Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread IV

1163164166168169331

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,891 ✭✭✭prinzeugen


    Actually you are wrong. 17.4 million(64%)voted to stay in the EEC in 1975. Proportionally a lot higher. Wouldn’t it be a beautiful thing if that vote was respected, eh?:)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975

    I am sure, that had people known that they were going to be part of a European superstate, the result would be different.

    This is the problem with the EU. Countries powers are slowly being transferred to Brussels. Bit by bit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,948 ✭✭✭trellheim


    This is the problem with the EU. Countries powers are slowly being transferred to Brussels. Bit by bit.
    Like with Maastricht etc which the UK voted for, perhaps, as did every other country ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,583 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Understood. However those 4 countries could veto a deal together as a group, even if 23 voted for it. So in effect the veto power is based on members population in this instance. In a FTA agreement any single veto vote would be enough regardless of population size.
    Yes. But the point about a qualified majority system is that it doesn't require unanimity; therefore no one country, regardless of population size, can vote down a measure that is subject to qualified majority voting; you need to assemble a block that represents at least 35% of the population.

    Obviously, it's easier to do that if you're Germany, and represent 16% of the population yourself. But you still need to secure the support of at least three other states whose combined population comfortably exceeds your own. And there's no reason why, merely because other member states also have a large population, their views or interests on the measure concerned will align with yours. France, Germany, Italy and Spain can form a blocking group that will vote down a qualified majority proposal against a majority of the member states., but can you point to a single interest in history where they have ever actually done so?

    Plus, as already pointed out, in the context of Brexit this whole discussion is somewhat surreal. There's not the remotest likelihood that Ireland will ]want to veto any Withdrawal Agreement. We very much want there to be a Withdrawal Agreement, and the one risk that could really spook us - a hard border - is precluded by the strong stance taken, and consistently maintained, by other member states, and accepted by the UK, that any Withdrawal Agreement must provide for an open border in Ireland. We didn't get that by being in a position to veto any Withdrawal Agreement because, as you point out, on our own, we're not. We got that because solidarity, with member states recognising and supporting one another's interests, is a foundational principle and practice of the EU. The Brexiter failure to recognise or appreciate that is one of the errors that has resulted in such an appalling experience for them in the Brexit negotations.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,583 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    I am sure, that had people known that they were going to be part of a European superstate, the result would be different.

    This is the problem with the EU. Countries powers are slowly being transferred to Brussels. Bit by bit.
    Countries are increasingly pooling their sovereignty, is what I think you are trying to say, so that where, in the past, the UK would have made decisions on its own, it now makes some of those decisions collectively with other member states.

    (Brexiteers seem to be deeply divided between those who are certain that the EU is run by "Brussels", and those who are confident that it is run by the German automative industry. Both, of course, are wrong, but at least you think they'd see the advantage of all agreeing to be wrong in the same way. Pick one of these errors, and stick to it. Otherwise, you're just confirming the impression that "Brexit" is a wildly diverse and inconsistent set of notions, and the dismal progress of the implementation of Brexit is a natural and inevitable outcome of this, and cannot be blamed on "Remainers", "the elite", "enemies of the people", etc, etc.)

    But here's the thing. No country can ever be compelled to pool further sovereignty. Every increase in the competence of the EU requires a new Treaty, on which every member state has a veto. The UK cannot be compelled to enter into further treaties. Since 2011, UK law has required approval in a referendum in the UK before the UK can ratify new EU Treaties. So even if you buy into the "EU = European superstate" idea, it's nonsense to suggest that if the UK doesn't leave the EU, it will be compelled to become part of a European superstate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,586 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    I am sure, that had people known that they were going to be part of a European superstate, the result would be different.

    This is the problem with the EU. Countries powers are slowly being transferred to Brussels. Bit by bit.

    Maybe, I don’t know. But maybe if people had known the real concequences of the latest vote things might have been different. Don’t you think?

    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,583 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    prinzeugen wrote: »
    That wont happen though. Remoaners scaremongering.
    At the moment the UK is planning for it to happen, in the event of a crash-out Brexit. Their strategy for avoiding it depends on their being a transition period, which of course there won't be in a crash-out.

    If a crash-out does ensue, the only way it could be avoided, as already discussed, is for the UK to enter into an association agreement under which it joints the EASA, accepts EU regulations (with no say in making them) and accepts the jurisdiction of the ECJ. They will, of course, do that because they have no alternative. But when Brexiters say that "this won't happen", what they are in fact saying is that they favour the UK accepting EU regulation and ECJ jurisdiction, and they are confident that it will do so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,866 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Maybe, I don’t know. But maybe if people had known the real concequences of the latest vote things might have been different. Don’t you think?
    The claim by Leave that the Eu has overstepped its brief is dishonest in the extreme. Or totally ignorant, which is highly likely for some I think.

    The European Community's founding declaration explicitly refers to working "towards ever-greater union" so people who voted to join in the 70s already had that information available to them. Why would anyone imagine that to mean anything other than what it says?

    All very well blaming politicians for stuff happening that they failed, however stupidly, to predict or prepare for, but this is a case of the EU delivering on its manifesto.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls@UNSRVAW "Very concerned about these statements by the IOC at Paris2024 There are multiple international treaties and national constitutions that specifically refer to#women and their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination, so the world has a pretty good idea of what women -and men for that matter- are. Also, how can one assess whether fairness and justice has been reached if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,823 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Maybe, I don’t know. But maybe if people had known the real concequences of the latest vote things might have been different. Don’t you think?
    The claim by Leave that the Eu has overstepped its brief is dishonest in the extreme. Or totally ignorant, which is highly likely for some I think.

    The European Community's founding declaration explicitly refers to working "towards ever-greater union" so people who voted to join in the 70s already had that information available to them. Why would anyone imagine that to mean anything other than what it says?

    All very well blaming politicians for stuff happening that they failed, however stupidly, to predict or prepare for, but this is a case of the EU delivering on its manifesto.

    The phrase was "laying the foundations for ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

    It is a phrase often misrepresented and misunderstood (as you have). It was not a blueprint for a super State. It was intended as the basis for peaceful coexistence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,866 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    First Up wrote: »
    The phrase was "laying the foundations for ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

    It is a phrase often misrepresented and misunderstood (as you have). It was not a blueprint for a super State. It was intended as the basis for peaceful coexistence.

    There is no superstate, that is the misrepresentation. The rest of your post does not contradict anything I said.

    EU structure was not meant to be a static point in time, but an ongoing process with procedures in place for future decisions to be taken. Countries joined knowing that. They have all participated in all the decisions since then, exactly as was planned when they joined.

    It's a lie to claim, as Leave do, that countries were lied to about what the Europema project was.

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls@UNSRVAW "Very concerned about these statements by the IOC at Paris2024 There are multiple international treaties and national constitutions that specifically refer to#women and their fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination, so the world has a pretty good idea of what women -and men for that matter- are. Also, how can one assess whether fairness and justice has been reached if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    First Up wrote: »
    It was not a blueprint for a super State. It was intended as the basis for peaceful coexistence.


    There have been European Federalists agitating for a European State since before there was an EU or and EEC. Winston Churchill was in favour of a United States of Europe after WWII.


    This is not a new idea.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,174 ✭✭✭flatty


    I think maybe you underestimate the effect of sanctions post-Salisbury. By any account it has done serious damage to Russia’s abilities to conduct all kinds of espionage across the UK, whilst relentless waves of economic sanctions for the past 4 years have crippled the economy.

    The point is, Britain does more than any other big player in Europe to take on the Russian threat (I’m looking firmly in Germany’s direction on that one) regardless of whether it gets it right every time or not.

    The fact that wealthy Russian expatriates have been scrambling to get assets out of the uk in recent months demonstrates that the British response isn’t being taken lightly, at least.

    Just a point about your views on Brexit - I don’t really know where you stand after having scrolled through your post history in this thread. They seem to have been subject to a quite erratic change in outlook.

    Initially you recognised that the vote to leave was a close result and millions of people did not want to leave. I am one of them.

    You agreed that a hard Brexit would have a catastrophic impact on the British economy and that it wasn’t hyperboly to state it would ruin many millions of lives up and down the country.

    You showed satisfaction that the popular opinion in the U.K. was shifting towards, at the least, a softer Brexit and possibly even a second vote.

    And yet in recent times, your own opinion has apparently shifted significantly, and, despite all the above, it almost seems by my reading of your posts that you are now hoping for the hardest and most calamitous Brexit possible, to ensure the breakup of the Union and all the difficulties and hardships that will go with it, to crudely make the people see how good they had it with Eu membership, with it now all in irretrievable pieces.

    to me it’s quite unfortunate that anyone would desire that, given they fully understand the misery it will inflict on millions of people. Maybe I have misread the tone of your posts, I’m not sure. If i am wrong I apologise but that’s my honest perception.

    I personally just want an outcome that limits the damage as much as possible at this stage.

    I am still hopeful that compromises will be made by both sides. Obviously it is incumbent on the U.K. to be much more flexible with its red lines surrounding ECJ oversight and its relationship with the single market, but I wouldn’t be wholly certain the EU won’t be forced to move a little bit at the behest of national governments on its red lines to British involvement in collective security. It’s in everyone’s interest for Britain to be inside the tent in that respect and politicians in some countries (not least Germany) have started to say so.

    I think the bluster about a no-deal being the most likely outcome is exactly that, bluster. The trends are generally quite clear and show that the U.K. government understand that no deal would be ruinous and isn’t an option, and Because of that I do retain a sense of positivity that one will be agreed.
    I'm flattered that you've taken the trouble.
    My position has changed from abject disappointment, to anger, and I'm approaching resignation. I still fail to see how there is any negotiation to be had, however. The UK either accedes to the rules that the eu demands to do business, or it doesn't. Either way, the UK will be poorer and more dangerous, and by quite a bit more than people suggest.
    The architects of this, however, in politics and the media will run for cover provided by a gradual tailspin. This will not be available if the UK falls off a cliff and goes splat. This, in the medium term, is far more likely to result in the political upheaval needed for the UK to change course. In a slow tailspin, people will simply accept new poverty as the new norm.
    My motives are far beyond financial. I would pay a significant percent more tax to live in a country which remains a part of the great, beautiful and friendly continent that is Europe. The fact that my kids have been ripped out of this by old greedy bigots appalls me. I want them to suffer the consequences of their actions, not be able to bluster and run.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 375 ✭✭breatheme


    flatty wrote: »
    The fact that my kids have been ripped out of this by old greedy bigots appalls me. I want them to suffer the consequences of their actions, not be able to bluster and run.

    I don't know if this is where you were going with this, but it is sad to think that the UK will be the only developed country in Europe with no Freedom of Movement. They are "keeping foreigners out" but they're also losing so much... The freedom to travel, work and study with no hindrance in the EU27 + EEA + Switzerland... I feel like they've made the British passport less powerful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,583 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    The phrase was "laying the foundations for ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

    It is a phrase often misrepresented and misunderstood (as you have). It was not a blueprint for a super State. It was intended as the basis for peaceful coexistence.
    The Treaty doesn't say that the purpose of the "ever closer union" was to act as "the basis for peaceful coexistence". "Ever-closer union" is identified as an object in its own write, not as a means to secure some other objective. The phrase "peaceful co-existence" doesn't appear anywhere in the Treaty.

    One of the urban legends that the Brexit campaign has assiduously promoted is that, back in 1975, the British voted only on a "common market", presented as a purely economic arrangement, and had no idea that there was a political dimension to the question, or an objective of forming a union in Europe.

    This just isn't true. Both the advocates and the opponents of membership called attention to the political dimension and objectives of the European project - one to endorse it, the other to oppose it and warn against it. Edward Heath in particular emphasised that what was at stake was "far more than a common market", but was a "community of peoples", and that the UK was committing itself "not only to a series of policies or institutions but to a close partnership . . . in which we will all work together rather than separately". Heath spoke passionately in favour of "a united Europe" whose "economic and social systems are developed together". One Thatcher, M, then but a humble Minister for Education, urged that the paramount case in favour of membership was not the economic case at all; it was the political case. And opponents of membership were equally strong in drawing attention to the EEC as a "supranational institution" and an "economic and political union".

    If anybody can find election/campaigning material, speechers, etc from either side back in the 70s presenting membership as a matter purely of co-operation for economic advantage with no aspiration to or implication of political union, now would be a good time for them to point to it. And if nobody can point to any such material, well, might that maybe suggest the Brexiter memories of what people were told at the time of the 1975 referendum are about as reliable as their projections of what would ensue after the 2016 referendum?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    My view of it is that the UK really does need to leave, and not for its own sake, but for the sake of the EU and the Eurozone. At this stage, it's become a side-show and a hugely problematic member that is potentially undermining the rest of us.

    If the feeling in the UK was they didn't want to progress, nobody was stopping them from stepping out and remaining in some kind of EEA type status, but instead they went along with moving towards the EU as it is today and have dragged their feet and blocked or attempted to block all sorts of things, including attempting to derail essential legislation to stablise the Eurozone, which they're not even in!

    In my opinion, it's long past time where the other members can continue to play this game. Either you're in or you're not and if you're not, good luck to you. The best that can be done is a trade deal and move on.

    There are big external risks at the moment, particularly with Trump kicking off trade wars and China progressing towards 'strong man dictatorship' like governance again etc etc. The UK continuously throwing the toys out of the pram is not really very conducive to anything other than chaos.

    For whatever reason, as a country, it is not capable of cooperating on this kind of intimate level with the rest of the EU. I don't really see the point in trying to encourage it to remain as it's never going to be a comfortable relationship. It's like trying to keep a bad marriage together for the sake of the kids.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    If this fella's recalled, could there be an election of an anti-Brexiter in his place?
    https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0808/983733-ian-paisley/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,948 ✭✭✭trellheim


    My view of it is that the UK really does need to leave, and not for its own sake, but for the sake of the EU and the Eurozone. At this stage, it's become a side-show and a hugely problematic member that is potentially undermining the rest of us.

    If the feeling in the UK was they didn't want to progress, nobody was stopping them from stepping out and remaining in some kind of EEA type status, but instead they went along with moving towards the EU as it is today and have dragged their feet and blocked or attempted to block all sorts of things, including attempting to derail essential legislation to stablise the Eurozone, which they're not even in!

    In my opinion, it's long past time where the other members can continue to play this game. Either you're in or you're not and if you're not, good luck to you. The best that can be done is a trade deal and move on.

    its not undermining anything - if anything its reinforcing the unity of the EU project . Some in the UK gambled - and still do - that their example will cause others to follow suit. The pressures - external - that you mention are largely being dealt with - see Iran - and the EU/UK acting as one.

    That said they are behaving like spoilt children - theres an element of 'le perfide Albion' about it all as the Foreign Office=DExEu/May do have a gameplan, much as people like to think otherwise


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭gooch2k9


    Igotadose wrote: »
    If this fella's recalled, could there be an election of an anti-Brexiter in his place?
    https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0808/983733-ian-paisley/


    Nah that's safe DUP country.

    He has even said he'll run if a by election is called and more than likely he'd get elected again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,948 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Nah that's safe DUP country.
    Ip JR's constituency ? = Michael Lowry equivalent in NI , Ballymena will keep re-electing


    ha - Wikipedia tells me hes suspended from the DUP at the mo. I needed a giggle.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,583 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Igotadose wrote: »
    If this fella's recalled, could there be an election of an anti-Brexiter in his place?
    https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2018/0808/983733-ian-paisley/
    In North Antrim? Where the DUP had a 42% majority at the last election? It's not going to happen.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭gooch2k9


    trellheim wrote: »
    Ip JR's constituency ? = Michael Lowry equivalent in NI , Ballymena will keep re-electing


    His constituency encompasses areas like Ballymoney and Ballymena, strongholds for his church, so strong DUP supporters. Also with the way things are polarised up here, I doubt the UUP would get a look in. It's DUP or SF for the most part in NI.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭Imreoir2


    There have been European Federalists agitating for a European State since before there was an EU or and EEC. Winston Churchill was in favour of a United States of Europe after WWII.


    This is not a new idea.

    It's not a new idea. It's also not a thing that exists today, and countries can't be forced by the EU to create one against their will.

    There are plenty of people who think that the EU should develop into a European state, there are plenty more who disagree. The only way it comes about is if countries agree to do so, and that will be a long time coming.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    EdgeCase wrote: »
    My view of it is that the UK really does need to leave, and not for its own sake, but for the sake of the EU and the Eurozone. At this stage, it's become a side-show and a hugely problematic member that is potentially undermining the rest of us.

    If the feeling in the UK was they didn't want to progress, nobody was stopping them from stepping out and remaining in some kind of EEA type status, but instead they went along with moving towards the EU as it is today and have dragged their feet and blocked or attempted to block all sorts of things, including attempting to derail essential legislation to stablise the Eurozone, which they're not even in!

    In my opinion, it's long past time where the other members can continue to play this game. Either you're in or you're not and if you're not, good luck to you. The best that can be done is a trade deal and move on.

    There are big external risks at the moment, particularly with Trump kicking off trade wars and China progressing towards 'strong man dictatorship' like governance again etc etc. The UK continuously throwing the toys out of the pram is not really very conducive to anything other than chaos.

    For whatever reason, as a country, it is not capable of cooperating on this kind of intimate level with the rest of the EU. I don't really see the point in trying to encourage it to remain as it's never going to be a comfortable relationship. It's like trying to keep a bad marriage together for the sake of the kids.

    I think it’s important to remember that Britain’s influence in Europe has been both prominent and of great value to European advancement. It’s another total distortion of reality to say that Britain has had a detrimental impact and that the EU is better off without us.

    The list of European achievements which owe a great deal to Britain’s involvement in their implementation consists of the single market and the euro, to Europol and the European Environment Agency amongst many others.

    Hardly insignificant accomplishments.

    Further, I’d be hesitant to describe Britain’s often important role in acting as a counterweight to French and German ambitions for unrelenting levels of ‘more europe’ as a country dragging its feet.

    Not every government and electorate in the EU has been totally content with the pace and direction of Europan integration led by the Franco-German axis in Central Europe. In both the European parliament and the council of ministers Britain has been and valuable ally to them, acting often as a stabilising and reassuring force. Another positive.

    I think Britain has done a lot of good for Europe. I think it should have been prouder of its achievements. And I think it’s a great shame it will not be doing good for itself and for Europe anymore.

    Honestly, I think your view on Britain’s role in Europe (also described as a festering sore by another poster a few pages back - gross and insulting) is every bit as ignorant of reality as any Brexit voter who thinks that Britain hasn’t benefited from EU membership over the past 4 decades.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Yeah. Britain has been a staunch ally of ours in EU decision making discussions. We will actually miss their influence on our behalf and a partner that we have always worked with.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    gooch2k9 wrote: »
    His constituency encompasses areas like Ballymoney and Ballymena, strongholds for his church, so strong DUP supporters. Also with the way things are polarised up here, I doubt the UUP would get a look in. It's DUP or SF for the most part in NI.

    Moreover, even in the unlikely event that he was thrown out of the DUP and they stood a candidate against him, he would almost certainly win as an Independent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,806 ✭✭✭An Ciarraioch


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Yeah. Britain has been a staunch ally of ours in EU decision making discussions. We will actually miss their influence on our behalf and a partner that we have always worked with.

    That said, the Nordic and Baltic states, alongside Holland to a lesser extent, share a similar perspective to ourselves in relation to federalisation and economic policies - the term "New Hanseatic League" is being increasingly used:

    https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/uneasy-perch-for-varadkar-among-the-baltic-hawks-36705721.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,711 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    That said, the Nordic and Baltic states, alongside Holland to a lesser extent, share a similar perspective to ourselves in relation to federalisation and economic policies - the term "New Hanseatic League" is being increasingly used:

    https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/uneasy-perch-for-varadkar-among-the-baltic-hawks-36705721.html

    Yes I heard that, it fact I read somewhere recently that one of the big losers in all this, and yet rarely talked about, is the increasingly tight relationship between UK and Holland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    EdgeCase wrote: »
    My view of it is that the UK really does need to leave, and not for its own sake, but for the sake of the EU and the Eurozone. At this stage, it's become a side-show and a hugely problematic member that is potentially undermining the rest of us.

    If the feeling in the UK was they didn't want to progress, nobody was stopping them from stepping out and remaining in some kind of EEA type status, but instead they went along with moving towards the EU as it is today and have dragged their feet and blocked or attempted to block all sorts of things, including attempting to derail essential legislation to stablise the Eurozone, which they're not even in!

    In my opinion, it's long past time where the other members can continue to play this game. Either you're in or you're not and if you're not, good luck to you. The best that can be done is a trade deal and move on.

    There are big external risks at the moment, particularly with Trump kicking off trade wars and China progressing towards 'strong man dictatorship' like governance again etc etc. The UK continuously throwing the toys out of the pram is not really very conducive to anything other than chaos.

    For whatever reason, as a country, it is not capable of cooperating on this kind of intimate level with the rest of the EU. I don't really see the point in trying to encourage it to remain as it's never going to be a comfortable relationship. It's like trying to keep a bad marriage together for the sake of the kids.

    I think it’s important to remember that Britain’s influence in Europe has been both prominent and of great value to European advancement. It’s another total distortion of reality to say that Britain has had a detrimental impact and that the EU is better off without us.

    The list of European achievements which owe a great deal to Britain’s involvement in their implementation consists of the single market and the euro, to Europol and the European Environment Agency amongst many others.

    Hardly insignificant accomplishments.

    Further, I’d be hesitant to describe Britain’s often important role in acting as a counterweight to French and German ambitions for unrelenting levels of ‘more europe’ as a country dragging its feet.

    Not every government and electorate in the EU has been totally content with the pace and direction of Europan integration led by the Franco-German axis in Central Europe. In both the European parliament and the council of ministers Britain has been and valuable ally to them, acting often as a stabilising and reassuring force. Another positive.

    I think Britain has done a lot of good for Europe. I think it should have been prouder of its achievements. And I think it’s a great shame it will not be doing good for itself and for Europe anymore.

    Honestly, I think your view on Britain’s role in Europe (also described as a festering sore by another poster a few pages back - gross and insulting) is every bit as ignorant of reality as any Brexit voter who thinks that Britain hasn’t benefited from EU membership over the past 4 decades.
    I would agree with a lot of what you say, particularly that the description of the UK as having been a 'festering sore' on the EU is not accurate.  Nonetheless, though the UK itself was not a festering sore, there was a festering sore within the UK -- that being an apparent failure by successive generations to reconcile the English national identity with a pan-European one, and a propensity on the part of many politicians and the media to not only use the EU as a scapegoat -- but also treat it effectively as an enemy. 

    The uneasy relationship between English people (and Welsh seemingly) and the EU is something which, rather than being addressed, was left to fester.  After all, the faceless Brussels bureaucrats had proven easy targets for the media and lazy fallbacks for the political establishment.  Everything could just be blamed on the EU -- immigration, terrorism, the financial crisis etc etc -- all the fault of EU law, bureaucracy and Eurocrats. 

    Someone put it well on this thread before in explaining the difference in the collective national psyches in Ireland and the UK towards EU membership: the Irish saw it as having a seat at the table, while many in the UK (seemingly mainly in England) have never been able to stomach the perceived indignity of having to sit at the table at all.  That has been the real festering sore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    I would agree with a lot of what you say, particularly that the description of the UK as having been a 'festering sore' on the EU is not accurate. Nonetheless, though the UK itself was not a festering sore, there was a festering sore within the UK -- that being an apparent failure by successive generations to reconcile the English national identity with a pan-European one, and a propensity on the part of many politicians and the media to not only use the EU as a scapegoat -- but also treat it effectively as an enemy.

    The uneasy relationship between English people (and Welsh seemingly) and the EU is something which, rather than being addressed, was left to fester. After all, the faceless Brussels bureaucrats had proven easy targets for the media and lazy fallbacks for the political establishment. Everything could just be blamed on the EU -- immigration, terrorism, the financial crisis etc etc -- all the fault of EU law, bureaucracy and Eurocrats.

    Someone put it well on this thread before in explaining the difference in the collective national psyches in Ireland and the UK towards EU membership: the Irish saw it as having a seat at the table, while many in the UK (seemingly mainly in England) have never been able to stomach the perceived indignity of having to sit at the table at all. That has been the real festering sore.
    There has also been a strong... 'tendency' seems to be the wrong word... of Tory governments actively using the EU as the focus for anger in the UK against their own policies and shortcomings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,948 ✭✭✭trellheim


    There has also been a strong... 'tendency' seems to be the wrong word... of Tory governments actively using the EU as the focus for anger in the UK against their own policies and shortcomings.
    because anything can be spun as someone else's fault.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭brickster69


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Hi all, and waves....

    Regarding EASA and flights. Can someone explain to me if UK is out of EASA will they be able to block flights into UK and over their airspace also?

    I am totally confused here. So sorry. But it is something that my British cousins (Leavers to the fekkin core) keep telling me. Might be British hubris again but I need a killer reply!


    Who cares?

    Flights to Ireland will just take a half-hour longer from the Continent and nobody will be able to fly in and out of the UK. Their loss, not ours.
    You do understand that all planes with UK parts will not be allowed to land and take off in the EU also. Also the numerous aerospace assembly points in the EU will come to a standstill waiting for 15% of the planes parts to arrive. More job losses all round !
    Not to mention the untold job losses in Europe's tourist regions because no one can fly there ( UK included ).

    "if you get on the wrong train, get off at the nearest station, the longer it takes you to get off, the more expensive the return trip will be."



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement