Jump to content

UK. EU. Yes? No? Referendum 23 June.


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Citius Altius Fortius said:

I wonder what the EU should do that this feeling isn't building up in the UK?

The UK voted to become a third country for the EU - this will have consequences - the EU is 'just'  the bearer of bad news and therefore much easier to blame than to look onto the source.

In many ways, though, the EU IS the source of where we are now and to suggest otherwise is to attempt to abdicate that responsibility. It is the source of the political doctrine opposition to which was allowed to fester here for 25 years without being properly challenged. It is the organisation that didn't do enough to give David Cameron a defendable settlement. And it is the organisation that is now allowing itself to be seen to bully a sovereign nation that has chosen a different path. You want to know what the EU should do? It's simple - treat us fairly. At the moment, in both my view and many others if polling numbers are to be believed, that is just not happening.

In making that argument, I'm not saying that the EU is the only party to blame for where we are now. Indeed, it seems to me that you could legitimately see this as the result of a series of catastrophic misjudgements. It's not simply that the Remain campaign was a reheated Project Fear where all the tricks had been seen before and alternative voices on that side were too quiet. I think you also have to question the extent to which the EU hierarchy really thought a Leave vote was a possibility. Basically, it's one giant cock-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Johnson's leadership campaign has so far cost £130bn

I yet have to recover - yesterday, I was honestly depressed about the result. While it was apparent that the Leave camp might win for weeks, I regained my old hope that reason (and therefore, the Rema

1 hour ago, JMarkSnow2012 said:

In the long term, what does the EU have to gain from doing that?

Think we've already had an economic answer to that question, but I'll give you a political one - the very existence of the EU. We are one of the biggest contributors to the EU budget. Eventually, that money will need to be replaced and there are inevitably going to be rows about who pays how much more in. It makes sense for the EU to actually keep Britain as close as possible to defuse those rows. Moreover, the further down the path to ever closer union the EU goes, the greater the resistance is likely to be; a resistance that would only be inspired wheat happened last summer, whether we like it or not. It's in the EU's own interests to be fair to us but, rather like the pre-referendum talks, they don't seem to know what's best for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, arwebb said:

It's in the EU's own interests to be fair to us but, rather like the pre-referendum talks, they don't seem to know what's best for them.

... “fair” is very subjective - how does the UK wanted to be treated?

I ask that question since UK can call the "eat the cake and have it" approach as "fair" - which isn't fair at all in my pov. When we talk about fairness we have to talk about that fairness works only when it works both ways... The UK shouldn’t believe that the Europeans didn’t recognise that they were blamed for every little problem in the UK (and I mean the citizens of the EU living in the UK - we don't blame the UK-citizens, who live here (or we don't call them immigrants) for every problem in our countries) or that the EU-institutions were linked with totalitarianism, which is just nonsense... (the EU structures didn't fall from the heaven - the UK had every opportunity to veto it - but didn’t do it - the same is valid for every EU-rule).

Norway didn’t enter the EU due a referendum - in the meantime Norway and the EU found an agreement (to which the UK agreed also). That might happen with the UK and EU as well, but the EU will treat the UK like Norway - it has to be fair... The Norwegian seem to be happy with the agreement - why should the EU differ between the UK and Norway?

It was clear before the referendum in June 2016 that the EU will treat a third country like any other third country - why should the UK be treated differently? 

In my point of view the UK decided in an advisory referendum to leave the political and economical structures of Europe - the previous parliament said it will take it as mandatory - it must had been clear for everybody in the UK that this will have a huge impact on everybody’s life in the UK.

 

 

 

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2017 at 7:13 AM, Citius Altius Fortius said:

... “fair” is very subjective - how does the UK wanted to be treated?

I ask that question since UK can call the "eat the cake and have it" approach as "fair" - which isn't fair at all in my pov. When we talk about fairness we have to talk about that fairness works only when it works both ways... The UK shouldn’t believe that the Europeans didn’t recognise that they were blamed for every little problem in the UK (and I mean the citizens of the EU living in the UK - we don't blame the UK-citizens, who live here (or we don't call them immigrants) for every problem in our countries) or that the EU-institutions were linked with totalitarianism, which is just nonsense... (the EU structures didn't fall from the heaven - the UK had every opportunity to veto it - but didn’t do it - the same is valid for every EU-rule).

Norway didn’t enter the EU due a referendum - in the meantime Norway and the EU found an agreement (to which the UK agreed also). That might happen with the UK and EU as well, but the EU will treat the UK like Norway - it has to be fair... The Norwegian seem to be happy with the agreement - why should the EU differ between the UK and Norway?

It was clear before the referendum in June 2016 that the EU will treat a third country like any other third country - why should the UK be treated differently? 

In my point of view the UK decided in an advisory referendum to leave the political and economical structures of Europe - the previous parliament said it will take it as mandatory - it must had been clear for everybody in the UK that this will have a huge impact on everybody’s life in the UK.

 

 

 

These are uncharted waters for the EU - no member state has ever left. If its response to this is to just treat an ex member as a 3rd country then of course it is a liberty to do so. The reality is that due to geography, social and economic ties the UK is not just another 3rd country. We're in a situation where both sides are having to artificially create a reduced kind of relationship. When Ireland left the UK in the early 1900's there was a lot of pain and anger felt between the two sides - however a lot of practical measures were put in place to maintain freedom of movement (Common Travel Area) and Irish residents still had rights to participate economically and socially in the UK that went well beyond what other sovereign states were allowed. Paradoxically many of those historic agreements are at risk now we are leaving the EU.

You talk like the British or other members have not been raising the democratic deficit in the EU - we / they have done for years. The problem is that some (Germany included) want greater democracy at the EU level - whereas others (Britain included) don't believe there is a demos at the European level. Two opposing views and the response is just "drift". It will be interesting (from an outsiders perspective) to see how that issue resolves itself as France and Germany push for greater integration (although different versions of it). No reasonable person thinks that the EU institutions are totalitarian (although some Greeks may choose to differ) but they are dangerously deficient and theoretically capable of instigating fundamental change in nation states without the democratic consent of the populations. Of course the EU has a role to promote its values through proactive stances such as towards the Polish constitutional changes - but it just not clear how those values are defined and where they are enshrined. The Lisbon Treat is the closest thing we have but the public cannot be expected to understand it and French and Dutch voters rejected the EU constitution - which ironically the British would have probably signed because we weren't going to hold a referendum on it...

I guess "fair" means being reasonable and the EU not going out of its way to deny history and realities just to prove a political point. It remains to be seen if the EU can do that or if the UK would even notice it if it did, given the madness that exists in the minds of the Bexiteers.

Edited by Ripley
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ripley said:

You talk like the British or other members have not been raising the democratic deficit in the EU - we / they have done for years. The problem is that some (Germany included) want greater democracy at the EU level - whereas others (Britain included) don't believe there is a demos at the European level. Two opposing views and the response is just "drift".

For me is it a contradiction to say on one hand that there is a democratic deficit in the EU and on the other hand to say we don't want greater democracy at the EU level?  You can't call it deficit when you don't want to change that...

I read a lot of discussions about Brexit related issues on the comment pages of British newspaper in this last year and I got the impression that we use the same word "democracy", but mean something different: e.g. FTPT is in my point of view not really democratic, since the MPs require different number of votes to get into parliament, which means that votes of the people have a different value in the different constituencies...

It showed me that you have to go more into the details when you are talking about democracy...

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ripley said:

These are uncharted waters for the EU - no member state has ever left. If its response to this is to just treat an ex member as a 3rd country then of course it is a liberty to do so. The reality is that due to geography, social and economic ties the UK is not just another 3rd country. We're in a situation where both sides are having to artificially create a reduced kind of relationship. When Ireland left the UK in the early 1900's there was a lot of pain and anger felt between the two sides - however a lot of practical measures were put in place to maintain freedom of movement (Common Travel Area) and Irish residents still had rights to participate economically and socially in the UK that went well beyond what other sovereign states were allowed. Paradoxically many of those historic agreements are at risk now we are leaving the EU.

It would be great if you can create such relationship, but that means that both sides have to make concessions, which is very unlikely since the Brexiteers have already made clear in the Brexit referendum campaign that they want to have the cake and eat it. A majority voted in the referendum that they want to leave the EU - at the moment is a "war" in the UK, what that really means - they can stay in the single market and in the custom union, but has to obey its rules (what they don't want). They don't want to be like Norway, since Norway obeys the rules also (and it is furthermore unlikely that Norway accepts UK in the EFTA). The EU just says we don't want to speak about the future until the divorce isn't handled which is very normal - you can built up a future, when the past isn't settled... 

You mentioned Ireland and the UK - it is tragic for the people on the island Ireland, but I think also that the people in England and Wales didn't think a minute about what the result of a "leave" vote will mean for Ireland and the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2017 at 6:41 AM, Citius Altius Fortius said:

For me is it a contradiction to say on one hand that there is a democratic deficit in the EU and on the other hand to say we don't want greater democracy at the EU level?  You can't call it deficit when you don't want to change that...

I read a lot of discussions about Brexit related issues on the comment pages of British newspaper in this last year and I got the impression that we use the same word "democracy", but mean something different: e.g. FTPT is in my point of view not really democratic, since the MPs require different number of votes to get into parliament, which means that votes of the people have a different value in the different constituencies...

It showed me that you have to go more into the details when you are talking about democracy...

It's not a contradiction to rely on democratically elected governments to cooperate with each other (EU Council) - which people understand and can rationalise as their representatives, rather than a remote commmission and parliament that has no discernible role or recognition in the everyday life of people. Junker didn't even come to the UK when he was campaigning to be "nominated" as the next president of the commission. Can you imagine a US presidential candidate not turning out in the second or third biggest US state? I don't think a Brit has ever been a president of the EU Commission. 

Maybe MEPs were never given a chance in the UK and perhaps in other countries they are more representative and better recognised? As things stand virtually no British person would be able to tell you who their MEP was and take no interest in the EU Parliament. It's viewed as something foreign and a threat to democracy in the UK by many. It's also thought of as anti British. That has a lot to do with the media but also because there is a fundamental disconnect between the people and the institution.

FPTP is an imperfect system which should be improved as they are rationalising the size of MP constituencies to make then more equal in terms of population size. PR is also an imperfect system - which always leads to coalition government and power sharing. Look what's happening in Germany as the coalition building is under way. It's all happening behind closed doors. CDU supporters are largely unaware of which policies the party will negotiate away in pursuit of power. Personally I would prefer a PR or alternative vote system in the UK but it has been rejected in a referendum because it goes against the democratic tradition in the UK where people generally prefer strong governments that are able to implement their programmes / policies. Obviously that hasnt happened recently though because the country is very divided. 

 

 

 

Edited by Ripley
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2017 at 10:24 AM, Citius Altius Fortius said:

It would be great if you can create such relationship, but that means that both sides have to make concessions, which is very unlikely since the Brexiteers have already made clear in the Brexit referendum campaign that they want to have the cake and eat it. A majority voted in the referendum that they want to leave the EU - at the moment is a "war" in the UK, what that really means - they can stay in the single market and in the custom union, but has to obey its rules (what they don't want). They don't want to be like Norway, since Norway obeys the rules also (and it is furthermore unlikely that Norway accepts UK in the EFTA). The EU just says we don't want to speak about the future until the divorce isn't handled which is very normal - you can built up a future, when the past isn't settled... 

You mentioned Ireland and the UK - it is tragic for the people on the island Ireland, but I think also that the people in England and Wales didn't think a minute about what the result of a "leave" vote will mean for Ireland and the UK.

I think the have your cake and eat it sound bite has been thoroughly proved wrong as the negotiations have moved on. The government (such that it is) is clearly pursuing a trade deal. There's no way the British people would tolerate being in the single market but outside the decion making structures. Norway is small country where there's tacit acceptance that they will have to "bend in the EU wind". THe UK has different options and is far too self important to accept that kind of relationship. Essentially what is being sought is CETA+. Less than single market membership but more than the Canadian free trade deal. I think there is a reasonable chance we will get that kind of relationship. 

Ireland was discussed at length in the referendum campaign- many English and Welsh people have Irish ancestry and family ties. I think people voted to leave for a variety of reasons but the consequences were not presented to them or were unknown. I don,t think the approach to Ireland since by the EU has been that intelligent either. They're insisting on sorting out border arrangements with Ireland before any discussion about the future trade relations with the EU. It's a bit bonkers if you ask me.

Edited by Ripley
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ripley said:

FPTP is an imperfect system which should be improved as they are rationalising the size of MP constituencies to make then more equal in terms of population size. PR is also an imperfect system - which always leads to coalition government and power sharing. Look what's happening in Germany as the coalition building is under way. It's all happening behind closed doors. CDU supporters are largely unaware of which policies the party will negotiate away in pursuit of power.

 

 

 

I am just in a hurry - therefore a very short remark... 

In Germany we have a combination of both systems (FPTP and PR) - its called MMP - we have two votes at general elections: the first vote is according FPTP and the second vote is according PR. The second vote is the more important one since it decides the balance in the parliament and allows that all votes are represented in parliament (except the votes for parties with lower than 5% of all votes).

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ripley said:

I don,t think the approach to Ireland since by the EU has been that intelligent either. They're insisting on sorting out border arrangements with Ireland before any discussion about the future trade relations with the EU. It's a bit bonkers if you ask me.

I agree on that, but I fear that a trade deal won't be able before March 2019 - it will take many years - the hard Breiteres haven't realised yet that they have illusions...

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
7 hours ago, Rob. said:

Fun development today

David Davis at risk of contempt of parliament over Brexit reports, says Speaker
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/david-davis-risk-contempt-parliament-brexit-reports-speaker

 

Can anyone really regard the absurd fiasco that is Brexit as 'fun'? The whole thing is diverting Parliament away from tackling the REAL issues of importance to the country instead of struggling to deal with the consequences of one of the most stupid political decisions ever taken by a British government on the back of the most stupid and ill-advised referendum ever undertaken? <_<

There is nothing  'fun' about Brexit. Only dire consequences for the future economic well-being and political standing of this country. Consequences that are becoming only too predictably evident with each passing day. Could anyone with an ounce of common sense REALLY have thought this would not be the case???  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rob. said:

Call it dark humour if you like :unsure:

 

Sure Rob, no problem and I don't mean to sound so heavy-handed. It's just that the whole subject of Brexit still makes my blood boil and the pointless time and money it is eating up at Westminster. The latest estimates are that it's going to cost us over £ 40 billion to quit the EU!  That's money that could have been more meaningfully spent elsewhere if my fellow citizens who decided to vote Leave last year had only given the matter a little more consideration. I wonder how many of them still think they made a sensible choice? :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, off my soap-box now! B)

Edited by Mainad
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I recommend to read this article - that is exactly what I meant with UK being a third country for the EU - the EU will treat the UK like any other third country. The UK-government will have to choose among the offers by the EU. It will become interesting to see how the UK is able to stick to the "Good Friday Agreement"...

POLITICO - EU to UK: You're not special

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the UK government approach to future relations is probably not thought through as with everything else brexit related. However I think your perspective is very black and white. The reality is that the UK is not North Amaerican Canada or neutral Switzerland or a small state like Norway. There are things that the UK needs from the EU and vice versa. For example, any trade agreement will need to deal with fishing rights in U.K. Waters which are vital for danish, Dutch, Belgian, French, Spanish and Portuguese fisherman. Most eu counties borrow money using the London markets and the EU investment bank owes the UK Billions. 62% of Irish exports use the UK as a land bridge to the EU. There are a million Poles living in the U.K. and 2.5 million other EU citizens.

There are of course limits on what the EU can do due to WTO rules and existing trade agreements but a compromise will surely need to be found that respects the reality of both sides. There are 3rd countries and there is an ex member and I don't think they are the same thing. If the EU is belligerent about that then I'm not sure the EU 27 will stay united for long given their divergent economic interests in relation to the UK and varying levels of appetite for The EU. Don't get me wrong, as a Brit I'm ashamed it's come to this but it's also fascinating to see the EU's ugly "tough love" side in all of this. It's sobering, patronising and divisive - everything the Brexiteers hoped it would be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22.12.2017 at 12:03 AM, Ripley said:

I agree that the UK government approach to future relations is probably not thought through as with everything else brexit related. However I think your perspective is very black and white. The reality is that the UK is not North Amaerican Canada or neutral Switzerland or a small state like Norway. There are things that the UK needs from the EU and vice versa.

What do you think how a Norwegian or a Swiss would react when they read that? I believe that it doesn't be restricted on the EU only - the UK placed itself into a corner in Europe -and in the world...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Well, I wonder which option May will choose and will have to enforce in "Chequers":

- SM, CU and ECJ — no border for Northern Ireland
- FTA on goods but not on services - Northern Ireland stays in the single-market and customs union — hard border in the Irish Sea

- "No Deal" (Hard land border for Northern Ireland - break of GFA)




 

Edited by Citius Altius Fortius
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...