Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If anything, that's an argument in favor of Euroscepticism.

Actually it merely describes how the world works and how it has always worked- the small get bullied. Ireland's history is an illustration of that: bullied by its bigger neighbour- until the EU came around - a club of small nations with equal rights. Of course equality is anathema to a certain type of particularly English Brit - hence brexit.
The UK is now a very small fish which will be forced into orbit of one of the great powers - most likely the EU -. or maybe the US. The UK has yet to come to terms with its lack of agency - the belief in exceptionalism remains - hence the repeated humiliations of the brexit process. To stick with the US however would cost the UK a fortune but maybe the humiliation of brexit requires it for psychological reasons.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well yes there were reservations in the EU over it as you point out but it was also not liked by hard Brexiteers in the UK. But from Ireland's point of view it did trap the UK in a favourable trading relationship whereas Brexiteers might have favoured something more akin to a Canada style arrangement and this could still happen under the current WA and a Tory government.

Although given the geographical proximity, a Canada style deal will require lpf provisions quite a lot stronger than those with Canada. It remains to be seen if the current arrangements don't mean that the EU ends up getting the same benefits from the UK- but with higher UK "costs" in terms of LPF provisions.

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

Actually it merely describes how the world works and how it has always worked- the small get bullied. Ireland's history is an illustration of that: bullied by its bigger neighbour- until the EU came around - a club of small nations with equal rights. Of course equality is anathema to a certain type of particularly English Brit - hence brexit.
The UK is now a very small fish which will be forced into orbit of one of the great powers - most likely the EU -. or maybe the US. The UK has yet to come to terms with its lack of agency - the belief in exceptionalism remains - hence the repeated humiliations of the brexit process. To stick with the US however would cost the UK a fortune but maybe the humiliation of brexit requires it for psychological reasons.

Looking at brexit news this evening,the tory lead in the opinion polls seems to be disappearing and living here in Northern England which is allegedly pro-brexit all I`m hearing is people who voted to leave wishing they had voted to remain-Trump`s comments about trade deals could be the best propaganda ever for remainers.

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

Precisely because I don't want a European Parliament.

I don't identify as "European"; it is not a national identity. Whilst I am "European" by virtue of geography, my nationality is Irish and I want Irish affairs, as much as possible, managed by an Irish Government directly elected by the people.

I don't want European institutions, parliaments and presidents making decisions on a Europe-wide basis. I don't want 2 sets of elections, Irish and EU.

I want Irish elections and governments throughout Europe working together.

You criticise the EU for a lack of Democracy on one hand, but you don’t even support European democracy on the other? You have clearly contradicted yourself. Do you not see how disingenuous this is?

There are issues that the Irish government is not capable of addressing effectively on its own, issues that impact everyone across Europe. Trade is one such issue. We would be much worse off if we were on our own dealing with third parties on trade issues. The same is true of many other areas. We are much better off with the governments of Europe working together on these issues. Given the need for this level of cooperation, there should absolutely be democratic representation at that decision-making level. It should not be left in the hands of governments to do what they like behind closed doors. Decisions made at a European level should be scrutinised by elected representatives of the people at that level.

Kermit.de.frog

We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing.

Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing.

Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.

Only if you're of an hysterical disposition.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing.

Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.

Can you even have national sovereignty in a world of the internet, global migration and regional trading blocs? The world is a completely different place to 1973 (or 1945).

Capt'n Midnight

briany wrote: »

Seems like all the Brexit demonstrations recently have been ones that are against. Are there really no big pro-Brexit demonstrations, or are they being subjected to media censorship?

Most of the print media is pro Brexit.

They are censoring the lack of demos for Brexit


#ledbydonkeys followed Farage's march by bus.

Bus as in how they marched. And bus as in the number of buses needed for most of the "march".

https://marchtoleave.co.uk/ - Farage & Co. didn't even register the UK domain name. Meanwhile https://www.marchtoleave.com/ has expired.


Someone posted a while back that one of the pro-Brexit protesters admitted they been paid to do it.


Why should anyone listen to such people's advice on how to run a country ?

Kermit.de.frog

prawnsambo wrote: »

Only if you're of an hysterical disposition.

Ignore if you wish.

It's only going to take a spark. What will it be? Taxation? Defence?...

People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor?

There seems to be an underlying assumption with the federalists that people across Europe don't value their own country's sovereignty and right of self determination.

This is a big mistake.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ignore if you wish.

It's only going to take a spark. What will it be? Taxation? Defence?...

People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor?

There seems to be an underlying assumption with the federalists that people across Europe don't value their own country's sovereignty and right of self determination.

This is a big mistake.

You might have missed the fact that global industry has pretty much already bypassed that step. Which is why a larger legislative body with much more influence is necessary.

Capt'n Midnight

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing.

Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.

They knew exactly what they were doing 62 years ago.

Treaty of Rome March 25, 1957 pdf

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts,

HAVE DECIDED to create a European Economic Community

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing.

Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.

Are you saying that Brexit, in the sense of the UK vs the "failing undemocratic" EU should be seen as a road map for the break-up of the USA? After all, most of those states are effectively former European territories under the sovereign control of their fatherland states and continue to exercise a sort of semi-independence - except when the undemocratic President & Congress tells them to do otherwise, and enlists their young folk in a pan-state army.

Applying Brexit logic, New York should be allowed re-align itself with the Dutch, Louisiana with the French, California with the Mexicans and Alaska with the Russians. In fact, if you read up on the circumstances of American independence, it was led by DUP-like Scottish Presbyterians who felt that they were being given a rough deal from "the mainland" who didn't recognise how truly British they really were. When we see how the USA has become a "failed state" as you predcit will happen to the EU, wouldn't it be better for all of us to turn the clock back to the early-to-mid 1700s?

Kermit.de.frog

The USA is a country, a nation - the EU isn't.

Leroy42

Or maybe people fully understand and appreciate their own countries sovereignty but understand that working together on issues that defy national boundaries is a idea with pursuing.

Doesn't everyone of us give up our own personal sovereignty in the aim of society? So where do you draw the line?

Countries are happy to join NATO for example.

This idea that the general public are going around fretting over the lack of direct link to Juncker et al is a made up notion by the likes of Farage . People have been suckered into believing it.

But they would be far better asking for reform of their own electoral system. They would be dar better served asking why their elected reps both MPs and MEPs have failed to hold the EU to account for alleged democratic deficit.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

However in the event that the Assembly votes against continuation, and I agree this is not a likely outcome, of the arrangement there is nothing obliging the UK to prevent a hard border. This is the problem. Then we are in a situation the previous backstop was supposed to insure against.

Yes, there is. It's called the GFA and the peace process. The same thing that has obliged the British government to make commitments to an open border as part of the Brexit process over the last three years and obliged the British government to accept a deal that includes provisions to keep the border open.

These issues will not have gone away in four years time.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor?

:pac: A bit like the British woke up one morning and discovered that they'd voted to Leave, and have spent the three years (and three Prime Minsters) since trying to keep their own regional representatives from revolting.

Yeah, right. You ought to know by now that the EU doesn't deliver overnight parcels to anyone.

Bannasidhe

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ignore if you wish.

It's only going to take a spark. What will it be? Taxation? Defence?...

People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor?

There seems to be an underlying assumption with the federalists that people across Europe don't value their own country's sovereignty and right of self determination.

This is a big mistake.

Anyone who is familiar with European history will know that nearly every single 'country'* is, in reality, the result of smaller states being united (in various ways both violent and non-violent) to form larger political/military/economic units. Ireland included. Some of these larger units are federal.

So, as a student of history you will know that the trend is towards forming larger blocs not fracturing back to small states -where would that end? Can we 'hope' to see Mercia, Wessex, Saxony, Burgundy, Lombardy, Aragon etc return?
Will the people of Northumbria decide they are nothing more than an ignored region in a larger union whose Prime Minister sits in far off London caring nothing for them? They would have justification to think that way.

What happens then?

*Not all which explains Liechtenstein, Andorra etc.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Ignore if you wish.

It's only going to take a spark. What will it be? Taxation? Defence?...

People waking up one morning and suddenly realising their own country is nothing more than some regional assembly - their Prime Ministers nothing more than a regional governor?

There seems to be an underlying assumption with the federalists that people across Europe don't value their own country's sovereignty and right of self determination.

This is a big mistake.

These vague and omonious threats lack any substance. The reality is that it would take massive treaty change for this to happen. In other words it won't happen if the people of Europe don't want it to happen.

The only mistake seems to be made continiously by those who either do not understand the EU, or knowingly choose to misrepresent what it is.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA is a country, a nation - the EU isn't.

But you're saying that that's what the EU is aiming to become, and you wish for its downfall.

The States of the US used not to be a nation until the individual states ceded part of their sovereignty to the bloc. Apart from the fact that the USA is not one nation - in most respects, Europe has more sensible pan-national rules, e.g. mutual recognition of professional qualifications - what's the difference? Why is what's OK for the US not OK for Europe?

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA is a country, a nation - the EU isn't.

Well done, how astute of you. Next, the sky is blue, and fire is hot.

Imreoir2

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Anyone who is familiar with European history will know that nearly every single 'country'* is, in reality, the result of smaller states being united (in various ways both violent and non-violent) to form larger political/military/economic units. Ireland included. Some of these larger units are federal.

So, as a student of history you will know that the trend is towards forming larger blocs not fracturing back to small states -where would that end? Can we 'hope' to see Mercia, Wessex, Saxony, Burgundy, Lombardy, Aragon etc return?
Will the people of Northumbria decide they are nothing more than an ignored region in a larger union whose Prime Minister sits in far off London caring nothing for them? They would have justification to think that way.

What happens then?

*Not all which explains Liechtenstein, Andorra etc.

I would somewhat disagree with you there, compare the map of Europe in 1910 to the map of Europe today. The trend over the last few hundred years is for greater self determination and the break-up of large empires. We are a product of this process ourselves, and the UK may be about to enter a period of further fracturing into smaller constitutiant parts.

That is one of the best features of the EU if you ask me. It allows small nations to have their independance, to express their self-determination, while still enjoying the benefits of belonging to a larger polity.

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA is a country, a nation - the EU isn't.

The USA is a federation of states. Did you not know this?

Kermit.de.frog

CelticRambler wrote: »

But you're saying that that's what the EU is aiming to become, and you wish for its downfall.

The States of the US used not to be a nation until the individual states ceded part of their sovereignty to the bloc. Apart from the fact that the USA is not one nation - in most respects, Europe has more sensible pan-national rules, e.g. mutual recognition of professional qualifications - what's the difference? Why is what's OK for the US not OK for Europe?

The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving.

Europe has very little of this.

Economically what has Ireland in common with France?

Socially what has Ireland in common with Slovakia?

Culturally what has Ireland in common with Greece?

...

I'm all for co-operation.

We don't need an EU anthem, a parliament and the myriad of other developing symbols of statehood to do trade deals.

I stand by my prediction that if things continue evolving as they are we will see nationalist movements rise across Europe and I see trouble ahead.

There is no need to be creating some sort of EU superstate.

Kermit.de.frog

prawnsambo wrote: »

The USA is a federation of states. Did you not know this?

The USA is a nation. The states are not countries.

Did you not know that?

prawnsambo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA is a nation. The states are not countries.

Did you not know that?

Both statements are true.

CelticRambler

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I would somewhat disagree with you there, compare the map of Europe in 1910 to the map of Europe today. The trend over the last few hundred years is for greater slef determination and the break-up of large empires.

You're looking at it too short-termly! Bannasidhe was referring to a longer historic pattern - something I came face-to-face with in the last fortnight, stomping through the territories of Savoie and Dauphiné, with a gaze cast towards Piedmont in the distance bouncing off the enclave of Orange (as in house of King Billy). Eventually they all decided to row in behind the King of France ... except for Piedmont which was left for the Italians ... but then the lads from Savoie borrowed a bit of Italy as a kind of retail therapy, which is why they still speak French there on the wrong side of the Alps in the north of that country.

Irish Praetorian

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're looking at it too short-termly! Bannasidhe was referring to a longer historic pattern - something I came face-to-face with in the last fortnight, stomping through the territories of Savoie and Dauphiné, with a gaze cast towards Piedmont in the distance bouncing off the enclave of Orange (as in house of King Billy). Eventually they all decided to row in behind the King of France ... except for Piedmont which was left for the Italians ... but then the lads from Savoie borrowed a bit of Italy as a kind of retail therapy, which is why they still speak French there on the wrong side of the Alps in the north of that country.

Do I smell an EU4/CK2 player?

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Yes, there is. It's called the GFA and the peace process. The same thing that has obliged the British government to make commitments to an open border as part of the Brexit process over the last three years and obliged the British government to accept a deal that includes provisions to keep the border open.

These issues will not have gone away in four years time.

But the new arrangement, potentially at least, places more burden on that same GFA putting it under strain. We don't want to have to rely on something like the GFA to keep the border open. Rather, we want the converse: we want some legal mechanism to keep the border open in order to protect the GFA.

In that respect I regard the new deal as inferior to the old one but like I said, it would have been a mistake for the government here to keep insisting on the old backstop when it became no longer realistic do to so.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving.

Europe has very little of this.

Economically what has Ireland in common with France?

Socially what has Ireland in common with Slovakia?

Culturally what has Ireland in common with Greece?

...

I'm all for co-operation.

We don't need an EU anthem, a parliament and the myriad of other developing symbols of statehood to do trade deals.

I stand by my prediction that if things continue evolving as they are we will see nationalist movements rise across Europe and I see trouble ahead.

There is no need to be creating some sort of EU superstate.

Juncker spoke about this in his interview with Spiegel. For the English, it's all about trade deals, trade deals, trade deals. Everything else is alien to them.....the idea of a Europe having an identity or a common purpose is anathema.

(One gets the impression they are secretly hankering after a good old fashioned war with one of the European states, just for old time's sake).

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The USA, all it's states, have common language, cultural tradition, economic philosophy and goals. This binds the country together in patriotism and achieving.

Europe has very little of this.

Oh please, take even a brief look at the history of the US. It is made of a collection of territories with a vastly different history from each other. The original 13 colonies were set up by England (but even then you have territory taken from the Dutch), some of which were private enterprises, others were religious experiments. The only thing that held them together was British administration.

Then you have a vast array of other circumstances. You have Florida and adjacent territiory originally settled by the Spanish, passing through French hands before being purchased by the US. You have a significant part of the South and West that was originally part of Mexico and was taken by force by the US. Alaska was purchased from Russia. And just look at Hawaii, since when does Hawaii have the same linguistic and cultural tradition as New York? Before we get any further, lets not forget the many first nations that were supplanted, conquered and suppressed by the US.

How do former British subjects, Russian subjects, Spanish subjects, French subjects, Native Americans, Hawaiins and a large segment of former slaves have a common cultural tradition?

In many ways the US is an empire, the various bits of which were put together through nacked force, and the population of which is only semi-cohesive today because of a massive programm of cultural suppression and replacement much like this country suffered when it was part of the supposed "British Nation" before 1921.