keep rehearsing the Brexit arguments ad nauseam.
The trouble is we misjduge.. IMO the degree to which economics, immigration and the rest define the referendum. They were important but perhaps they were not overriding. In the end the UK prize sovereignty perhaps even more than prosperity (they would hardly be the first.. And sovereignty is not in this sense a relative or shareable concept).. and there is a deep seated mistrust of the EU, it's politicians and it's mechanisms. In my opinion those two factors carried the vote and our behaviour and that of the EU throughout the talks absolutely justifies and bears out those concerns. We are behaving.. for perfectly sound tactical and political reasons.. like the technocratic Empire the UK so instinctively detests.
There is no pretty outcome to this problem, particularly for Ireland, and as much as we might lay the blame at Britain's door we must recognise the real roots of their decision lie with the EU and it's genesis as much as anywhere else.
As for me, these real roots of the decision lie at least in part in 4 decades' worth of misinformation of the British public about the nature, workings and purpose of the EU -at a very fundamental level- and about 2 decades' worth of economical growth-led policymaking and spectacularly-wasteful immigration/ID systems failures by successive British governments.
Other such roots which I hold to be 'real' (related to the component of misinformation above), also include the woeful state educational system here, and its consistent mismanagement by successive interfering governments for the past decade at least; and the mass-cretinisation of a sizeable portion of the British electorate (and others-, but British here in context) through their mass-adoption of easily-manipulable social media.
By way of example, the British were free at all times to implement all sorts of restrictive covenants about EU immigrants to curb those very factors that influenced the vote insofar as immigration and the alleged wage suppressing topics are concerned. Now, how much of the British electorate knew that whether pre-referendum, or is even aware of it now? You can bet it's not 52%, or even 48%.
And you would want the EU27 to 'recognise' (as in 'respect', no doubt) this state of affairs? Condone the British public's mushrooming about the EU?
Come off it :rolleyes:
There is no blame to be apportioned for the voting, particularly since it could have been left to its intended purpose of informing policy making in the national interest.And we - of all the nations- can hardly blame the British for voting with their hearts rather than their heads.
The only blame to be apportioned is in respect of the consequences of that voting, that are wholly down to the political exploitation of that voting since the referendum.
And in that respect, again there is none other than the British -specifically, the Tory party and its media machine- to blame.
If the UK wants to stand on its own in the big wide world, it needs to learn that adulting is hard and begins with assuming one's own responsibilities. Welcome to the grown-ups league.0 -
-
-
That's still only vapourware at this time, so the DExEU better get to draft that tech specification quick-smart. There's about a week left to submit it. Tic-toc-tic-toc-<...>
It is your prerogative to recognise those factors as roots of the voting decision if you wish.
And it is also your prerogative to claim these roots to be "the real" roots.
But that does not make you right: just opinionated
As for me, these real roots of the decision lie at least in part in 4 decades' worth of misinformation of the British public about the nature, workings and purpose of the EU -at a very fundamental level- and about 2 decades' worth of, in equal terms, economical growth-led (let all EU types come hither, the more the merrier) and spectacularly-wasteful (all immigration systems and other ID card projects/implementations fiascos) policymaking by successive British governments.
By way of example, the British were free at all times to implement all sorts of restrictive covenants about EU immigrants to curb those very factors that influenced the vote insofar as immigration and the alleged wage suppressing topics are concerned, and which you are now asking EU27 to 'respect' somehow (:rolleyes:). How much of the British electorate knew, whether pre-referendum or even now, that this was the case?
Other such roots which I hold to be 'real' (related to the component of misinformation above), also include the woeful state educational system here, and its consistent mismanagement by successive interfering governments for the past decade at least; and the mass-cretinisation of a sizeable portion of the British electorate (and others-, but British here in context) through their mass-adoption of easily-manipulable social media.
There is no blame to be apportioned for the voting, particularly since it could have been left to its intended purpose of informing policy making in the national interest.
The only blame to be apportioned is in respect of the consequences of that voting, that are wholly down to the political exploitation of that voting since the referendum.
And in that respect, again there is none other than the British -specifically, the Tory party and its media machine- to blame.
If the UK wants to stand on its own in the big wide world, it needs to learn that adulting is hard and begins with assuming one's own responsibilities. Welcome to the grown ups league.
I think I made it pretty clear that it was only my opinion, and that perhaps we sometimes were too quick to fall into "blame the brexiteers, blame the Tories, blame the Tory press" mode. Cameron went to Europe to get a deal on immigration and he hardly had an interest in talking it down but still he lost the vote.
I think the thread which runs through the whole problem is the differing view of sovereignty and I think it's notable that it is an issue the EU fudges again and again, referring - for example - to "competence" instead. Whilst we are quick to blame the British press for being anti Europe we don't appear to question our own press which is much more unified and notably uncritical of EU diktat and dogma.
The fundamental issue of sovereignty is going to remain a running sore in the EU even, perhaps more, with the newly reinvigorated core. If one starts with the reasonable proposition that sovereignty and de facto tax raising powers are indivisible then it's going to be a question which troubles Ireland over the coming years perhaps even more than Brexit does.
I don't think it's wrong to try and understand the role that conflicting views of the role of the nation state have in terms of Brexit - actually I think it's central to making objective decisions about our own place in the world and that of our children. What disturbs me is the slightly nervous shrill tone of debate in Ireland over Brexit - it would pay us perhaps to be more thoughtful and even handed in our assessment. But that's only my view, apparently.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
That you did, but I'm not sure how the end sentence follows from the earlier ones: I think it's telling that the EU is very seriously contemplating the 2-speed model (more vs less integration) amongst the EU27, right this minute.I think I made it pretty clear that it was only my opinion, and that perhaps we sometimes were too quick to fall into "blame the brexiteers, blame the Tories, blame the Tory press" mode. Cameron went to Europe to get a deal on immigration and he hardly had an interest in talking it down but still he lost the vote.
As I remember posting back in Feb 2016, whether here or on another forum, Cameron with his negotations had successfully positioned the UK to exit the integrating model of the EU, whereby the UK could have been the heavyweight of the diverging group of less-integrating members (with a high probability of including the Nehtherlands, Poland, Denmark, <...>), mirroring Germany's position for the more-integrating members (including France, Italy, Spain, <...>), and all without leaving the EU and imperilling its socio-economic situation and growth. That was the smart political play.
But well, Cameron's win (and yes, it was a win) wasn't the slam-dunk of victorious exceptionalism, which UKIP and other assorted Eurosceptics had vociferously whipped the population about around the time.
So we are where we are, the obscurantists and snake oil merchants still have the helm. Stay on that boat at your own risk, and your mileage will vary
The issue of sovereignty is not a sore point in the EU in the least [EDIT: insofar as current aspects of pooled sovereignty are concerned]: many, if not most electorates (and certainly the case amongst the EU14 - excluding the UK obviously) are fully aware of how the EU works, how aspects of sovereignty are pooled for mutual benefits (if not in practice sometimes, then certainly by intent at all times), and of the fact that Member States remain wholly sovereign across all non-delegated matters. Well, as sovereign as their other multifarious bilateral and multilateral treaty obligations (WTO, NATO, ECHR, <...>) allow them to be, that is (funny that, I haven't seem many further referenda mooted about these other sovereignty-stealing treatiesI think the thread which runs through the whole problem is the differing view of sovereignty and I think it's notable that it is an issue the EU fudges again and again, referring - for example - to "competence" instead. Whilst we are quick to blame the British press for being anti Europe we don't appear to question our own press which is much more unified and notably uncritical of EU diktat and dogma.
The fundamental issue of sovereignty is going to remain a running sore in the EU even, perhaps more, with the newly reinvigorated core. If one starts with the reasonable proposition that sovereignty and de facto tax raising powers are indivisible then it's going to be a question which troubles Ireland over the coming years perhaps even more than Brexit does.
I don't think it's wrong to try and understand the role that conflicting views of the role of the nation state have in terms of Brexit - actually I think it's central to making objective decisions about our own place in the world and that of our children. What disturbs me is the slightly nervous shrill tone of debate in Ireland over Brexit - it would pay us perhaps to be more thoughtful and even handed in our assessment. But that's only my view, apparently.).
In France and Belgium at least, it's been standard history and geography curriculum subject-matter for decades, and across the tuition years according to the conceptual/technical difficulty of the principles to teach (what the TEU is and how it came about isn't taught in Year 1, put it that way...but it is taught indeed). Going by my Yr 9 kid's curriculum, I can't exactly say the same for the UK.
Besides that, voting polls through the ages attest to the above: the fellow EU27 "Leavers" hardly amount to a roaring electoral success, GFC, mass refugee crises and Brexit notwithstanding.
Let's not have this "sovereignty" guff in here again, please. Especially not in the context posited by a country wherein Parliament was so gutless as to have to rely on the initiative and funds of a private citizen, to issue court proceedings for clarifying something as constitutionally fundamental as 'sovereignty'. It really demeans the poor soul who brings it up again.
Don't mistake me though: I hear your argument about the potential for discord in pooling further sovereign prerogatives of those member states seeking further integration. But this is a completely moot topic when discussing Brexit, since these will be of no concern to the UK howsoever.0 -
-
-
-
-
It could?Professor Moriarty wrote: »The EU could still have awarded the ECC to a British city after Brexit. It doesn't have to be awarded to a member of the EU. Which makes the decision all the more pointed.
That's not my reading of Article 3 of Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 and repealing Decision No 1622/2006/EC
What you are seeing with this, is the EU applying EU law, very simply so (and, accessorily, demonstrating with a practical example how Brexit works as a legal process, and why the UK won't ever "have its cake and eating it" by reason of same).
EU regulation 445/2014/EU: only Member States (-of the EEA) and candidates to accession, can participate in hosting city of culture events.
Brexit is scheduled to occur on 29 March 2019, at the latest by end 2021 in case of extension-transition (which still looks as doubtful as ever).
By 2023, the year in which the UK hosting was to take place according to the Schedule, the UK will be neither a 'Member State', nor a 'candidate'. The inevitability of the above dates notwithstanding, so says the UK's Prime Minister and her government.
So by 2023, the UK will not meet not the legal requirements of EU regulation 445/2014/EU, and so be unable to do that hosting irrespective.
It therefore makes sense to exclude the UK from the bidding process now, to avoid redundant administration of its bids until 2019/2021 (at which time they'd be binned anyway - because the above).
This is the exact same reason why UK bidders are increasingly finding themselves kicked out of EU bidding processes for this, that and the other EU and EU27 market, research, grant <etc.>
Naturally, should the UK change its mind about the EEA, I'm confident enough that the situation could be reversed.0 -
Advertisement
-
It could?
That's not my reading of Article 3 of Decision No 445/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 and repealing Decision No 1622/2006/EC
What you are seeing with this, is the EU applying EU law, very simply so (and, accessorily, demonstrating with a practical example how Brexit works as a legal process, and why the UK won't ever "have its cake and eating it" by reason of same).
EU regulation 445/2014/EU: only Member States (-of the EEA) and candidates can participate in hosting city of culture events.
Brexit is scheduled to occur on 29 March 2019, at the latest by end 2021 in case of extension-transition (which still looks as doubtful as ever).
By 2023, the year in which the UK hosting was to take place according to the Schedule, the UK will be neither a 'Member State', nor a 'candidate'. The inevitability of the above dates notwithstanding, so says the UK's Prime Minster and her government.
So by 2023, the UK will not meet not the legal requirements of EU regulation 445/2014/EU, and so be unable to do that hosting irrespective.
It therefore makes sense to exclude the UK from the bidding process now, to avoid redundant administration of its bids until 2019/2021 (at which time they'd be binned anyway - because the above).
This is the exact same reason why UK bidders are increasingly finding themselves kicked out of EU bidding processes for this, that and the other EU and EU27 market, research, grant <etc.>
Naturally, should the UK change its mind about the EEA, I'm confident enough that the situation could be reversed.
^^^ That's exactly what I meant to say.0 -
-
-
Not too early with the socking paddles, please: I have a house and a couple cars to sell first<...>
The UK population still doesn't understand what Brexit means. The anti-EU sentiment is so deeply engrained (see Solo's posts) that it may well take an economic shock to make then understand.
TBH, after the ONS' growth forecast revision and Hammond's budget yesterday (all solely hinged upon the effect of a vote and its management to do date, not Brexit...about the eventual colour of which there is still no inkling), I've never been more certain that an economic shock is already under way, but is still only building up.
If negotiations do not proceed onto Stage 2 in December, then it's only going to stay a slow burner until around mid-2018.
After that period, I'd expect the mass implementation of contingency plans by the private sector begun in late December 17/Jan 18 to catch-up with quarterly stats and the media, with capital flight running and amplifying in parallel.
Let's hope not (I'd get murdered when repatriating the £ house sales proceeds into €s :pac:). But them's my tea leaves.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Not too early with the socking paddles, please: I have a house and a couple cars to sell first
TBH, after the ONS' growth forecast revision and Hammond's budget yesterday (all solely hinged upon the effect of a vote and its management to do date, not Brexit...about the eventual colour of which there is still no inkling), I've never been more certain that an economic shock is already under way, but is still only building up.
If negotiations do not proceed onto Stage 2 in December, then it's only going to stay a slow burner until around mid-2018.
After that period, I'd expect the mass implementation of contingency plans by the private sector begun in late December 17/Jan 18 to catch-up with quarterly stats and the media, with capital flight running and amplifying in parallel.
Let's hope not (I'd get murdered when repatriating the £ house sales proceeds into €s :pac:). But them's my tea leaves.
I'd fire sale those cars and houses asap, ambro, I have an interest in both industries and I can see the parallels to before our crash already in the uk, first denial in the market then slow down , then a slight fall , and then the collapse in values when it's too late to sell .
Afterwards everyone says I should've sold sooner .
For moderation purposes the above comments are directly and totally about the effects of Brexit , in the real market.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement