[Politics] Brexit

[Herr Tubthumper]

you jest, however a reversed result would lead to whatever future the EU have in store. there was no option for the status quo, it was either leave or continue with the European project that includes compulsory adoption of Euro, common foreign policy, common defense with standing EU army, which are matters that are already in discussion. the EU isn't inclined to adopt a two tier system, even though it would suit everyone better, so the best long term future is outside that project.

I appreciate we will never agree on something so fundamental but I am totally happy with adoption of Euro, common foreign policy, common defense with standing EU army etc etc. It doesn't scare me or worry me in the slightest and I think it's the best way forward.

 

[Murray 17]

I appreciate we will never agree on something so fundamental but I am totally happy with adoption of Euro, common foreign policy, common defense with standing EU army etc etc. It doesn't scare me or worry me in the slightest and I think it's the best way forward.

Would you be in favour of one big EU community? No individual country identity, no local control or accountability. Just one country of 500 million people.

That's the way it's heading, maybe not in the next few years, but that is the goal I believe, of those who control the EU.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

...it was either leave or continue with the European project that includes compulsory adoption of Euro....

Here you imply very strongly that we would have had to adopt the Euro had we remained.

When was this laid down?

 

[Notters]

Would you be in favour of one big EU community? No individual country identity, no local control or accountability. Just one country of 500 million people.

That's the way it's heading, maybe not in the next few years, but that is the goal I believe, of those who control the EU.

I wouldn't have a problem with it being one country. I certainly don't think this would lead to wholly homogenised culture, with no local government. In the same way that in modern day European countries you have different cultures and favoured foods (for example) in different regions, you would still have largely Spanish people in Spain and English people in England.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Would you be in favour of one big EU community? No individual country identity, no local control or accountability. Just one country of 500 million people.

That's the way it's heading, maybe not in the next few years, but that is the goal I believe, of those who control the EU.

I'll address the other points later but do you honestly believe that each and every country will lose its identity and merge into one? Seriously? It never happened in the USSR, it's not happened in the USA which actually is one huge single nation. It will not happen in the EU. If I return home one day and find you enjoy boules, wear socks and sandles and eat paella for tea I'll stand corrected. Besides, you might actually like paella for tea.

 

[beorhthelm]

I appreciate we will never agree on something so fundamental but I am totally happy with adoption of Euro, common foreign policy, common defense with standing EU army etc etc. It doesn't scare me or worry me in the slightest and I think it's the best way forward.

of course you do as big europhile. most remainers would probably pause for thought at most of the points. across Europe there is not as much appetite for further integration among european citizens as there is among the political elite. whenever they are asked in a vote, they reject the proposal and the EU finds a way to continue sidestepping that awkward result. ours is the first time they've had a real blocker and they dont talk about rethinking the objectives, they talk about how we cant pick and choose parts of the EU we want to be in.

 

[Murray 17]

I'll address the other points later but do you honestly believe that each and every country will lose its identity and merge into one? Seriously? It never happened in the USSR, it's not happened in the USA which actually is one huge single nation. It will not happen in the EU. If I return home one day and find you're all brilliant at football, make fantastic cars and eat paella for tea I'll stand corrected.

I think it will happen in time, yes. Probably not in our life time.

The problem, as I see it, with a project like the EU is that people at the top are always looking for new things to do. For example, why do we need an EU army? Doesn't the current system work, with individual countries sending troops when necessary?

When we joined in the 1970s it was a good idea, but it has evolved into the beast it is now.

I realise you are a huge fan of the EU, with respect probably a bigger fan than Junker himself. I also realise that nobody on these threads ever changes their views.

 

[beorhthelm]

Here you imply very strongly that we would have had to adopt the Euro had we remained.

When was this laid down?

there were some media reports on it a few weeks ago, how they are talking about bringing about the rule changes with a target of mid to late 2020's.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Would you be in favour of one big EU community? No individual country identity, no local control or accountability. Just one country of 500 million people.

That's the way it's heading, maybe not in the next few years, but that is the goal I believe, of those who control the EU.

I feel that the worries you express were a major driver for millions of people voting as they did in the referendum.

But these fears of the bogey man have no basis. Where is the evidence that the identity of individual countries will disappear? That Swedes will become like Sardinians and Danes like Greeks? As has been pointed out it didn't happen in the USSR but you can look closer to home. Scotland. For 100s of years it has been a member of a political union deeper and more far-reaching than anything ever proposed for the EU. It doesn't have its own head of state, army or even passport. And yet, after all this time, it remains a proud and identifiable country.

Unlike the United Kingdom, the EU is a loose affiliation of nation states, each of which retains huge freedoms. We can even go to war if we want.

 

[Murray 17]

I feel that the worries you express were a major driver for millions of people voting as they did in the referendum.

But these fears of the bogey man have no basis. Where is the evidence that the identity of individual countries will disappear? That Swedes will become like Sardinians and Danes like Greeks? As has been pointed out it didn't happen in the USSR but you can look closer to home. Scotland. For 100s of years it has been a member of a political union deeper and more far-reaching than anything ever proposed for the EU. It doesn't have its own head of state, army or even passport. And yet, after all this time, it remains a proud and identifiable country.

Unlike the United Kingdom, the EU is a loose affiliation of nation states, each of which retains huge freedoms. We can even go to war if we want.

The Scotland issue is an interesting one.

If we believe Sturgeon, Scots want to rule themselves. And yet if she gets her wish, Scotland could apply to join the EU, and in doing so will be giving away a lot of their power to Brussels - quite ironic I think.

 

[GT49er]

The Scotland issue is an interesting one.

If we believe Sturgeon, Scots want to rule themselves. And yet if she gets her wish, Scotland could apply to join the EU, and in doing so will be giving away a lot of their power to Brussels - quite ironic I think.

For Scotland, it's easily explained by their core belief of ABE (anyone/thing but English).

 

[Lincoln Imp]

The Scotland issue is an interesting one.

If we believe Sturgeon, Scots want to rule themselves. And yet if she gets her wish, Scotland could apply to join the EU, and in doing so will be giving away a lot of their power to Brussels - quite ironic I think.

With respect, this proves the point. The amount of power a member country shares with Europe is far less than the amount it cedes as part of an entity such as the UK. The EU doesn't destroy nation states.

 

[Simster]

The best argument I have seen on here for quitting the EU is that it seemed that being in the EU was like being on a train, yet not knowing the destination and not having any stops on which to get off - then last June a stop appeared, and we got off because we didn't know where we were going.

For me, this is an excellent argument - succinct and reasonable. It ought to be a warning shot across the boughs of the EU. But if the EU ever reformed to the extent that key decisions were put to it's people, and policy makers and bean counters were held properly accountable, instead of the corrupt gravy train that so many perceive is the case, then it has to be said it would make no sense to stay out, IMO. As it is, I still fear for our economy after the hopeless, clueless deluded bunch of goons negotiating on our behalf come back with a truly shocking deal. I honestly fear for jobs when that happens.

 

[Simster]

The Scotland issue is an interesting one.

If we believe Sturgeon, Scots want to rule themselves. And yet if she gets her wish, Scotland could apply to join the EU, and in doing so will be giving away a lot of their power to Brussels - quite ironic I think.

Not in the slightest bit ironic. Scots want to stay in the EU because they export huge amounts to the EU - they are more of an export-driven economy than we are with their farming, fishing, and distilleries. And of course, they would not be "giving away" power at all - they'd be deciding to conform to EU. If they didn't like it, they'd be perfectly able to withdraw, just as the UK has done.

 

[mothy]

3200 pages - I've not read it all - but was it the right decision?

 

[Jim D]

3200 pages - I've not read it all - but was it the right decision?

Not to read it all? I should say so.

 

[Jim in the West]

Interesting article in the FT (by Nick Clegg) [OK - I know the FT is a remain newspaper, and Clegg is a remainer...but interesting nonetheless]:

At the heart of Westminster, there lurks a secret. Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn want to thwart the moderates in their party who are opposed to a “hard” Brexit. And both have alighted on the same alibi: they claim that since we cannot change the rules governing freedom of movement and stay in the single market, then we have no choice but to leave the single market altogether. It sounds neat — and democratic. After all, few would disagree that immigration in general, and EU free movement in particular, played a significant role in the EU referendum last year. EU leaders regularly emphasise the importance of the “four freedoms”. And so the logic flows effortlessly: the will of the British public must be obeyed; EU freedom of movement must go; single market membership must be rescinded. This argument is self-serving nonsense. The leaderships of the two main UK parties — united by Euroscepticism if little else — are wilfully misrepresenting the rules governing free movement within the EU. They claim that it is an unchanging EU principle. It is not. They claim that it cannot be curtailed. It can. They claim that the rest of the bloc will not bend to British demands for change. They already have.

If only Mrs May and Mr Corbyn showed a little more ingenuity, the scope for a breakthrough in the Brexit talks would open up: one in which the UK could remain in the single market but could also secure important changes to freedom of movement. The right to free movement was originally focused exclusively on people seeking work. It was only in 1990 that the then-European Economic Community introduced a right of movement for pensioners, students and those with independent means, provided that they could support themselves. The Maastricht treaty in 1992 went one step further and introduced the concept of EU “citizenship”. Detailed provisions then ensued to ensure that workers and their families could move between member states without losing their social security entitlements.

So the principle of freedom of movement has evolved over time. It has served Europe’s economies, and especially Britain’s, well. In recent years, it has become particularly associated with the single currency. The economic logic of free movement in its purest form makes most sense among the members of the eurozone because the movement of people helps a currency union deal with the rigidity of a single monetary policy but is less necessary among those countries outside the currency union. Crucially, there is far more latitude for member states to apply restrictions to freedom of movement than is commonly appreciated. The Belgian authorities aggressively deport EU citizens who do not work and cannot support themselves. Under EU law, the UK authorities could do the same for EU citizens who have failed to find work after six months. Access to Spanish healthcare requires registering with the social security authorities and showing residence and identity documents. The German authorities, in an attempt to protect domestic pay deals, are tightening up access to the construction and other sectors by EU workers. Several EU leaders have told me of their irritation that UK politicians blame them for a decision taken in Westminster, not Brussels: opening up the UK labour market in 2004 to workers from central and eastern Europe. They point out that the UK’s non-contributory welfare benefits, unqualified access to healthcare and absence of administrative residence checks, mean that the UK takes a far more lax approach than they do.

When David Cameron requested further flexibility over the way freedom of movement rules are applied, the EU obliged, allowing for new limits on the benefits provided to EU citizens. As one EU official involved in the Brexit talks explained to me, last summer EU governments were expecting Mrs May to ask for a further, wider overhaul of freedom of movement.No such overture came. The Conservatives — and now Labour — prefer to box themselves in an economically self-defeating corner. There is an obvious solution: with goodwill and a little imagination, EU governments could agree an “emergency brake” on the free movement of EU citizens, allowing governments to impose quotas and work permits in response to unusually high levels of EU immigration (similar to the trigger in the Cameron package).It is still not too late to pull back from the hard Brexit cliff edge. The circle of single market participation and reformed free movement can be squared.

When David Cameron requested further flexibility over the way freedom of movement rules are applied, the EU obliged, allowing for new limits on the benefits provided to EU citizens. As one EU official involved in the Brexit talks explained to me, last summer EU governments were expecting Mrs May to ask for a further, wider overhaul of freedom of movement.No such overture came. The Conservatives — and now Labour — prefer to box themselves in an economically self-defeating corner. There is an obvious solution: with goodwill and a little imagination, EU governments could agree an “emergency brake” on the free movement of EU citizens, allowing governments to impose quotas and work permits in response to unusually high levels of EU immigration (similar to the trigger in the Cameron package).It is still not too late to pull back from the hard Brexit cliff edge. The circle of single market participation and reformed free movement can be squared.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

For me it's not a question of "coming to terms" with leaving the EU. For as long as we are still in the EU I will campaign to stay. And when/if we leave, I will campaign to re-join. If we do eventually leave, simple demographics mean that the desire to re-join will grow every year. Like it or not, the young are VERY pro-EU. Stats out today show that 85% of young people (18 - 24 yo) want to retain EU citizenship. The elderly, who voted in a large majority to Leave, will die off - to be replaced (as voters) by the young who are increasingly engaged and virtually all pro-EU. For Remainers a soft Brexit is critical, as it will ease the path to re-joining at a later date. But, as each day goes past, the chances of a reversal of Brexit are increasing.

Deluded post, YOU SOUND DESPERATE
regards
DR

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Interesting article in the FT (by Nick Clegg) [OK - I know the FT is a remain newspaper, and Clegg is a remainer...but interesting nonetheless]:

At the heart of Westminster, there lurks a secret. Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn want to thwart the moderates in their party who are opposed to a “hard” Brexit. And both have alighted on the same alibi: they claim that since we cannot change the rules governing freedom of movement and stay in the single market, then we have no choice but to leave the single market altogether. It sounds neat — and democratic. After all, few would disagree that immigration in general, and EU free movement in particular, played a significant role in the EU referendum last year. EU leaders regularly emphasise the importance of the “four freedoms”. And so the logic flows effortlessly: the will of the British public must be obeyed; EU freedom of movement must go; single market membership must be rescinded. This argument is self-serving nonsense. The leaderships of the two main UK parties — united by Euroscepticism if little else — are wilfully misrepresenting the rules governing free movement within the EU. They claim that it is an unchanging EU principle. It is not. They claim that it cannot be curtailed. It can. They claim that the rest of the bloc will not bend to British demands for change. They already have.

If only Mrs May and Mr Corbyn showed a little more ingenuity, the scope for a breakthrough in the Brexit talks would open up: one in which the UK could remain in the single market but could also secure important changes to freedom of movement. The right to free movement was originally focused exclusively on people seeking work. It was only in 1990 that the then-European Economic Community introduced a right of movement for pensioners, students and those with independent means, provided that they could support themselves. The Maastricht treaty in 1992 went one step further and introduced the concept of EU “citizenship”. Detailed provisions then ensued to ensure that workers and their families could move between member states without losing their social security entitlements.

So the principle of freedom of movement has evolved over time. It has served Europe’s economies, and especially Britain’s, well. In recent years, it has become particularly associated with the single currency. The economic logic of free movement in its purest form makes most sense among the members of the eurozone because the movement of people helps a currency union deal with the rigidity of a single monetary policy but is less necessary among those countries outside the currency union. Crucially, there is far more latitude for member states to apply restrictions to freedom of movement than is commonly appreciated. The Belgian authorities aggressively deport EU citizens who do not work and cannot support themselves. Under EU law, the UK authorities could do the same for EU citizens who have failed to find work after six months. Access to Spanish healthcare requires registering with the social security authorities and showing residence and identity documents. The German authorities, in an attempt to protect domestic pay deals, are tightening up access to the construction and other sectors by EU workers. Several EU leaders have told me of their irritation that UK politicians blame them for a decision taken in Westminster, not Brussels: opening up the UK labour market in 2004 to workers from central and eastern Europe. They point out that the UK’s non-contributory welfare benefits, unqualified access to healthcare and absence of administrative residence checks, mean that the UK takes a far more lax approach than they do.

When David Cameron requested further flexibility over the way freedom of movement rules are applied, the EU obliged, allowing for new limits on the benefits provided to EU citizens. As one EU official involved in the Brexit talks explained to me, last summer EU governments were expecting Mrs May to ask for a further, wider overhaul of freedom of movement.No such overture came. The Conservatives — and now Labour — prefer to box themselves in an economically self-defeating corner. There is an obvious solution: with goodwill and a little imagination, EU governments could agree an “emergency brake” on the free movement of EU citizens, allowing governments to impose quotas and work permits in response to unusually high levels of EU immigration (similar to the trigger in the Cameron package).It is still not too late to pull back from the hard Brexit cliff edge. The circle of single market participation and reformed free movement can be squared.

When David Cameron requested further flexibility over the way freedom of movement rules are applied, the EU obliged, allowing for new limits on the benefits provided to EU citizens. As one EU official involved in the Brexit talks explained to me, last summer EU governments were expecting Mrs May to ask for a further, wider overhaul of freedom of movement.No such overture came. The Conservatives — and now Labour — prefer to box themselves in an economically self-defeating corner. There is an obvious solution: with goodwill and a little imagination, EU governments could agree an “emergency brake” on the free movement of EU citizens, allowing governments to impose quotas and work permits in response to unusually high levels of EU immigration (similar to the trigger in the Cameron package).It is still not too late to pull back from the hard Brexit cliff edge. The circle of single market participation and reformed free movement can be squared.

NICK CLEG WHO LOST HIS SEAT in the recent election , yeah people really had enough of his crap
regards
DR

 

[beorhthelm]

Interesting article in the FT (by Nick Clegg) [OK - I know the FT is a remain newspaper, and Clegg is a remainer...but interesting nonetheless]:

i find Clegg a pretty resonable politican, so i dont know if here he's being disingenous or outright dishonest, as he should know better. two main points he fails to observe, first is that the UK doesnt have the sort of rules and systems in place to administer "residency" so as according to EU w have to apply the law to EU citizens as we do nationals, we end up with a more open door. secondly, it is the EU that made the stipulation that you cant pick and chose, you cant have single market without freedom of movement.

As one EU official involved in the Brexit talks explained to me, last summer EU governments were expecting Mrs May to ask for a further, wider overhaul of freedom of movement.No such overture came.

this more anacdotal evidence that Brussels didnt take us seriously, why they gave such scant deal to Cameron that he tried to dress up as best he could. however this is why you have "hard brexit", not because of an intention or desire to leave without a deal, but to put down the marker that is an option and to take the negotiations seriously. and this goes back to the hardline the EU has taken too, why would May ask the EU for something politically difficult at home, which was dismissed in Feburary, when they've been saying for months theres no a la carte option? the referendum wasnt mandate to renegotiate EU, it was mandate to leave EU, because thats their rules.


i believe the single market and freedom of movement can probably be squared as long as EU give the government something to sell the public. most the liberal conservatives (that seem to be the vocal players in this) can live with single market for cross border trade, dont really care about freedom of movement, thats the 'kippers battle really (and 10-15% of the population), but you cant just go back to the public and say its ok we'll stay in the EU, with EU approved quotas, and ignore the customs union, ECJ legal authority. those two issues are the issues for them, because they are genuine philosophical objections of the control over our nation, built upon trade and our own indepedent legal system. something allowing some bilateral trade agreements and restriction of scope of ECJ would be saleable to most europsceptics, however its not on offer from the EU because it means the end of the line for the European Project, unless they redesign the project and accept a two tier EU.