Brexit discussion thread II

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You don't "tell" people what to do and if that's your attitude, and if that's Britain's attitude, it's not a surprise that there are problems. Cooperation doesn't get built on telling people what to do.

The narrative that exists in Ireland is not that the EU is all benevolent by the way but you'd know that if you lived here. The narrative that exists here is that being in the EU is better than not being in the EU and that it is very much a process of give and take.

Diplomacy is the art of persuasion. The UK would do well to relearn that. Ireland has punched well above its weight in diplomatic terms within the EU. And the UK is learning that the hard way. Why do you think the border is in phase 1?

J Mysterio

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key. Telling the EU no to more integration is also key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You are overestimating what Britain can achieve. On its own.

J Mysterio

flaneur wrote: »

I don’t think so.

European Law is basically a civil code system and many of those kinds of programmes are firmly based in legislation. They’re not in the gift of some individual politician.

If the UK can’t comply with the T&Cs required to do something, it just won’t be done.

There’s nothing particularly political about it. It’s just the cogs of a bureaucracy turning.

Have to agree on second thought. Still, it's a timely development!

flaneur

What I’m noticing is that countries used to PR democracies get on well in the EU. They’re used to the idea of trade offs, compromises and making deals.

British politics is quite absolutist because of first past the post and the all powerful executive within the parliament.

If the Tories get in, you get absolutely Tory politics. If Labour are in you get absolute Labour politics.

Most of the EU countries are either PR parliamentary democracies or have at the very least, more potential for forcing national political debate and compromise most of the time. France, Spain and a few others aren’t particularly good this either but many are.

I think the issue in the UK is not going to ever be resolved in the current form of narrow technical winner takes all democracy they use.

flutered

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Stay in with a sceptical eye. Tell the other countries they aren't willing to give up more control - on taxation in particular.

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent needs to end. It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests. A lot of cooperation is useful for Ireland in particular. Ireland has a good reason to stay in whereas the UK doesn't.

Ensure the right types of control are kept is key. Telling the EU no to more integration is also key.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

does not the lisbon treaty cover the taxation issue

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Calina:
I initially misread your post. Apologies.

You do have the right and the responsibility to tell others no in a bloc which has rights to supersede the laws of member states.

I'm thankful that Ireland has a referendum for every treaty change and that the people have the right to say "No, sod off!".

Ireland needs to have the guts to say "No, sod off!" When something is not in the interests of its citizens. Ireland first, EU second.

If the EU were not a political union I would agree with the softer approach on taxation. But the EU is a political union where they have the fundamental right to determine what must be law in a country.

Therefore Ireland needs to say "No, sod off!" if something threatens the welfare of its citizens.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I find it amazing that professed liberal types think that gagging the media of its funding and preventing the freedom of the press is actually a progressive aim. There was once upon a time when liberals defended the right of others to express opinion but it seems that it is all about restricting opinion. Irrespective of how disagreeable I find a publication I won't participate in a gagging campaign. It simply won't get anywhere.

Except that it isn't a gagging campaign though it's interesting you see it as such. It's an attempt to persuade companies to advertise ethically.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You asked my opinion on Ireland being in the EU. That's my opinion.

If you don't want to hear it please don't reply to my posts.

I'm entitled to have an opinion about my home country. I'm also entitled to answer your questions properly.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Solo,

this is an extremely snarky response. But I too have the right to reply. I don't believe you answer my questions properly in general by the way. I don't believe I am alone in this.

However, I did not state that I did not want your reply to that question. I responded to your response. You didn't like it; fine. But I think you misrepresent the Irish position on the EU and I have made that clear and how.

You are very emotionally bound up in Brexit in my opinion. I am interested to see that someone could get so bound up in a British political matter when they are not British. I know a few people who are relocated to London and who are not as bound up in supporting Brexit as you appear to be and yet who are under no illusions about how Ireland sees the EU.

I am concerned about the UK for a lot of reasons. I suspect that it is an extremely divided society at present and Brexit is not necessarily going to change that. I suspect it may exacerbate it. I also don't think that a reversal of Brexit will change that.

But I especially don't think that the EU has to give into every demand that the UK makes. So the UK does not get to dictate what its relationship with the UK will be. It does not get to dictate how the Irish border will be. Its media can only mislead its population for so long before there are serious issues.

I suspect that the UK population may need Brexit to force local change. It seems to me that many people who support Brexit - you included - are unable to see the issues which are intrinsic to Britain as you argue that the EU should this, or the EU should that. Ambro25 has highlighted issues with education and while I might not agree with how he expresses them, I think there are questions to be answered about what sort of a future Britain wants for itself, that when answered, will lead to issues in how they organisation education for example.

Brexit addresses none of this.

flaneur

flutered wrote: »

does not the lisbon treaty cover the taxation issue

Ireland has specific, written guarantees in the protocols to the Lisbon Treaty that it does NOT in anyway impact taxation.

The ECJ EU vs Apple & Ireland case is about whether Ireland granted a unique deal to Apple, giving it unfair competitive advantage over other companies. If the Irish deal is available to all companies, the Commission has no case.

The discussion about the unfairness of Irish corporate tax levels, is purely political and outside the scope of the judgement or the commissioner’s remit.

oscarBravo

solodeogloria wrote: »

The narrative that exists in Ireland that the EU is all benevolent...

...is a Euroskeptic myth. There is no such narrative.

It isn't anything of the sort. It's a bloc of vying interests.

Sure, but more importantly it's a framework for resolving those competing interests in a more mutually acceptable way than having the same competing interests operate in, so to speak, a "free market".

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Calina:
I initially misread your post. Apologies.

Accepted

solodeogloria wrote: »

You do have the right and the responsibility to tell others no in a bloc which has rights to supersede the laws of member states.

I'm thankful that Ireland has a referendum for every treaty change and that the people have the right to say "No, sod off!".

Ireland needs to have the guts to say "No, sod off!" When something is not in the interests of its citizens. Ireland first, EU second.

The problem solo is that at this point, we are in the position of having to tell the UK to sod off. And they don't like it - your Spectator link is one example; there was a Sun editorial last week which is a glaring problem. Laura Kuenssberg's piece yesterday also qualifies as an example

It seems to me that you accept that we have to tell the EU to sod off. I don't get a sense that you agree that we can tell the UK to sod off. As it happens, I prefer the art of persuasion to the art of ordering people around.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If the EU were not a political union I would agree with the softer approach on taxation. But the EU is a political union where they have the fundamental right to determine what must be law in a country.

Therefore Ireland needs to say "No, sod off!" if something threatens the welfare of its citizens.

The EU has driven significant change in Ireland which has strongly been to the benefit of Ireland's citizens. I think there needs to be a recognition that occasionally, short term changes may bring pain but Ireland has benefited from environmental and equality legislation in particular.

I'd also add that Ireland gets a lot more done by not telling people to sod off but by sitting down with them and persuading them to do other different things instead.

The British at the moment do not manage this although - and this is the surprising thing - historically they have been extremely good at that behind the scenes in Europe. It's rather a shame to see it thrown away.

kowtow

Calina wrote: »

So your answer is I'm confident the British can implement some sort of solution because the Swiss have some solution which I don't actually understand.

Fine.

That is not good enough as an answer. Particularly when you cast aspersions on the ability of the EU to do something similar.

The British have made their intentions clear. If the EU can do something similar why on earth is everyone wailing about a hard border? Seriously?

Professor Moriarty

Interesting that concerns about immigration was the primary motivation for Leave voters because, ironically, the Indian High Commissioner has stated that there must freer movement of people between India and Britain if there is to be a post-Brexit FTA between the two countries. He also said that a FTA will take at least ten years to negotiate. Still, it's all good in the hood.

solodeogloria

oscarBravo wrote: »

...is a Euroskeptic myth. There is no such narrative.

Sure, but more importantly it's a framework for resolving those competing interests in a more mutually acceptable way than having the same competing interests operate in, so to speak, a "free market".

Good evening!

It's worth pointing out that I lived in Ireland for over 20 years. I know the attitude that exists. I'm entitled to my own assessment of my experience. I respect you disagree.

I also respectfully disagree with the notion that the EU is a free market. Perhaps internally but certainly not externally. The EU is extremely protectionist. This is part of the frustration that is felt in respect to trade policy in a world that is growing more rapidly outside of the EU.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that it isn't a gagging campaign though it's interesting you see it as such. It's an attempt to persuade companies to advertise ethically.

I also respectfully also disagree with you on this. The reason why they are seeking to cut funds is to suppress opinion which they deem "hateful" by putting financial pressure on newspapers.

If you are a genuine liberal and it seems there are very few left you would seem to engage with dissenting opinion rather than shut it down. America has it exactly right on free speech. It's high time Britain followed suit.

Calina: The Spectator is entitled to disagree with the Irish Government as am I. The press should be free to say what it likes. Blocking progression to phase two isn't in Ireland's interests. Ireland can decide to use the veto sure. I'm doubtful like Kuenssberg that it will.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

I also respectfully also disagree with you on this. The reason why they are seeking to cut funds is to suppress opinion which they deem "hateful" by putting financial pressure on newspapers.

If you are a genuine liberal and it seems there are very few left you would seem to engage with dissenting opinion rather than shut it down. America has it exactly right on free speech. It's high time Britain followed suit.

I'm a liberal and I approve of people's right to campaign and protest. This is just a version of that and frankly, a victimhood narrative with billionaire, tax-dodging press barons at it's core is unconvincing. There is no reason that people in a free society should not be able to organise to hold the press to account.

Calina

kowtow wrote: »

The British have made their intentions clear. If the EU can do something similar why on earth is everyone wailing about a hard border? Seriously?

Really. they haven't. They have dropped a few aspirations around but no actual details on implementation. As the UK has had some pretty high profile technology project failures, this matters a lot. We need more than vapourware there

People are wailing about a hard border because if the UK or NI is outside the customs union, the customs border has to be enforced in some way. Switzerland has a bunch of bilateral agreements which cover a lot of their trade.

If the UK were to make a binding written commitment to no hard border, this would have an impact on their trading negotiation options. They know this and that's why they are busy saying they don't want a hard border but are not putting it down in any binding way.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm a liberal and I approve of people's right to campaign and protest. This is just a version of that and frankly, a victimhood narrative with billionaire, tax-dodging press barons at it's core is unconvincing. There is no reason that people in a free society should not be able to organise to hold the press to account.

Good evening!

Then do that by highlighting the claims that you find wrong rather than by trying to gag the press in a highly illiberal fashion!

There's nothing liberal about trying to get rid of dissent.

Free speech and what it means is a subject for a new thread though :pac:

A modern day Voltaire is needed. He was a true liberal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

An Ciarraioch

Expect Alliance to come further under the unionist firing line in the coming weeks and months, already being described as "crypto-nationalists":

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/opinion/owen-polley-unionists-should-not-rest-until-every-potential-alliance-voter-sees-magnitude-of-party-s-plan-to-weaken-ni-s-place-in-uk-1-8258640/amp

kowtow

Calina wrote: »

If the UK were to make a binding written commitment to no hard border, this would have an impact on their trading negotiation options. They know this and that's why they are busy saying they don't want a hard border but are not putting it down in any binding way.

Given the accepted position between the UK and the EU that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" I cannot see why an exception should be made for a single binding written commitment in the context of the negotiations.

The position, as far as it goes, has been made very clear - "no hard infrastructure on the border" and the CTA continues. Beyond that - and given that the EU is not even in trade talks with the UK yet - what possible concern it of theirs how Britain chooses to implement Customs controls?

Have we seen any statement yet from our own Government about what they will be doing to implement a suitable customs border on behalf of the EU?

listermint

kowtow wrote: »

Given the accepted position between the UK and the EU that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" I cannot see why an exception should be made for a single binding written commitment in the context of the negotiations.

The position, as far as it goes, has been made very clear - "no hard infrastructure on the border" and the CTA continues. Beyond that - and given that the EU is not even in trade talks with the UK yet - what possible concern it of theirs how Britain chooses to implement Customs controls?

Have we seen any statement yet from our own Government about what they will be doing to implement a suitable customs border on behalf of the EU?

That's currently the UK problem as it's their making.

You seem to go great pains to relieve the UK government of any responsibility for, well anything really.

Why is that?

Capt'n Midnight

flaneur wrote: »

I am just wondering about the implications for the Republic of Ireland on a few technical areas.

1. Cars: What happens if the UK deviates significantly from EU safety or emissions standards on cars? We are the only other market in the EU of any significant scale that uses right-hand-drive vehicles. Would we end up having a huge spike in car prices, or having a situation where we had to get a derogation from EU laws on these things or how would it work?

EU rules say there should be no surcharge..
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A92001E001538

Left-hand drive cars generally have lower unit production costs than equivalent right-hand drive vehicles because they are produced in larger numbers, leading to economies of scale. It goes without saying, however, that the additional cost should be spread over the whole right-hand drive production of the model in question, and not just over those right-hand drive cars sold in a left-hand drive country.

There's a potential problem where we might not be able to source right-hand-drive cars that are built to EU technical specifications.

Japanese imports.

2. Electrical standards. We have a minor issue with appliances here being required to be sold with a UK plug.

In Italy they use three different types of plugs, very roughly depending on how much power the appliance uses. The first is like the old 2 pin plugs we have here, except it's got three pins. The second is a larger version, the Belgians? use something similar except the pins aren't in line. The third type is the larger German plug. And someone else , the French? use a variation of that where the earth pin goes the other way.

It just strikes me as a risk of big price inflation if distributors just continue to treat us as a subset of the UK market for these kinds of things.
Are retailers and distribution chains really going to switch to the continent, or will we just get shafted with the tariffs and they'll just keep treating us as "UK and Ireland"

Don't get me started on light bulbs with Edison Screw fittings. Bayonet fittings don't loosen over time, if the socket is wired backards the the pins are still shrouded, and you can't easily over tighten such that you have to bend back the live contact before you can use a different bulb :mad:

All that stuff is made in China so it's just a tick box when ordering.

Then again if we used foreign plugs you'd never step on a 3 pin plug again.

Familiar brands from the UK may just end up more expensive. We're fairly uniquely exposed tbh.

Some UK brands are already cheaper because of the fall in Sterling.

Lots of UK brands are owned by multi-nationals. Cadbury's chocolate made in Ireland was much nicer than imported stuff because of the milk. Then Kraft took over and it all went downhill so it's all moot.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

Given the accepted position between the UK and the EU that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" I cannot see why an exception should be made for a single binding written commitment in the context of the negotiations.

The position, as far as it goes, has been made very clear - "no hard infrastructure on the border" and the CTA continues. Beyond that - and given that the EU is not even in trade talks with the UK yet - what possible concern it of theirs how Britain chooses to implement Customs controls?

Have we seen any statement yet from our own Government about what they will be doing to implement a suitable customs border on behalf of the EU?

No I don't think the Irish government has a crystal ball so they don't know what they'll be expected to do.

Here's a mad idea. It's Britain's mess. Let them come up with the solution.

kowtow

listermint wrote: »

That's currently the UK problem as it's their making.

You seem to go great pains to relieve the UK government of any responsibility for, well anything really.

Why is that?

What, precisely, is a problem for the UK here?

Why do I need a reason other than a touching fondness for the underdog or a love of balanced debate?

Since Lisbon at least it has been the democratic right of a nation to exit the EU. Membership is not an irrevocable commitment - and I think it is telling that so many here seem determined to attack the decision of the British people and their reasoning, often in terms of contempt rather than address the issue at hand which is that a member of the EU has decided to leave.

The reality is that the border issue, which appears on the face of it to be a tactical advantage being exploited by Ireland, might actually expose a bigger weakness if it ends up being Ireland drawing a hard border across the Country.

That there should be such defensive reactions to the point being raised speaks volumes.

kowtow

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No I don't think the Irish government has a crystal ball so they don't know what they'll be expected to do.

Here's a mad idea. It's Britain's mess. Let them come up with the solution.

I think under the circumstances the Irish government may have done the only thing open to them.

But if the British stick to their position as expressed yesterday then we must either back down, fudge the issue somehow, or accept that there will not be trade talks. Then it really will be Britain's mess to clear up!

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

What, precisely, is a problem for the UK here?

Why do I need a reason other than a touching fondness for the underdog or a love of balanced debate?

Since Lisbon at least it has been the democratic right of a nation to exit the EU. Membership is not an irrevocable commitment - and I think it is telling that so many here seem determined to attack the decision of the British people and their reasoning, often in terms of contempt rather than address the issue at hand which is that a member of the EU has decided to leave.

The reality is that the border issue, which appears on the face of it to be a tactical advantage being exploited by Ireland, might actually expose a bigger weakness if it ends up being Ireland drawing a hard border across the Country.

That there should be such defensive reactions to the point being raised speaks volumes.

The reasoning of the British people? How could they possibly apply reason to a decision when they didn't know what they were deciding? When the Leave voters voted for Brexit, what exactly were they voting for? A Brexit bill of 40 billion? A CTA or no CTA? To have an FTA with the EU in 20 days? 20 months? 20 years?

What exactly did they vote for?

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

I think under the circumstances the Irish government may have done the only thing open to them.

But if the British stick to their position as expressed yesterday then we must either back down, fudge the issue somehow, or accept that there will not be trade talks. Then it really will be Britain's mess to clear up!

According to the EU, if Britain doesn't come up with a solution then they will end up crashing out of the EU. If that happens, I wish them well with their economy and maintaining stability in the North.

murphaph

oscarBravo wrote: »

...is a Euroskeptic myth. There is no such narrative.

Sure, but more importantly it's a framework for resolving those competing interests in a more mutually acceptable way than having the same competing interests operate in, so to speak, a "free market".

And often these interests overlap!

Who needs 28 food standards organisations when one will do?

Who needs 28 bodies overseeing aircraft industry safety when one will do?

The one that would save perhaps the most waste is the dreaded EU army, which I'm all for.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

The one that would save perhaps the most waste is the dreaded EU army, which I'm all for.

I'm somewhat divided on this. However, I recently had a meal with a friend in London who works in military logistics who made an extremely compelling argument in favor of such an army.

murphaph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm somewhat divided on this. However, I recently had a meal with a friend in London who works in military logistics who made an extremely compelling argument in favor of such an army.

There are phenomenal savings to be made and at the same time increasing European defence capabilities.

My neighbour works in that area too for the Bundeswehr and he reckons exactly the same as your friend.

Nody

Remember all those great trade deals UK where to sign? Well India has indicated it will take at least a decade and require significantly higher immigration; what was Brexit about again? Reduced immigration, right? Oops...

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those great trade deals UK where to sign? Well India has indicated it will take at least a decade and require significantly higher immigration; what was Brexit about again? Reduced immigration, right? Oops...

That's actually frightening. I mean, one of the selling points of being outside the EU was being able to sign bilateral trade agreements which would logically be more straightforward given that only two national Parliaments would need to ratify them.

Inquitus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's actually frightening. I mean, one of the selling points of being outside the EU was being able to sign bilateral trade agreements which would logically be more straightforward given that only two national Parliaments would need to ratify them.

Britain stalled the EU negotiations with India due to the Indian Visa requirements, trying to sign a bilateral deal will certainly require giving more than being part of the EU bloc negotiations, surely they are not surprised by this?

First Up

Inquitus wrote:

Britain stalled the EU negotiations with India due to the Indian Visa requirements, trying to sign a bilateral deal will certainly require giving more than being part of the EU bloc negotiations, surely they are not surprised by this?

And with the UK off the pitch, the EU expects to finalise the agreement with India very quickly. The UK can go fish.

Kermit.de.frog

Looks like we are heading for a general election at the wrong time!

We'd look like a laughing stock if our government was allowed to collapse before the end of the year and such a vital time for Ireland.

How could Varadkar utilise a veto if in an election??

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Looks like we are heading for a general election at the wrong time!

We'd look like a laughing stock if our government was allowed to collapse before the end of the year and such a vital time for Ireland.

Nah, FF will fudge matters by abstaining, and normality will resume.

Brigid Laffan's Guardian op-ed outlining the Irish diplomatic approach has caused a stir - 1,300 comments in 3 and a half hours!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/23/brexiters-ireland-dublin-border-eu-britain

flaneur

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EU rules say there should be no surcharge..
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A92001E001538



Japanese imports.

In Italy they use three different types of plugs, very roughly depending on how much power the appliance uses. The first is like the old 2 pin plugs we have here, except it's got three pins. The second is a larger version, the Belgians? use something similar except the pins aren't in line. The third type is the larger German plug. And someone else , the French? use a variation of that where the earth pin goes the other way.

Don't get me started on light bulbs with Edison Screw fittings. Bayonet fittings don't loosen over time, if the socket is wired backards the the pins are still shrouded, and you can't easily over tighten such that you have to bend back the live contact before you can use a different bulb :mad:

All that stuff is made in China so it's just a tick box when ordering.

Then again if we used foreign plugs you'd never step on a 3 pin plug again.


Some UK brands are already cheaper because of the fall in Sterling.

Lots of UK brands are owned by multi-nationals. Cadbury's chocolate made in Ireland was much nicer than imported stuff because of the milk. Then Kraft took over and it all went downhill so it's all moot.

——

Actually there’s one EU CEE 7 system that has 3 plugs, depending on the size of the appliance and whether it needs earthing. It's not complicated at all. We just assume it is because we've standardised on one giant overkill plug for everything from a tumble dryer to a mobile phone charger.

CEE 7/7 - 16 amps. Two round pins and a scraping earth / earth hole. Fits 16 amp sockets of either German or French/Belgian types.

CEE 7/17 - 16 amp unearthed version of the above on things like vacuum cleaners etc etc - Fits all German / French style sockets.

CEE 7/16 - 2.5 amp flat plug that is used on small appliances and mobile chargers etc etc ... Fits all European sockets. - fits ALL European sockets, except U.K. type.

The CEE 7 system basically means you don’t have a giant plug on a low powered appliance or a cumbersome earthed plug on things that don’t have earths anyway.

Italy, Denmark and Switzerland are the only 3 countries that use their own systems. Although the CEE 7/16 small flat plug fits all of those as they still use the same round live and neutral, but do the earthing differently to everyone else for some inexplicable reason.

UK, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus are the only counties using a plug that’s *totally* incompatible and it’s also the only system in the world that requires enormous plugs on tiny, low powered appliances.

If we require it and the UK starts buying appliances that aren’t CE approved, we have future issues ahead. It's not inconceivable that the UK might skip CE approval and import cheap 230V items from China etc that are only locally approved in the UK.

On the car issue, Japanese imports would only work *if* they meet EU regulations. That's not necessarily always the case.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

There are phenomenal savings to be made and at the same time increasing European defence capabilities.

My neighbour works in that area too for the Bundeswehr and he reckons exactly the same as your friend.

There are obvious benefits to a European army, but the who do they take their orders from?

If it is just simply a coalition with countries able to opt in or out (remember Ireland has a carte blanch exemption from this), then what’s the difference between an eu army and NATO?

An Ciarraioch

Aegir wrote: »

There are obvious benefits to a European army, but the who do they take their orders from?

If it is just simply a coalition with countries able to opt in or out (remember Ireland has a carte blanch exemption from this), then what’s the difference between an eu army and NATO?

Sweden, Finland and Austria, for instance, have expressed interest in PESCO, though not in NATO.

Nody

Aegir wrote: »

If it is just simply a coalition with countries able to opt in or out (remember Ireland has a carte blanch exemption from this), then what’s the difference between an eu army and NATO?

Lack of Trump involvement would be a great start in my books...

Kermit.de.frog

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Nah, FF will fudge matters by abstaining, and normality will resume.

Brigid Laffan's Guardian op-ed outlining the Irish diplomatic approach has caused a stir - 1,300 comments in 3 and a half hours!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/23/brexiters-ireland-dublin-border-eu-britain

But any election called, even if delayed, makes Varadkar a lame duck at the summit in December, this weakens our position.

embraer170

Solo:

You repeatedly mention Switzerland as a model for the border issues based on the 2% of border crossings needing physical checks.

Firstly, Switzerland is in Schengen and a signatory to the free movement of people (with some exceptions).

Secondly, the number of trucks transits getting checked is far higher than 2%. Anyone crossing the Swiss/German border on a weekday on the Karlsruhe-Basel motorway (busiest border crossing in Switzerland) is likely to see queues of trucks. These can stretch for miles on the very bad days. The last few miles before the border on the German side are set up with a complex traffic management system that can close off one or two motorway lanes for queuing trucks.



Some of the smaller Switzerland/EU border crossing points are closed by barriers for all traffic at night. The number of these nighttime closures is actually increasing!


(If you read French: https://www.tdg.ch/geneve/grand-geneve/etat-envisage-prolonger-fermeture-petites-douanes/story/17761499)

Is this really what we imagine as a “model” for the border with Northern Ireland?

An Ciarraioch

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But any election called, even if delayed, makes Varadkar a lame duck at the summit in December, this weakens our position.

Indeed, but it would only happen if FF actually vote against her next week, which is still an outside likelihood.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Remember all those great trade deals UK where to sign? Well India has indicated it will take at least a decade and require significantly higher immigration; what was Brexit about again? Reduced immigration, right? Oops...

It's not even news

This from a year ago, in case you want to see how little has changed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/india-warns-uk-immigration-policy-wreck-post-brexit-trade-deal

A spokesman for India’s minister of external affairs suggested that a policy brought in by May as home secretary restricting the right of Indian students to stay in the UK after graduation could prove to be a block on any progress.
...
May’s refusal to allow greater access to the UK for skilled Indian workers, in particular, “screwed up” chances of an EU-India trade deal.

Apart from the India-EU trade deal , what else is the UK stopping the EU from doing ?

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Sweden, Finland and Austria, for instance, have expressed interest in PESCO, though not in NATO.

Yes, I’m aware of that, but it doesn’t answer the question.

Who gets to decide where and when to fight? Would an eu army be a member of NATO and if not, does that mean the closure of US bases in Europe? Because without them, Europe’s defence capabilities would be hugely reduced.

flaneur

They also have the assumption that their former imperial conquests all have some kind of great love of all things British and that the empire was a lovely golf club. I could see India really dragging this out.

They have some vague notion about selling financial services into China too. China has no need or want for these and has its own financial hubs anyway and it's also the UK standing on both Singapore and Australian toes as they've a niche in that area and are very annoyed about a notion that the UK is going to try and muscle in.

There's a lot of stuff the UK is proposing that is already 100% possible within the EU too.

Quite a lot of fantasy and misrepresenting the current situation going on!

murphaph

Aegir wrote: »

There are obvious benefits to a European army, but the who do they take their orders from?

If it is just simply a coalition with countries able to opt in or out (remember Ireland has a carte blanch exemption from this), then what’s the difference between an eu army and NATO?

Well it would have to be similar to NATO insofar as if one EU country were attacked we would all be compelled to respond.

I suspect the EU parliament would need to sanction any military action by such an army.

It would be much more than just a coalition though. You'd have massive economies of scale if an EU army was ordering trucks, food, uniforms etc. rather than 28 smaller armies.

Capt'n Midnight

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.


Do the UK public realise this :eek:

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Well it would have to be similar to NATO insofar as if one EU country were attacked we would all be compelled to respond.

I suspect the EU parliament would need to sanction any military action by such an army.

It would be much more than just a coalition though. You'd have massive economies of scale if an EU army was ordering trucks, food, uniforms etc. rather than 28 smaller armies.

We already have that obligation under the common defence policy.

I get the economies of scale, although I’m skeptical if it would actually happen. I just don’t feel particularly comfortable giving control of our military to a parliament where we have very little representation.

Schorpio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.


Do the UK public realise this :eek:

Yes, but it's the fault of remoaners / the unelected EU bureaucrats / Jeremy Corbyn / the Tories / the Irish / Michel Barnier / Derek Davis!!

It's time to WALK AWAY / LEAVE / ACCEPT THAT YOU LOST / GET OUT NOW.

(Delete as appropriate).

LeinsterDub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The prediction that average UK earnings in 2022 could still be less than in 2008 is "astonishing",

real disposable incomes are now set to fall for 19 successive quarters.


Do the UK public realise this :eek:

Yes but like one of resident pro Brexit folks said . "Taking back control and reasons".