Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ambro25

Deleted User wrote: »

Most of those northern cities have been in the doldrums since the 70s, when businesses started to export their production to the far East.

As for the roads, most were built at least 30 years or so before their Irish equivalents and are due a rebuild at this time.

Brexit was and still is a protest vote against the governments because of this neglect.

I know that area well. I lived there for the last 24 years (minus 4 in Dublin halfway through), until early last year.

Sheffield and the surrounding area had long put its doldrums behind by the late 90s/early 00s. 2008 hurt, of course, but the place was still fighting reasonably fit with new initiatives and FDI vectors like the AMP. It started to go downhill mid-2016, when many businesses immediately went into post-GFC-like 'wait-and-see' mode after the ref, and shelved business dev/investments. Large footprint household name anchor stores rationalising or going under since, have just compounded the effect at street level.

Currently, it feels a bit like the pre-Blair mid-90s, when I first arrived there. Minus the friendly and upbeat mood amongst locals (more fatalist/gallows humour in pub talks, on topics all well away from Brexit).

I've seen the roads in the area built and rebuilt in that time as well, from flagship M1 widening to new bypasses and resurfaced A & B roads. Do please take it from me that, when I tell they've generally gone to ****, they really have generally gone to ****, relative to what state they were in until not so many years ago. Potholes, cracks, subsidence areas, detritus along verges (miles and miles and miles of it along A1, M1, A14, A57, M25...), decrepit services...There are probably very good budgetary reasons why (as in, the absence thereof).

I agree with you about the protest nature of the Brexit vote in that area (as in so many others). I despair at the compounding effect of it on these issues all the same.

Ihatewhahabies

CelticRambler wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure that the "Irish" special relationship with the US will stand up to the challenge posed by a Brexiting Britain, for the simple reason that many of those self-identifying Irish are of Scottish Presbyterian decent (like Trump). The Irish Catholics in the US are very vocal and make a name for themselves, but the Scottish Presbyterians are the ones who repeatedly get into power and pull the political levers. Much will depend on what the native Scots decide to do in the next half-decade, particularly if they engineer a conflict with England/Westminster over the right to hold a second referendum. We might well see a Stateside proxy war flare up, as the Presbyterians pushing US negotiators to maintain UK unity face off against Irish Republicans and Scottish Independentists.

That is something I did not anticipate. I have often wondered what the US would do when they are weighing irish, scottish and english nationalisms. I suspect the special relationship with England would win out, but it is just an assumption

L1011

Libb1964 wrote: »

I hate to be pedantic but GCSE grades A*to C are the equivalent of Ordinary level in the Leaving.

A-levels are a slightly higher level than Higher level in the Leaving cert.

Grades D-G at GCSE level are the same as the Junior certificate.

The information can be found on the European Commissions website explaining the Qualification Framework which is used by all countries within the EU to understand the different qualifications people have when applying for jobs in other EU countries.
This chart will be of no use to the UK once they leave!!!

I do agree with you that Ireland has an education system that produces a much
better overall standard and is also more inclusive.

They *were*, but have been dumbed down so significantly that they are basically JC level now, with A levels only LC level. That framework would eventually have been updated to recognise this.

Take a look at past papers; if you can find them due to the surreal UK exam boards systems that is. Irish papers going back two decades are available FOC

Ihatewhahabies

Ihatewhahabies wrote: »

That is something I did not anticipate. I have often wondered what the US would do when they are weighing irish, scottish and english nationalisms. I suspect the special relationship with England would win out, but it is just an assumption

Whether to choose between their European "aircraft carrier" or their Irish front door into the EU, will be a difficult decision if forced to choose one over the other.

I suspect they'll select both, but with less emphasis on their foot in the EU door, especially as the current EU policy is not US corporate friendly as it used to be.

serfboard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

the EU will be blamed for the current scenario right up to when thry leave!

Oh don’t worry - the EU will also be blamed for their future scenario long after they leave too - for “punishing” them by giving them a bad trade deal. This was despite the fact that the Brits were going to “hold all the cards”.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Whether to choose between their European "aircraft carrier" or their Irish front door into the EU, will be a difficult decision if forced to choose one over the other.

You mean Airstrip One? Speaking of empires, there is a common view that Brexit was backed by Russia because it would cause turmoil in the West and possibly lead to the break up of the EU. But I wonder, is the ultimate goal to creat a Eurasian block, whether by way of the Commonwealth of Independent States joining the EU, the EU joining the Commonwealth of Independent States or some other arraignment between the two. Perhaps a free trade area whereby CIS respects EU borders and EU doesnt try to democratise the CIS or force them to have human rights standards.

Germany certainly would be in favour of closer ties with Russia, and the EU is after all a peace project. France hss never been entirely easy accepting American dominance. The EU distancing itself from the US/UK (Oceania) and by turns, the NATO alliance, and creating its own army or its own block with close ties to CIS would create a tri polar nightmare world very much in keeping with Orwells novel

Irish Praetorian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You mean Airstrip One? Speaking of empires, there is a common view that Brexit was backed by Russia because it would cause turmoil in the West and possibly lead to the break up of the EU. But I wonder, is the ultimate goal to creat a Eurasian block, whether by way of the Commonwealth of Independent States joining the EU, the EU joining the Commonwealth of Independent States or some other arraignment between the two. Perhaps a free trade area whereby CIS respects EU borders and EU doesnt try to democratise the CIS or force them to have human rights standards.

Germany certainly would be in favour of closer ties with Russia, and the EU is after all a peace project. France hss never been entirely easy accepting American dominance. The EU distancing itself from the US/UK (Oceania) and by turns, the NATO alliance, and creating its own army or its own block with close ties to CIS would create a tri polar nightmare world very much in keeping with Orwells novel

Ive been pondering this myself for some time and it looks like there are more and more reasons for such a shift. For one the EU is probably closer to Russia than the US when it comes to ideas of "liberating" people and regime change, and I certainly cant see any European states being dragged along to some Russian regime change operation. It would provide Russia some much craved prestige as the new protector of Europe and would probably subsume any trouble with Russian minorities in eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the EU could continue to neglect defence and outsource a lot of its dirty work in foreign policy to Russia, things like stopping refugee flows and dealing with problematic regimes abroad, whilst maintaining the charade of non intervention.

There remain obvious problems though, the illiberality of the Russian regime and its problematic (to put it mildly) relationships with its neighbours, all makes it very academic at this point, but an interesting line of thought nevertheless.

johnnyskeleton

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

There remain obvious problems though, the illiberality of the Russian regime and its problematic (to put it mildly) relationships with its neighbours, all makes it very academic at this point, but an interesting line of thought nevertheless.

Exactly. If only theyd stop taking little bites out of neigbouring countries, I think we'd all get on very well with Russia and choose to ignore their lack of democracy and human rights problems in the same way that we ignore Americas war crimes.

Im not sure that the EU ignoring its own defence is a good idea though. Sadly Europe is going to have to spend a lot more on its various militaries in the foreseeable future

boring accountant

hotmail.com wrote: »

No not a bad thing at all. It's just that a lot of people put weight on the fact that they've been elected. But what's the point if you make little difference.

I think you're underestimating the power of elected MPs. Sure, a lone backbencher has little power but they are capable of forming their own groups like the ERG to hold sway over a government.

In the US they have caucuses.

boring accountant

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think the EU is facing a problem when it comes to trade, it is a world powerhouse in that area. Both the US and UK have seen their political systems damage their trade position with Trump needlessly engageing in useless trade wars, and the UK inflicting Brexit upon itself.
What is the advantage of the US/UK system when it comes to climate change? The US does not even recognise it as a problem and has left the Paris Agreement. The UK is not exactly blazing a trail in the area either.

The EU does not depend on strong men to deliver change. It is a politically directed technocracy, its aims and direction are set by the political leadership but where it excells is in the detailed techincal work that political leader dominated systems like the US ignore. Both the US and the UK have failed spectacularly to tackle populism and their political systems have been captured by the populists. Europe faces the same challenge, but so far its way of doing things has proven to be far better adpeted to face up to that challenge. As for technology, I am not sure what you mean. In what way is Europe facing a technology problem?

The European system delvers consistancy, unlike the US where you get massive overnight policy swings from Democrat to Republicen administrations which replace not only the political but also the administrative leadership, or the huge policy swings in the UK from Labour to Conservative government. In the EU, you have consensus based coalition government in which the centre holds sway and extreme changes or policy swings are rare.

In three of the areas you have idenfitied, the European system seems to be doing better than the US/UK system you extoll. The EU works because it is not dominated by devicive politics or the cult of leadership that thinks the man at the top is more important than the culture of the organisation, the systems they oversee or the competance of the people working for them.

The EU is only now talking about having an industrial policy, 50 years too late. Its banking sector is stagnating while US banks gobble up market share. In terms of new technology, AI, internet 2.0 etc. the EU has produced nothing of note and doesn't look likely to.



It has a European Investment Bank that has invested only a fraction of the money raised. The EU is a great institution when it comes to managing decline, very poor when it comes to world leading. The EU has only become a powerhouse as you say through expanding its borders. Economically it has stagnated relative to other powers.


On climate, the US isn't tackling climate change because it elected the wrong person, if they had a different president they could have a different policy. Even when you elect the right people the EU is incapable of achieving anything significant in that area. It's only ability is to pass laws and regulations. The renewable energy industry is dependent upon Chinese inputs. Both the US and China have been trying to corner that market for 10 years now and are far ahead of us.



Now you can say that all of these things can be achieved within the current framework of the EU, my point is they will not be achieved as long as the Commission is subservient to the Council and all the various vested interests that involves. A Commission that was subservient to the voters would have a different kind of mandate and could justifiably wield more power.

boring accountant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In the second link maybe, but in the first, no. But hes also saying thatthe time of nation states is over. Im not sure thats the right message

It's not the right message but he's correct. Unless the EU pursues further integration alongside democratic reforms it will be a distant 3rd.

johnnyskeleton

boring accountant wrote: »

It's not the right message but he's correct. Unless the EU pursues further integration alongside democratic reforms it will be a distant 3rd.

I think the EU shouldnt concern itself with competeing economically with the rest of the world. Europe is the world leader in the quality of life of its citizens. Making that a sustainable long term goal should be what we work towards.

The EU doesnt need to chase constant GDP growth like the US, nor trade dominance like China, nor military might like seemingly half the world is at the moment.

If Europe goes into a situation of stagnation where are world remains as it is, that would be amazing. Sadly, we are facing a world filled with challenges from Russian Militarisation to Global Warming.

If Verhofstadts plan is for Europe to achieve that Im all ears. But sadly, he seems intent on making the EU a player on the world stage.

In a sense, Brexit is a good opportunity for the EU to take a leaf out of Chinas book. The Chinese are constantly trying to downplay their prominence in world affairs, on the basis that not being noticed is a good way to avoid conflict. Maybe that should be a European strategy too

The EU doesnt need to chase constant GDP growth like the US

For as long as we have a financial system based on infinite growth (lending money into existence at interest) we can never achieve an economy that is not dependent on growth to function correctly.
For that to happen, we would need to change how the tokens that we call money are created and managed. Each and every Euro that is in the banking/commercial domain was borrowed from someone else who will eventually need repaying at interest, to create the money to pay the interest, there must be growth.

To get away from infinite growth, you would need to create a "spend into existence" monitory system to replace the "lend into existence" system w e currently use, something the bankers will resist at all costs as their financial (as well as the 0.001%) wealth depends on it.

fly_agaric

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But sadly, he seems intent on making the EU a player on the world stage.

Have been reading & couldn't help commenting.

I think people don't get this message fully, probably because European countries have been powerful & important in the past & then they were sheltered by a benign US until recently. Also I suppose nationalism is just too strong to countenance giving up even more power to the EU.

In future it might be about working together to just retain the sovereignty we have now in the face of these power "blocs" (US/China/India etc), not launch some imperial crusade telling others what to do around the world.

So choice might be, become an effective client state or pool sovereignty in a super-national European entity...but of course if countries decide to wait too long, the other blocs and their wealthy nation state sized corporations may already make the choice for them!

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Chinese are constantly trying to downplay their prominence in world affairs, on the basis that not being noticed is a good way to avoid conflict. Maybe that should be a European strategy too

I think that former policy of theirs has changed somewhat over last few years!

fly_agaric

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think that former policy of theirs has changed somewhat over last few years!

I would say that the Chinese have been reading the "East India company" manual on how to create empires from strong trading relationships. Thus making your trading partners so dependent on that trade that you can call the shorts.

boring accountant

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the EU shouldnt concern itself with competeing economically with the rest of the world. Europe is the world leader in the quality of life of its citizens. Making that a sustainable long term goal should be what we work towards.

The EU doesnt need to chase constant GDP growth like the US, nor trade dominance like China, nor military might like seemingly half the world is at the moment.

If Europe goes into a situation of stagnation where are world remains as it is, that would be amazing. Sadly, we are facing a world filled with challenges from Russian Militarisation to Global Warming.

If Verhofstadts plan is for Europe to achieve that Im all ears. But sadly, he seems intent on making the EU a player on the world stage.

In a sense, Brexit is a good opportunity for the EU to take a leaf out of Chinas book. The Chinese are constantly trying to downplay their prominence in world affairs, on the basis that not being noticed is a good way to avoid conflict. Maybe that should be a European strategy too

Unfortunately living standards can't be maintained without being competitive economically and in the new age that will require the EU to be a player on the world stage. It can't be a player on the world stage if it is dependent upon there being a Franco-German power couple in office simultaneously. There are also practical considerations. No leader can fully devote the time and energy necessary to run both the EU and their own national government, and neither can they run both without a conflict of interest.

boring accountant

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say that the Chinese have been reading the "East India company" manual on how to create empires from strong trading relationships. Thus making your trading partners so dependent on that trade that you can call the shorts.

Not just that but providing predatory financing to weak and often corrupt governments using strategic infrastructure as collateral. See the example of the port in Mauritius.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

For as long as we have a financial system based on infinite growth (lending money into existence at interest) we can never achieve an economy that is not dependent on growth to function correctly.
For that to happen, we would need to change how the tokens that we call money are created and managed. Each and every Euro that is in the banking/commercial domain was borrowed from someone else who will eventually need repaying at interest, to create the money to pay the interest, there must be growth.

To get away from infinite growth, you would need to create a "spend into existence" monitory system to replace the "lend into existence" system w e currently use, something the bankers will resist at all costs as their financial (as well as the 0.001%) wealth depends on it.

Yeah that sounds great at a macro level.

On a micro level, there will always be lending as peoples personal fortunes wax and wain.

At the moment, almost zero interest rates and printing money for fear of a recession is causing a massive wealth transfer to a few people. That cant be good long term and the EU is supposed to be all about long term planning

johnnyskeleton

fly_agaric wrote: »

Have been reading & couldn't help commenting.

I think people don't get this message fully, probably because European countries have been powerful & important in the past & then they were sheltered by a benign US until recently. Also I suppose nationalism is just too strong to countenance giving up even more power to the EU.

In future it might be about working together to just retain the sovereignty we have now in the face of these power "blocs" (US/China/India etc), not launch some imperial crusade telling others what to do around the world.

So choice might be, become an effective client state or pool sovereignty in a super-national European entity...but of course if countries decide to wait too long, the other blocs and their wealthy nation state sized corporations may already make the choice for them!

I agree. Which is why its such a pity he didnt say that.

I think that former policy of theirs has changed somewhat over last few years!

They seem to be sending mixed messages these days. But as a general rule Russia will overstate its strength while the Chinese will understate it.

fly_agaric

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I agree. Which is why its such a pity he didnt say that.

At end of the video you linked, Verhofstadt says "you British can only defend your interests your way of life by doing it together in a European framework".

That is the key takeaway, not idea of some sort of new Euro-imperalism. It's a self defence/not get pushed about (or perhaps squashed) by the global big beasts of the future project, not an imperialist/empire building exercise.

The Brexiters are by far the worst obviously, but most politicians in Europe don't get it either & probably don't care.
I'm sure there always be plenty of money on the table for them to carry water for the likes of Xi Jinping, Putin or whatever monster the US Republican's let out of their cupboard after Trump.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They seem to be sending mixed messages these days. But as a general rule Russia will overstate its strength while the Chinese will understate it.

They defend their interests and viewpoints strongly & loudly in all arenas now as you'd expect of a global power.
Since they have they wealth & military capability they try to enforce their territorial claims where they can with facts on the ground,
They are building alot of large aircraft carriers + all the toys that go along with them, very costly bits of kit.
I may be negative but I think that can really only be to act in similar ways to the US superpower in the fullness of time + enforce their will on weaker countries by deploying a few carrier battle groups (if that proves to be necessary for some reason).

McGiver

boring accountant wrote:

Now you can say that all of these things can be achieved within the current framework of the EU, my point is they will not be achieved as long as the Commission is subservient to the Council and all the various vested interests that involves. A Commission that was subservient to the voters would have a different kind of mandate and could justifiably wield more power.

Apart from the small issue that such commission would totally German and French, and would consist of personality calibres such as Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and similar populists and quasi-fascists.

Directly elected executive doesn't exist anywhere in the developed world. And there is a reason for it.

Also, I would like to see the mechanism which would be used, not very feasible.

Now, let's ignore all that and imagine that the Commission would be directly elected. This would actually lead to more instability which is inherent to elected bodies.

Dyr

McGiver wrote: »

Apart from the small issue that such commission would totally German and French, and would consist of personality calibres such as Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and similar populists and quasi-fascists.

Directly elected executive doesn't exist anywhere in the developed world. And there is a reason for it.

Also, I would like to see the mechanism which would be used, not very feasible.

Now, let's ignore all that and imagine that the Commission would be directly elected. This would actually lead to more instability which is inherent to elected bodies.

It's quite interesting that you call some politicians out for being quasi fascists and then sign off with an explicitly facist notion without a trace of self awareness:D

First Up

Bambi wrote:

It's quite interesting that you call some politicians out for being quasi fascists and then sign off with an explicitly facist notion without a trace of self awareness

Are you also proposing that the Irish Civil Service be directly elected? Fascinating idea.

All 37,000 or just the heads of Departments? How often should elections be held?

Bit cynical

fly_agaric wrote: »

At end of the video you linked, Verhofstadt says "you British can only defend your interests your way of life by doing it together in a European framework".

That is the key takeaway, not idea of some sort of new Euro-imperalism. It's a self defence/not get pushed about (or perhaps squashed) by the global big beasts of the future project, not an imperialist/empire building exercise.

Not true though. The EU framework is not the only way a country can defend its interests. That is overstating the case. What is possibly more accurate is that defending your interests as part of the EU has certain advantages as well as disadvantages. To believe that the EU is the only way, that there can be no other way, does suggest a sort of imperialist ambition on the part of the speaker.

lawred2

this unelected trope is getting beyond boring at this stage... people wholly ignorant of how civic democratic societies are organised or function spouting crap about how anyone with the slightest responsibility for anything should be elected and if such a process does not exist then their role holds no legitimacy.

Seriously, have these people mindlessly regurgitating this stuff gone through their entire lives unaware of the civil service?

lawred2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Not true though. The EU framework is not the only way a country can defend its interests. That is overstating the case. What is possibly more accurate is that defending your interests as part of the EU has certain advantages as well as disadvantages. To believe that the EU is the only way, that there can be no other way, does suggest a sort of imperialist ambition on the part of the speaker.

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you. Let's have a discussion about your alternatives. Keeping in mind the geopolitical realities that exist in Europe - i.e. the high concentration of small to moderately sized first world nation states..

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

Not true though. The EU framework is not the only way a country can defend its interests. That is overstating the case. What is possibly more accurate is that defending your interests as part of the EU has certain advantages as well as disadvantages. To believe that the EU is the only, that there can be no other way, way does suggest a sort of imperialist ambition on the part of the speaker.

I've never seen or heard anyone say it is the only way. Have you?

The EU is (by a mile) the most spectacular political, economic and social achievement in human history but who can say that the sort if 19th century nationalism spouted by the Brexiteers couldn't somehow be better if tried again?

I mean we nearly got it right before, apart from a few world wars and stuff.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

I've never seen or heard anyone say it is the only way. Have you?

I'm only going by what was quoted.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm only going by what was quoted.

Fair enough; I think Verhofstadt was pointing out the benefits of being part of an economic/trading bloc compared with going it alone but I agree his choice of words leaves that open to interpretation.

Bit cynical

lawred2 wrote: »

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you. Let's have a discussion about your alternatives. Keeping in mind the geopolitical realities that exist in Europe - i.e. the high concentration of small to moderately sized first world nation states..

It is not so much that there's an alternative that is the ideal and solves all problems. Every course of action will solve some problems and create others. There's no one ideal that every country needs to follow.

The advantage of an EU-style grouping is that collectively there's clout when dealing with external entities. The disadvantage is that some national interests must be subsumed for the good of the whole.

The advantage of not being part of such a grouping is that ones national interest is not subsumed by the collective interests of a lot of other countries. The disadvantage is less influence externally.

This, of course, is simplifying things hugely; there are a lot more advantages and disadvantages I could list for each of these approaches, but the point is that not every country is going to opt for one particular vision of how countries should be organized.