Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You're not even trying here, come on.

Enough of this please.

Dytalus

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I'd be in favour of an EU army. What are the main objections?

From an Irish perspective, mainly that it conflicts with our neutrality. There's the assumption that if an EU Army was formed, Ireland would be forced (as a member of the EU) to participate in some manner - potentially being dragged into wars we've no interest in being in. Some of the more vehement opponents seem to think that if the EU has an army it would be used similarly to the US (ie, very aggressively) rather than solely for defence which would definitely go against our practice of neutrality.

A lot of that viewpoint can't really be disproven (but rather crucially neither can it be proven) - since there is no EU Army, we've no way of knowing how it would function. If it was an army with voluntary contributions (similar to the voluntary nature of PESCO at the moment) it would be easy enough to stay out of it and therefore maintain our neutrality. If it was an amalgamation of member-state militaries (extremely unlikely, could you imagine the uproar?), then there's a problem since it would subsume our own defence forces as well.

Whether or not our neutrality is fair or even really a thing is another debate, but one that stands near enough to the core of the EU Army problem.

ToBeFrank123

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I'd be in favour of an EU army. What are the main objections?

Most EU members have NATO. Why do they need another?

Laois_Man

Dytalus wrote: »

There's the assumption that if an EU Army was formed, Ireland would be forced (as a member of the EU) to participate in some manner

Article 29, section 4 of the Irish constitution states:

"The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defense pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defense would include the State".

There is no assumption of us being forced to do anything!

Dytalus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most EU members have NATO. Why do they need another?

Because they no longer find the US (the primary military power in NATO) a reliable ally.

Plus NATO is a defensive alliance - if the EU wanted to 'secure its interests' overseas (for example, stopping a genocide on its doorstep), NATO would take no part in such missions.

Seth Brundle

youcantakethat wrote: »

Our national debt has increased to 200 billion euro, and increasing, we have a homelessness and housing crises, we are the third most indebted country in the developed world and you think all of that is due to the EU, and its ok we should pay the EU billions more in net contributions per year? Three billion euro a year net they want our contributions to increase to? As someone said "T'was grand when the money was flowing FROM UK/Europe and our national debt was small."

Again you're not answering my querstion: what do we get as a member of the EU? Are we more prosperous because of our membership?
What has the EU got to do with the housing "crisis" (the non-existence of a crisis has been explained by another poster so I won't dwell on)?

The national debt is as a result of our spending (and to a lesser extent the Celtic Tiger bubble bursting). Ireland borrows to the hilt to pay for our natyional spending so naturally we end up in debt. Am I in favour of it? Nope. but it's a national issue and nothing really to do with EU membership. As a nation, we're against austerity (not that we really experienced austerity recently) and we love spending money that we don't have. Anyhow, it's nothing really to do with this thread!

Peregrinus

youcantakethat wrote: »

Indeed our (Irelands) net contribution to the EU is forecast to rise 51% from 2017 level by 2021.

youcantakethat wrote: »

It is great to know that the reason the EU will be getting us to pay billions more to them from our taxes and borrowed money, in the form of dramatically increasing contributions,is because our little country is doing so well...oh wait, what about our housing and homeless crises, the fact we are the third most indebted country in the developed world etc? . . .

With the care, accuracy and reliability for which he is fast becoming a by-word on this board, youcantakethat is conflating gross and net contributions. Whether this is due to stupidity or dishonesty I will leave it to him to say.

Ireland's gross contribution to the EU in 2017 was a little over €2 billion. Gross receipts, €1.8 billion. Net contribution in 2017 was therefore a little over €200 million. URL="https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/1004/1000824-eu_court_of_auditors/"]Source.[/URL So a 51% increase, as claimed, would be an extra €100 million or so, not "billions more".

As others have repreatedly pointed out, and as youcantakethat is conflating has steadfastly refused to engage with, thiis is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount which which our GDP, and therefore our tax revenues, are enhanced by our membership of the EU and our participation in the single market. You would have to be astonishingly stupid, or astonishingly dishonest, to claim that we would be financially better off by leaving the EU. Though, in fairness to youcantakethat, he has never actually claimed that.

Cina

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

As per Brexit, one does not need facts in order to promote an agenda, just lots of loud shouting, soundbytes & anti-everything stuff.

That's why it's the duty of informed people to put a stop to the spread of such nonsense.

Hmm, pretty sure it is true, to be fair.
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2018/0903/991287-government-deficit/

Dytalus

Laois_Man wrote: »

Article 29, section 4 of the Irish constitution states:

"The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defense pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defense would include the State".

There is no assumption of us being forced to do anything!

I understand this. I was speaking from the perspective of those against an EU Army. There may be other reasons, but the "our neutrality" argument is the one I most commonly see cited.

Look at how many people who think Lisbon "Round 2" was just an exact repeat of "Round 1", despite the promise made in a binding agreement that protected our neutrality for Round 2.

CelticRambler

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'm still none the wiser of what yesterday's votes have actually achieved.

About as much as all of Theresa's visits to the EU over the last year!

I heard Oliver Letwin on Sky this morning make a fleeting but significant remark, suggesting that Westminster would have done better to adopt Ireland's strategy of burying the party hatchets until Brexit was done and dusted.

Similarly, on this side of the English Channel/Celtic Sea, Emmanuel Macron has seen his approval ratings rise in the last couple of months because he had the good sense to put the brakes on contentious reform and send his people out into the real world to talk face-to-face with the citizens, in the form of thousands of local debates.

I can't help but compare the relative successes of consensual Irish and French politics with the parallel ....... shambles (? :rolleyes: ) of the bipolar UK and US systems, where very little is being done to enhance the standing of either state.

ToBeFrank123

Dytalus wrote: »

Because they no longer find the US (the primary military power in NATO) a reliable ally.

Plus NATO is a defensive alliance - if the EU wanted to 'secure its interests' overseas (for example, stopping a genocide on its doorstep), NATO would take no part in such missions.

Not this again.
NATO was part of 1995 and 1999 operations in Yugoslavia which brought Serbia to the table on both occasions.
They also took out Gadaffi.

The EU is run by civilian eurocrats more used to pen pushing and fine dining. The idea they would order an EU army to do anything of meaning is questionable.

You'd at best end up diluting NATO to arm and equip a token EU army.

And there's really little to suggest the US are no longer a reliable ally. They did the bulk of the fighting against IS recently, did much of the fighting against the Taliban and so on.

I'd rather go into battle with the US than an EU army led by John-Claude Juncker.

An Ciarraioch

People in Jersey advised to stock up ahead of Brexit - though presumably they could get supplies from France in a worst-case scenario.

https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2019-02-28/islanders-asked-to-think-of-essentials-when-preparing-for-brexit/

LuckyLloyd

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Good luck organising the perfect referendum where nobody lies. Its never happened before.
The bull**** spouted by the SNP for the scottish referendum was a sight to behold. They nearly convinced people they could keep the pound.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I doubt you will accept my opinion. So maybe a professor will do?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/25/snp-currency-proposals-disastrous-independent-scotlands-economy/amp

That's not to mention the SNP want to join the EU in the event of brexit which would raise the prospect of a hard border with England if a deal can't be done between them.

Apart from the rapidly depleting resource of North Sea oil, Scotland is heavily dependent on staying in the UK.

I'm always bemused at those coming in ardently pro Brexit and screaming about EU bullies out of the other side of their mouth being negative about the concept of Scottish independence. What gives? Surely you're either for independence and against the concept of Union or for it?

Or this just more proof of what Brexit is really about: an emotional excuse to wave the union jack and dream of Empires past?

Artifacting

The blind US military allegiance is basically why New Labour imploded and how the UK tumbled towards the emergence of Brexit in the first place.

100,000 people marched against the second Iraq war and all of the policies that were driven by GW Bush. Very few Labour voters agreed with what he was doing, yet Blair drove on with support of dodgy dossiers and anyone opposing it being marginalised. That's why New Labour lost all public trust and it's why Momentum and Corbyn emerged.

So, I don't know about blind loyalty to a war mongering US and now one that's led by someone who is completely unstable and unpredictable. So far Trump hasn't done anything that crazy in terms of war starting but, he has managed to put Europe at risk by withdrawing from nuclear arms treaties that have brought short range tactical nuclear weapons back onto the table again and increased risks to levels we haven't seen since the peak of the cold war and not only that but nobody's sure if he would stand against Putin should anything like say an invasion of an eastern EU state ever happen. He's also been completely transactional in his view of what NATO is.

I'd rather not get into a war led by anyone but I would suspect Juncker might actually have my back whereas Trump is an unknown quantity.

Artifacting

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

People in Jersey advised to stock up ahead of Brexit - though presumably they could get supplies from France in a worst-case scenario.

https://www.itv.com/news/channel/2019-02-28/islanders-asked-to-think-of-essentials-when-preparing-for-brexit/

They could get supplies from France but subject to tarrifs and inspections. Jersey would also be leaving any arrangements it has through the UK with the EU.

It's a quasi autonomous crown dependency but, all of its EU relations are based on its UK link. It has no independent relationship with the EU. As a result, when Brexit happens the channel Islands and Isle of Man access to and from the EU and EEA would cease too.

fash

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Not this again.
NATO was part of 1995 and 1999 operations in Yugoslavia which brought Serbia to the table on both occasions.

... Which they did too late allowing thousands to be murdered.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

They also took out Gadaffi.

Which was a bad thing - led to the collapse of Libya and streams of migrants flowing into error and dying in the process.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The EU is run by civilian eurocrats more used to pen pushing and fine dining. The idea they would order an EU army to do anything of meaning is questionable.

Brexity nonsense.
Have your ever explained your (I assume I since no-one else has thought of it yet) plan as to what concessions the EU could give to the UK to avoid the backstop? I asked you about a week ago.

LuckyLloyd

Inquitus wrote: »

The UK's great employment stats are not far from the US stats, in so far as one job cannot pay a living wage, not sure this is a valid metric. A zero hours contract counts as employment after all.....

youcantakethat wrote: »

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Wages in the UK are not that bad, ask any of the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who choose to live there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no. You yourself have pointed out that the UK has very low unemployment. Yet it plainly has signficant problems with (and dissatisfaction resulting from) poverty, austerity and inequality. Indeed, many attribute the disenchantment with politics and the support for things like Brexit to precisely this dissatisfaction.

How can these two facts be reconciled? The short answer is that while the UK has lots of employment, much of it is badly paid. The UK average wage (at purchasing power parity) is about 10% lower than in Ireland. That's for equivalent full-time employees. Add to that the practice already referred to of counting workers on zero-hours contracts and low-hours contracts as employed, and the worryingly persistent low productivity of UK labour (by comparison with other developed economies) and you come up with a picture of a country that has high nominal employment, sustained by a relatively high proportion of low-grade, low-paying employment, and a corresponding high inequality in earnings. Which is pretty much the UK right now.

youcantakethat wrote: »

Remember though the words of Ignazio Corrao, adviser to Luigi Di Maio, the deputy prime minister and leader of the Five Star Movement, who said Italy could still leave the EU. He attacked the arrogance of the European Commission and EU leaders for making no changes since Britain’s vote to leave the bloc.

Do not forget Italian unemployment recently was 10.6 percent, and youth unemployment was 34.7 percent. UK unemployment is 4%, so you could say there is full emploiyment in the UK, plus wages are higher in the UK than Italy. Staggeringly, GDP per capita in Italy is lower now, in real terms, than it was in 1999 on the eve of its entry into the euro.

This is absolutely outrageous. The point about low unemployment is strongly contradicted and contested, and then 25 posts later the same poster continues plowing the exact same furrow, not a bother on them.

And we see this stuff all the time from pro Brexit posters. Sloganeering, bad grasp of details and facts, inability or unwillingness to engage with all responses. And repetition repetition repetition of the same high level points over and over and over despite constant challenge and refutation.

Dreadful stuff. The emperor has not a piece of string at this stage.

Dyr

Artifacting wrote: »

So far Trump hasn't done anything that crazy in terms of war starting but, he has managed to put Europe at risk by withdrawing from nuclear arms treaties that have brought short range tactical nuclear weapons back onto the table again and increased risks to levels we haven't seen since the peak of the cold war and not only that but nobody's sure if he would stand against Putin should anything like say an invasion of an eastern EU state ever happen.

Amazingly, Trump has been far less of a problem for European Stability than the Golden Boy that preceded him. People tend to forget it was Obama who started the refugee ****show in the middle east and North Africa that triggered most of the Brexit type sentiment in the UK and Europe. Putin could have kissed him for it I reckon.

fash

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's not to mention the SNP want to join the EU in the event of brexit which would raise the prospect of a hard border with England if a deal can't be done between them.

... However you were suggesting there was a solution to the UK border in Ireland that can resolve that without a backstop - surely the Scots can just copy that?

Professor Moriarty

Interestingly, latest immigration figures into the UK might cause a few Brexiteers, and those voters who support them, to pause and reflect. Since the 2016 referendum, immigration from EU countries has fallen sharply while immigration from non-EU countries has risen sharply. It seems the law of unintended consequences has kicked in.

Junkyard Tom

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most EU members have NATO. Why do they need another?

Europe is currently subordinate to Washington when it comes to defence. That needs to end because Washington's interests aren't Europe's.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

They also took out Gadaffi ... They did the bulk of the fighting against IS recently, did much of the fighting against the Taliban and so on.

Libya is a disaster. Syria is a disaster. The disastrous Iraq war that killed or displaced millions was instrumental in the growth of IS. The Taliban are retaking control.

Meanwhile Europe takes the hit on the refugee crisis.

Thanks NATO but you're no longer fit for purpose.

blanch152

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Or this just more proof of what Brexit is really about: an emotional excuse to wave the union jack and dream of Empires past?

That is what Brexit is all about, just as Scottish independence is all about emotion and dreams rather than economic realities, ditto Irish unification.

reslfj

A little about EU military.

Most EU countries are members of NATO (exceptions Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden).

From 1948 there was the "Western Union" , from 1954 renamed the "Western European Union" (WEU) where Ireland among others was not a member but had observer status. It was dissolved in 2009-2011 when it was partly integrated in the EU's "Common Security and Defence Policy"

The military side of the EU is under unanimity voting, it respects country neutrality, Denmark and Ireland are not participating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy

The current defence of Europe is NATO based - including the troops currently stationed in the the Baltic states and in Poland ... Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden are neutral states in relation to NATO.

The actual military WEU/EU forces has always been from the national forces of the member states 'on loan' for specific tasks. This is not very different from NATO forces being the sum of national forces, except EU is included and non EU NATO members are not.

Before Trump the first focus of the EU was on increasing the buying power for military equipment among member states. The 'bang for the buck' factor was and is much, much to low in current contracts. This is among other things due to small individual country contracts and/or 'nationalistic' not fully competitive tenders.

When Trump was slow in confirming USA commitment to 'NATO Article 5', leaders in the EU including in the UK felt - reluctantly - forced to rethink the need for an US independent European military cooperation.
This is unlikely to result in common EU armed forces, but more like NATO without an American general at the top.

Common police/semi-military forces like Frontex forces (outer border) might be a common integrated border force, I think.

From a size, economical and military point of view the EU including the UK is Europe now in any non Russian sense of the word. It can and will be 'military' Europe even without the UK military in - say - 5 or 10 years (not that this is wanted by anyone in the EU27)

Lars

BobbyBobberson

Watching BBC news here, figures on migration Sept 2017 - 2018

Net EU Migration - 57,000
Net Non- EU is 261,000, the highest since 2004.

Wow.

Dytalus

blanch152 wrote: »

That is what Brexit is all about, just as Scottish independence is all about emotion and dreams rather than economic realities, ditto Irish unification.

To be fair, in all those things there is more than simply the economic effects to be considered. Identity (both personal and national) is an important aspect which I believe is a perfectly fair thing to vote based on. I'm not going to vote in a government into the Dáil if they seek to have us rejoin the UK, for example - even if there were some economic benefits to doing so.

With Scottish Independence, the argument can be made that the Scottish people are not being fairly represented in Westminster. That England has too much control over the UK as a whole and often moves in ways that harm Scotland (as they have done with Northern Ireland. See: the NI economy). That the 'Union' is more of a dominion with England on top, rather than an actual union of constituent members. Plus, an independent Scotland could look to rejoin the EU - arguably a better thing for their economy long term than staying outside it in the UK.

The primary problem with Brexit is not only that they're suffering an economic hit, it's that much of the pro-Brexit arguments - the advantages of leaving, or disadvantages of staying - were outright lies.

• 'Unelected Bureaucrats' = Elected MEPs, and the members of the European Council are the elected leaders of member-states. There is plenty of democratic influence in the EU.
• 'Better trade deals' = provably a lie. Look at how the vultures are ready to pounce in the US. The UK market is not strong enough indvidually to support itself when negotiating with massive markets like China and the US. This is where the EU's main strength lies, there are no circumstances where the UK would get more favourable deals vs the what they get as part of the EU.
• EU laws and tyranny = the British people get a say in EU laws the same way they do with their own government - by voting in representatives and contacting them. It is no more tyrannical then their own system.

And so on, and so on.

Strazdas

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Watching BBC news here, figures on migration Sept 2017 - 2018

Net EU Migration - 57,000
Net Non- EU is 261,000, the highest since 2004.

Wow.

That EU figure would equate to a yearly number of only 4k or 5k EU citizens into Ireland.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Since the 2016 referendum, immigration from EU countries has fallen sharply while immigration from non-EU countries has risen sharply. It seems the law of unintended consequences has kicked in.

Hmmm. Not entirely unintended. Working from memory, so won't be citing any sources :P, but wasn't there a strong Leave vote amongst the UK's Asian community because they wanted more visas for their family members?

reslfj

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Watching BBC news here, figures on migration Sept 2017 - 2018

Net EU Migration - 57,000
Net Non- EU is 261,000, the highest since 2004.

Wow.

EU->UK migration has always been lower than non-EU immigration.

The EU migrants are of course more Catholic or Orthodox or non-Anglican Christian than native English citizens. But very, very few EU migrants are Muslims or Hindu or ... Not that it matters to me.

It does matter, somewhat, for ease of integration that EU migrants are skilled and well educated, arriving with the expectation of working hard but otherwise get a fair deal.

With the demographic trends (more old, fewer young people) the UK will in a few years look back and say "The good old FoM days" and "That polish nurse, she was good" ....

Lars

listermint

Bambi wrote: »

Amazingly, Trump has been far less of a problem for European Stability than the Golden Boy that preceded him. People tend to forget it was Obama who started the refugee ****show in the middle east and North Africa that triggered most of the Brexit type sentiment in the UK and Europe. Putin could have kissed him for it I reckon.

Unless Obama has been the president since the 70's .... . You have a skewed view of the brexit type anti-EU sentiment.


Fact Check.
Its a British Sentiment thats probably older than you.

ToBeFrank123

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Europe is currently subordinate to Washington when it comes to defence. That needs to end because Washington's interests aren't Europe's.



Libya is a disaster. Syria is a disaster. The disastrous Iraq war that killed or displaced millions was instrumental in the growth of IS. The Taliban are retaking control.

Meanwhile Europe takes the hit on the refugee crisis.

Thanks NATO but you're no longer fit for purpose.

Libya was going to be a disaster either way if NATO got involved or not. Either they left Gadaffi in power and it caused a widespread migration problem similar to Syria or they took him out. No perfect solution to the problem.

An EU army will never be accused of making the wrong decision because it will never get involved in anything.

I get the feeling this thread is beginning to attract the usual anti-American brigade.