Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Imreoir2

Folkstonian wrote: »

A question I have for the much more pro-EU posters here (which I accept is the vast majority)...

Are you in any way uneasy about the path that the EU is in some danger of going down over the next few years?

We are now seeing..
- Calls from serious politicians, with serious clout, for a European military
- Calls for joint budgets from the same individuals
- Pressure on individual states to walk the party line on matters of foreign policy
- Calls this week for states to surrender ‘more sovereignty’ to the European Union

Brexit has forced a significant and widespread re-evaluation of the EU and it's purpose right accross Europe, much as Brexiteers predicted it would.

Where the Brexiteers got it wrong is that they assumed that this process of re-evaluation would be the signal for the collapse of the EU. In reality the opposit has happened. The EU has had proponents of integration and indeed federalism from the start. These people have responded to Brexit by suggesting that the answer to Europe's problems is more EU, not less. They have made their case for further integration.

As the re-evaluation of the EU which was sparked by Brexit has taken place, and we all gained a much greater understanding of the EU, it's benefits, and limitations, their arguments have proven to be quite persuasive. For many people, myself included, the more they got to know the EU and how it functions, the more they were impressed by an institution that works quietly and effectivly and improves the lives of it's citizens in countless ways. Many people who never really gave the EU much of a thought have become convinced that the European Project is a worthwhile one. While there are many complaints that one can make about the EU, in my opinion the most valid complaints stem from the fact that the European project has not gone far enough, not that it has gone too far.

Rational people of good will can debate the merits of further integration amongst member states. I don't see why such a discussion should concern anyone.

The important thing for me is that it is the case that member states can choose to go as far down the road of integration as they see fit, and stop at whatever point they feel is best. It remains the choice of the member state how far they wish to integrate. It is never something that is forced upon them, unless you count the weight of necessity or the too great cost of isolation as being forced. If a convincing argument can be made that greater co-operation and integration is beneficial, of that a given issue or policy area is best delt with at the European level, then EU members are free to co-operate in that area. If such a convincing argument is not forthcoming, then member states are free to continue to deal with an issue at national, regional or local level as the case may be. No one is being forced to integrate into the EU against their will.

rogue-entity

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

...the free migration aspect of the EU has been a brilliant benefit to Ireland as far as I'm concerned. The Eastern Europeans who came to Ireland post 2004 have been a wonderful addition to our society. And as an Irish man living on the continent I'm thankful for the ease to which I was able to do so. Europe was far beyond a trading agreement when we joined. Closer integration has always been a stated aim, a rocky one for some states, but an overall beneficial one.

To say nothing with the ease at which you can travel around; take your car to France, drive through Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and visit Warsaw, all without any barriers, without any issues with your drivers licence and your insurance covers you all the way. As a bonus, you won't pay roaming charges to use your phone in any of these countries either, rather useful if you're using an navigation app that requires a data connection.

The EU harmonisation means our drivers licence is valid across the EU/EEA, our qualifications are (as far as I know) valid across the EU/EEA, we're free to live, work and (find) love in 27 other countries. I have friends across several countries on the continent as well as in the UK; visiting my friends in the rest of Europe is as easy as hopping on a plane and walking out the airport at the other side, without having to talk to anyone, explain or justify my reasons for going or who I'm spending my time with. This is something I am not only incredibly thankful for but something I would not want to give up.

Unfortunately for my UK friends, they'll be stripped of these rights and they don't even know if they'll need a visa or not to visit their friends on the continent. Some have married, will they need a visa for their partners to visit family at home?

Seth Brundle

rogue-entity wrote: »

To say nothing with the ease at which you can travel around; take your car to France, drive through Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and visit Warsaw, all without any barriers, without any issues with your drivers licence and your insurance covers you all the way. As a bonus, you won't pay roaming charges to use your phone in any of these countries either, rather useful if you're using an navigation app that requires a data connection.

The EU harmonisation means our drivers licence is valid across the EU/EEA, our qualifications are (as far as I know) valid across the EU/EEA, we're free to live, work and (find) love in 27 other countries. I have friends across several countries on the continent as well as in the UK; visiting my friends in the rest of Europe is as easy as hopping on a plane and walking out the airport at the other side, without having to talk to anyone, explain or justify my reasons for going or who I'm spending my time with. This is something I am not only incredibly thankful for but something I would not want to give up.

But apparently you are being bullied by the EU with all of these conveniences!

breatheme

rogue-entity wrote: »

To say nothing with the ease at which you can travel around; take your car to France, drive through Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and visit Warsaw, all without any barriers, without any issues with your drivers licence and your insurance covers you all the way. As a bonus, you won't pay roaming charges to use your phone in any of these countries either, rather useful if you're using an navigation app that requires a data connection.

The EU harmonisation means our drivers licence is valid across the EU/EEA, our qualifications are (as far as I know) valid across the EU/EEA, we're free to live, work and (find) love in 27 other countries. I have friends across several countries on the continent as well as in the UK; visiting my friends in the rest of Europe is as easy as hopping on a plane and walking out the airport at the other side, without having to talk to anyone, explain or justify my reasons for going or who I'm spending my time with. This is something I am not only incredibly thankful for but something I would not want to give up.

Unfortunately for my UK friends, they'll be stripped of these rights and they don't even know if they'll need a visa or not to visit their friends on the continent. Some have married, will they need a visa for their partners to visit family at home?

On top of it all you check this out: https://what-europe-does-for-me.eu/en/portal

It contains information about the projects the EU has invested in different regions.

Andy From Sligo

Sorry if someone has already posted it but this is the (released today) 7 page summary written in plain English, of the 585-page draft Withdrawal Agreement for the UK’s exit from the European Union

http://2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ERGYourRightToKnow.pdf

LeinsterDub

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Sorry if someone has already posted it but this is the (released today) 7 page summary written in plain English, of the 585-page draft Withdrawal Agreement for the UK’s exit from the European Union

http://2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ERGYourRightToKnow.pdf

Written by the ERG I feel it's important to note that.

Andy From Sligo

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Written by the ERG I feel it's important to note that.

biased?

Rhineshark

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Written by the ERG I feel it's important to note that.

A caveat that should be written in letters a foot tall.

Rhineshark

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

biased?

Jacob Rees-Mogg's European Research Group lot, so yes :P

LeinsterDub

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

biased?

Unbelievably and completely. They are hard core brexit extremist.

McGiver

breatheme wrote:

Furthermore, there are checks and controls EU countries can use to curb EU immigration (like waiting two years after accession to grant full Freedom of Movement to a country, for example).

Actually, up to 7 years (2+3+2 years). Germany and Austria did that to the A8 countries some of which they border.

rogue-entity

theguzman wrote: »

Look guys I'm trying to make my side of the debate, I'm not calling anyone names or being disrespectful...

You could have fooled us.

theguzman wrote:

...social policy such as Abortion and Gay marriage...

I think you'll find that we at home did this for ourselves.
And personally I'm happier living in a country that's no longer a theocracy.

breatheme wrote:

The only people who think the EU is an empire are Brits who after conquering the whole world, are paranoid that someone will come and do that to them.

Or governments of certain countries that would prefer it went away.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But apparently you are being bullied by the EU with all of these conveniences!

Or I'm being brainwashed.

Donald Trump

I have a question.

This boogeyman of 39 billion that they go on about. And keep going on about. Why do they keep on about it being unreasonable? Ok, I can understand it's kind of demagoguery, that could sound bad on the face of it, to get the average eejit voter behind them. But at some stage you have to be realistic. It's not Nigel Farage trying to drum up a frenzy, they are people in, or very close to being in, positions of power and decision-making

But it is their outstanding liability for things they committed to, and for pensions of their citizens for work they did representing the UK in Europe.

Have the "anti-39er's" actually said anything like "well actually it should be 20bn" ...... or 5bn or whatever. Or do you think they actually believe the default position is that they would not have to fulfill those commitments?

McGiver

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

This is the reason Ireland can not be neutral. To this day it refuses to take national defence seriously and if you have no hope of defending your neutrality by definition you can not be neutral.

Yes, compare it with the Swiss. They are truly neutral, with all men going through military training and most acting as a reserve hence high number of firearms per capita. I've never understood the notion of Irish "neutrality".

McGiver

Folkstonian wrote:

There has been so much said about more and more integration in recent weeks - possibly as a result of Brexit with EU politicians feeling emboldened by the imminent departure of the biggest eurosceptic voice in Brussels - that honestly, if there was another Brexit vote next week I’d be very torn as to which way I voted.

Folkstonian wrote:

So what do people think? Does my natural british Euroscepticism make me overthink it? Do you fear that Ireland might be drawn into a project that goes beyond what you ever envisioned the Eu would be? Or are you all for the full steam ahead to a much closer union?

The EU and all its precursors have always have been about more integration and more Europe. Only the ones who are misinformed or uninformed think otherwise. The only question is how and how quickly the integration happens not if it happens. The "if" is not a question at all.

Schuman declaration of 1950 (de facto establishing the ECSC):

The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.
...
By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.

By the way, this also addresses your notion that the EU was not instrumental in the maintenance of the longest period of peace in European history.

McGiver

Donald Trump wrote:

This boogeyman of 39 billion that they go on about. And keep going on about. Why do they keep on about it being unreasonable? Ok, I can understand it's kind of demagoguery, that could sound bad on the face of it, to get the average eejit voter behind them. But at some stage you have to be realistic.

It's demagoguery. That's all what it is.
And no, the last 2 and half years have shown that apparently British politicians do not have to be realistic. Welcome to the Trumpist UK.

McGiver

Labour in the lead, confirmed by two polls (last time this was the case in July) . Will they make the move now or wait little bit more?

The Sunday papers have the first two voting intention polls conducted since the draft Brexit deal was unveiled:

Opinium in the Observer have topline figures of CON 36%(-5), LAB 39%(+2), LDEM 7%(-1), UKIP 8%(+2)

ComRes for the Sunday Express and Sunday Mirror have topline figures of CON 36%(-3), LAB 40%(nc), LDEM 9%(nc), UKIP 7%(+2)

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

Labour in the lead, confirmed by two polls (last time this was the case in July) . Will they make the move now or wait little bit more?

It's not a huge lead; it's within the margin of error.

On the other hand, I think the polling was done shortly after the draft deal was published. Events since them - the resignations, the sniping, the Tories fighting like cats in a bag - could have opened up the gap a bit further.

I'd say Labour will be hoping for evidence that the gap is persistent, and widening. Might hold their fire for a bit yet.

PeadarCo

jm08 wrote:

We rely on the UK for air defence against whom?

At the moment terrorrists. If a plane was taken control of by terrorists in Irish airspace similar to 9/11 there is nothing the Irish defence forces could do unfortunately.


On a broader point you can't call yourself neutral when it quiet clear that your defence is reliant on other countries. In Irelands case its geographic location gives it de facto protection by NATO. If you look at other neutral countries such as Switzerland it's very different. It has a decent army.

Peregrinus

PeadarCo wrote: »

At the moment terrorrists. If a plane was taken control of by terrorists in Irish airspace similar to 9/11 there is nothing the Irish defence forces could do unfortunately.

Mmm. Ability to defend against terrorism isn't a traditional criterion of neutrality.

PeadarCo wrote: »

On a broader point you can't call yourself neutral when it quiet clear that your defence is reliant on other countries. In Irelands case its geographic location gives it de facto protection by NATO. If you look at other neutral countries such as Switzerland it's very different. It has a decent army.

What you're saying there is that Ireland's geographic location makes neutrality impossible; neutrality is a matter of strategic situation rather than policy or practice.

That doesn't seem to me like a particularly useful or meaningful concept of "neutrality", though. On that analysis, it doesn't matter whate Ireland does or doesn't do; it won't be a neutral country.

The traditional obligation of a neutral country is not to be able to defend itself against all possible attackers; it's to take such steps as it can to deny its territory and resources to belligerents in a war.

The belligerents most likely to be interested in exploiting our territory and resources are the UK or the US. If there's one thing history teaches us, it's that we can't defeat or resist the UK in conventional warfare; the disparity of size and resources is just too great. And of course this goes in spades for the US. When we did (eventually) successfully resist the UK it was through guerilla warfare and political agitation.

Consequently putting significant resources into conventional military capacity is not a sensible strategy for us; it doesn't buy us any signficant level of additional security, or materially enhance our capacity to deny territory/resources to a belligerent. There's no level of feasible military expenditure which would give our policy of neutrality greater credibility than it has now. There might or might not be good arguments for increased military expenditure in Ireland, but "to justify our neutrality" is definitely not one of them.

Peregrinus

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This is not true, they had the capisity, and if I recall correctly, actually did shoot down hijacked aircraft to prevent them from crashing into a building/populated area.

They had the capacity to shoot down hijacked airliners, but they didn't use it, then or since. Ireland, by contrast, does not have the capacity.

Still, I can't take this seriously as a meaningful criterion of neutrality.

PeadarCo

Peregrinus wrote:

Consequently putting significant resources into conventional military capacity is not a sensible strategy for us; it doesn't buy us any signficant level of additional security, or materially enhance our capacity to deny territory/resources to a belligerent. There's no level of feasible military expenditure which would give our policy of neutrality greater credibility than it has now. There might or might not be good arguments for increased military expenditure in Ireland, but "to justify our neutrality" is definitely not one of them.

I'd agree with what you say however as a member of the EU Ireland. The countries geographic position at least in the current geopolitical environment gives it certain protections and also certain economic advantages and disadvantages. If Ireland was located in a different part of the world the economic and political issues would be different. Without getting too hung up on this point Ireland isn't neutral because there is no way to enforce it and currently there is also no political drive to build up that capacity(if a credible capacity is even possible) . Joining an EU battle group doesn't change that. It's not something I would see that can be used as a stick to beat the EU with.


However getting away from that issue and back to Brexit. Irelands position in the negotiations does show the enormous soft and hard economic power the EU gives a country . Its is something that one the UK will give up. It's also something hard Brexiters have never understood and still don't understand.

Peregrinus

PeadarCo wrote: »

I'd agree with what you say however as a member of the EU Ireland. The countries geographic position at least in the current geopolitical environment gives it certain protections and also certain economic advantages and disadvantages. If Ireland was located in a different part of the world the economic and political issues would be different. Without getting too hung up on this point Ireland isn't neutral because there is no way to enforce it and currently there is also no political drive to build up that capacity(if a credible capacity is even possible) . Joining an EU battle group doesn't change that. It's not something I would see that can be used as a stick to beat the EU with.

I repeat; "neutral" does not mean "able to defend yourself against all comers". The fact that Ireland could not protect itself from invasion and occupation does not mean that it cannot be neutral. (It does mean that neutrality will not protect us from invasion or occupation, but whoever claimed that it would?)

PeadarCo wrote: »

However getting away from that issue and back to Brexit. Irelands position in the negotiations does show the enormous soft and hard economic power the EU gives a country . Its is something that one the UK will give up. It's also something hard Brexiters have never understood and still don't understand.

Couldn't agree more. One of the ironies of Brexit that a movement that was supposedly about "taking back control" has given us a textbook illustration of how the UK's decision to brexit has greatly lowered the degree of control that it exercises over its own destiny.

Infini

Imreoir2 wrote: »

This is not true, they had the capisity, and if I recall correctly, actually did shoot down hijacked aircraft to prevent them from crashing into a building/populated area.

No by the time they had realised what had happened and scrambled fighters it was already over. The one that came down was actually brought down by the passengers on who had realised what had happened with the other flights via news reports on the radio and decided to fight the attackers rather than wait for them to crash the plane.

As for neutrality we are generally neutral militarily but lets not delude ourselves the only reason we never got invaded is because of our location in the past not being worth the effort for an invasion. Other countries were neutral at the start of WW2 but that didnt stop them from being overrun. Its prudent to be part of defensive operations and to be able to defend ourselves. Some argue about the neutrality being sacres etc but forget Neutrality is only a fig leaf and doesnt protect you against agressors that dont care. We also have a significant amount of IT and tech companies here so others like Russia would possibly consider us a target in assymetrical wars like information and espionage etc.

Signing up to an EU defence organisation would be just that. Defensive in Nature not offensive like the US. Being prepared and organised against external agressors is something we should be ready for just incase someone does something stupid. Doesnt mean were all of a sudden were gonna be invading other countries. People also sometimes forget the EU is generally a peaceful organisation to PREVENT wars not cause then.

RobMc59

After reading president macrons latest thoughts on an EU army I can see EU troops,possibly a navel base and/or airbase in Ireland especially in the event of a no deal brexit.I'd base that on Ireland being important strategically and as it is geographically remote from the rest of the EU .

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

After reading president macrons latest thoughts on an EU army I can see EU troops,possibly a navel base and/or airbase in Ireland especially in the event of a no deal brexit.I'd base that on Ireland being important strategically and as it is geographically remote from the rest of the EU .

Can we stop with this incredible waffle.

It's getting tiresome.
.

Actually I think it should have a thread of its own.

ancapailldorcha

No more 9/11 stuff please.

Captain Obvious

Hurrache wrote: »

Raab's behaviour continues to amaze me though, what a weasel
https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1064101177573425152?s=19

Seth Brundle wrote: »

"Dark Forces"?
Does Rabb think he's a Jedi Master?

He needs some way to explain why he is against the deal he was supposed to be negotiating.

theguzman wrote: »

Watch from 08:25 forward.

I would suggest anyone either anti-EU or pro-EU to listen to this video and it most definitely makes for eye opening listening.

The EU is about control and rather than the prevention of war it is all about German control and achieving continental domination, economically, militarily and politically.

The worst thing there is the comments. You can see the same rhetoric and nonsense that played a part in Brexit and Trump's election. Certain phrases and words like "elite masters" or "taking back control" that have been shown to be rather meaningless. There really needs to be a concerted effort to address this stuff. Even if you just check the accounts of a few of them you'll see a particular pattern.



As to the video itself, I couldn't watch it all but I watched a good bit of that speaker. There was nothing eye opening in it. It doesn't really matter why it was established or what you believe about that. What matter is what the situation is now. Such is the benefit of being able to elect new officials regularly.


Yes, Ireland is subject to EU rules but we have chosen to be. Like when you join a club you have to follow the club rules. If you don't want to follow those rules you can leave the club but you can't keep using the facilities after. The real question is whether the benefits of being in the club are greater than burden of the rules. I haven't heard any good argument that supports that.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

Can we stop with this incredible waffle.

It's getting tiresome.
.

Actually I think it should have a thread of its own.

You have your own opinion but if all the stories of no fly exclusion zones,over flight permits withdrawn etc what's going to happen ?-It's in Britains interest to include Ireland in its defence strategy but is it really waffle to say if that's withdrawn the EU would expect Ireland to step up or the alternative,an EU military presence in Ireland.

Dyr

Once we unite with the Six, a large presence of dutch peacekeeping troops would be just the ticket