How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
///ajd said:
It is not me talking about civil unrest.
I don't think there will be any to speak of, other than from a few shouty EDL/rabid kipper types.
It is some brexiteers here who are threatening civil unrest should their hallowed immigration control not come to pass.
When challenged on whether they personally will be rising up, they get shy and throw back insults. Bit like the school bully.
Its seems there won't be civil unrest and we can Breverse without fear of serious repercussions, which is good.
Good, so you can stop keep repeating it then.......I don't think there will be any to speak of, other than from a few shouty EDL/rabid kipper types.
It is some brexiteers here who are threatening civil unrest should their hallowed immigration control not come to pass.
When challenged on whether they personally will be rising up, they get shy and throw back insults. Bit like the school bully.
Its seems there won't be civil unrest and we can Breverse without fear of serious repercussions, which is good.
///ajd said:
Its seems there won't be civil unrest and we can Breverse without fear of serious repercussions, which is good.
If Breverse would be so good for the UK, how come leading EU figures including Donald Tusk are in favour of it? What kind of terms do you imagine we would get if we did give in to Stockholm syndrome?
No rebate, higher contributions, adoption of the Euro for starters.
Dr Jekyll said:
What kind of terms do you imagine we would get if we did give in to Stockholm syndrome?
No rebate, higher contributions, adoption of the Euro for starters.
If we revoke article 50, we remain in exactly as we are now, because we haven't left and there is nothing to renegotiate.No rebate, higher contributions, adoption of the Euro for starters.
If we ever want to re-enter the EU after having formally left, we will have no option about adopting the Euro. Schengen entry would be possible as well, but thinking about that...
Honestly, are there any real problems with Schengen and the UK? We'd still need ID to fly, because of booking confirmation etc, bag x-rays, all that pain. Or we'd need to buy train/ferry tickets - that could be done entirely on plastic, no real anonymity (if that's the kinda thing you're into). But apart from that, it's not like in Belgium where you can sit at a cafe and throw coins at people in the Netherlands if you want. We could be all about free movement across our border with zero negative impact, if you want to kayak across the busiest shipping lane in the world, go for it. Or swim.
Dr Jekyll said:
///ajd said:
Its seems there won't be civil unrest and we can Breverse without fear of serious repercussions, which is good.
If Breverse would be so good for the UK, how come leading EU figures including Donald Tusk are in favour of it? What kind of terms do you imagine we would get if we did give in to Stockholm syndrome?
No rebate, higher contributions, adoption of the Euro for starters.
CaptainSlow said:
Not the first time the UK has had a difference of opinion with the continent over the last 100 years, maybe things would have been easier if we'd just capitulated each time.
Interesting. So if the UK doesn't get its way then we declare war on the EU?I wonder which side the Yanks will back this time...
Murph7355 said:
W124 said:
The electorate don't give a s
t. Nobody cares about Farage. Nobody is going to rise up. Nothing will happen.
With respect, you are ignoring the political developments of the last month.
It will be fudged and fudged until it is abandoned.
As purplemoonlight noted, all that happened is that the UKIP bunch reverted to voting type as they believe Brexit to be a done deal now Art50 is in. t. Nobody cares about Farage. Nobody is going to rise up. Nothing will happen. With respect, you are ignoring the political developments of the last month.
It will be fudged and fudged until it is abandoned.
The Tories were complacent. Evidently believing that UKIP had simply taken disaffected Tories previously. Or that with Labour's Brexit policies being broadly aligned no one would trust Corbyn. They were wrong on both counts.
The country didn't reject getting out of the EU (Single Market and Customs Union included). 90% of seats went to parties advocating both, either explicitly or as a direct consequence of other pledges (ending freedom of movement and doing our own trade deals).
Neither can afford to back away from those things as if they do they will be out of power. Either losing to the other or seeing a resurgence in "UKIP".
What has happened in the last month simply underscores my previous point.
As for "rising up"... Older people don't need to go and smash stuff up. Governments know that they will turn out to the polling stations in droves if pushed. And that there are way more of them than the young bracket that cared so much about membership of the EU that they couldn't be arsed turning out last June.
I'll be very surprised if the govt attempt a sham deal. And if they do I will be more surprised if that act doesn't cause way more issues than the original vote.
Furthermore, both major parties are backing away from anything that might be considered a hard Brexit. It has become politically toxic incredibly quickly. It may be important to you personally but, alas, it is no longer really important to everybody else. Things have changed. UKIP have lost power not because of other parties adopting their policies but rather because, out in the real world, the mood has changed. the two main parties are already backtracking - we will remain in the customs union, most likely the single market and, in my view, exactly where we are now but without Mrs. T's rebate.
The gouvernmemt, despite what they say, are already, in plain sight, attempting a 'sham deal' - that is what they ARE doing. Now.
The jig is up, I'm afraid.
rs1952 said:
CaptainSlow said:
Not the first time the UK has had a difference of opinion with the continent over the last 100 years, maybe things would have been easier if we'd just capitulated each time.
Interesting. So if the UK doesn't get its way then we declare war on the EU?I wonder which side the Yanks will back this time...
Well we didn't, but the state in the EU did. They didn't get what they wanted from "negotiations" designed to weaken Poland so jumped to war.What we then saw was the slow encroachment on sovereign nations by another more powerful state that wished for all people to follow their preferred way to live, and to hell with their individualism
Eventually in July '40 Hitler wanted the UK to surrender. We did not. Apparently he was surprised we did not cede to their might.
Whilst clearly Brexit will never lead to any form of combat, you have to say that the similarities are there...
W124 said:
Furthermore, both major parties are backing away from anything that might be considered a hard Brexit. It has become politically toxic incredibly quickly. It may be important to you personally but, alas, it is no longer really important to everybody else.
Who is everyone else? I do suspect that MPs are listening to the BBC/Guardian a little too much. Or maybe they are just as corrupt as I never thought possible.
Edited by Rich_W on Saturday 24th June 19:33
rs1952 said:
CaptainSlow said:
Not the first time the UK has had a difference of opinion with the continent over the last 100 years, maybe things would have been easier if we'd just capitulated each time.
Interesting. So if the UK doesn't get its way then we declare war on the EU?I wonder which side the Yanks will back this time...
Rich_W said:
rs1952 said:
CaptainSlow said:
Not the first time the UK has had a difference of opinion with the continent over the last 100 years, maybe things would have been easier if we'd just capitulated each time.
Interesting. So if the UK doesn't get its way then we declare war on the EU?I wonder which side the Yanks will back this time...
Well we didn't, but the state in the EU did. They didn't get what they wanted from "negotiations" designed to weaken Poland so jumped to war.What we then saw was the slow encroachment on sovereign nations by another more powerful state that wished for all people to follow their preferred way to live, and to hell with their individualism
Eventually in July '40 Hitler wanted the UK to surrender. We did not. Apparently he was surprised we did not cede to their might.
Whilst clearly Brexit will never lead to any form of combat, you have to say that the similarities are there...
Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
rs1952 said:
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
The Walloons,,,,,,,,,,,,Which just shows how hard it is to negotiate trade deals for the EU and why leaving the EU will be good for the UK. Time for another G & T methinks Edited by alfie2244 on Saturday 24th June 21:39
rs1952 said:
Your reply was far better than the one from the poster I originally responded to (in piss-take mode, BTW), but it does contain some of the tired old premises that probably got us into the current pickle in the first place.
Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.
There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
So, in your view, there's nothing wrong with federalism - but what's the benefit (if any) ?Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
rs1952 said:
Your reply was far better than the one from the poster I originally responded to (in piss-take mode, BTW), but it does contain some of the tired old premises that probably got us into the current pickle in the first place.
Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.
There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
And the Walloons were "persuaded" to change their minds....Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
mondeoman said:
rs1952 said:
Your reply was far better than the one from the poster I originally responded to (in piss-take mode, BTW), but it does contain some of the tired old premises that probably got us into the current pickle in the first place.
Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.
There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
And the Walloons were "persuaded" to change their minds....Let me tell you a little story. A couple of weeks ago I was on a train from Bath to Paddington and sitting at the table opposite me were a couple of pensioners (articulate) and a Latvian lad of 20-something with quite good English. They were not together but the male of the pensioner couple was telling the Latvian lad how the election had been a disaster and could, if things were not handled correctly, undermine the Brexit he so longed for. The (possibly unwilling but he politely listed) Latvian was told that the problem with the EU was that it had been taken over by a "bunch of faceless autocrats" who wanted to enforce their version of a United States of Europe.
He didn't seem to think that it was all a German plot like many on here do - he had identified his owns bunch of ogres.
I was so sorely tempted to join in but it can seem a very, very long way from Pewsey to Paddington (the train was diverted) when you try to counter a lecture by proffering an opposing view...
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
Robertj21a said:
So, in your view, there's nothing wrong with federalism - but what's the benefit (if any) ?
In Federalist Paper 28, it's said "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either [State or Federal Government], they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." and that says it pretty succinctly. You get local government to deal with local issues, central government to deal with federation-wide issues, and if either one of them is giving you undue grief you can get the other one to take it to task and defend you properly. That's pretty good. It'd be nice to have the Snooper's charter subject to international scrutiny by people who can do something about it, etc.Edit: I quote one of the Federalist Papers. They're a heavy (177,000 word) but interesting read, and form the backbone of a hell of a lot of the structure of the USA's Government organisation.
rs1952 said:
There are former Eastern bloc countries in the EU and Latvia is one of them. Others include Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, what used to be Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Ukraine is quite keen on joining. Would those countries contemplate for a moment being subservient to a supra-national state after they'd just thrown off the yoke of the USSR? Of course not. Are France and Belgium and Holland going to be happy to subservient to a Fourth Reich? The Hell they are. Is Turkey going to join the EU whilst the matter of partition in Cyprus remains unresolved? Was that a pig I just saw flying past my window?
So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.
There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
Well I'll point out I didn't say German runs the EU. So Juncker says a number of federalist things - Are they going to happen simply on his say-so? Red Jeremy wants to get rid of Trident but that's not going to happen no matter what he wants. In the UK, let alone the EU, political parties even put things in their manifestos, are elected as the largest party, and then don't include manifesto pledges in the Queen's speech
Just because someone says something doesn't mean that it is going to happen, it just means that they'd like it to happen. Others can, and often do, hold dissimilar opinions.There is nothing wrong with federalism per se. The Yanks have had such a system for nigh on 200 years, each state having its own level of autonomy (Christ you can even be executed in some of them, and that is taking autonomy to its furthest degree). The Germans have had a federal republic since the time of Bismark; South Africa has had one of sorts for getting on for 100 years. Indeed one could argue that the UK itself has been moving towards a form of federalism itself since devolution to Scotland, Wales and Norn Iron. Federalism does not mean subservience - if it did, it wouldn't be so popular around the world.
I seem to recall a few short months ago the Belgian equivalent of the Parish Council of Much Binding in the Marsh put the kybosch on an EU trade deal. The Germans were really in charge if that, weren't they
Germany does not "run" the EU and it never will. Ultimately the EU is run by its member nations. Only the British (and the Greeks when they are told that they can't have their cake and eat it) seem to think that it is.
But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on f
ked off with this arrangement. How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
Rich_W said:
Well I'll point out I didn't say German runs the EU. But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?
The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on fked off with this arrangement.
How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
It's an empire they are building = EUSSR ... nothing to see move along ... But as their biggest contributor, the fact that Junker and Tusk run to mummy and tell her every little thing. Plus the rhetoric from her often sounds like she has more power than any other head of state. Considering we are top 3 by gdp don't you find it odd, that we have often been largely ignored when we want to alter things?The reason the Ukraines of this world want to join is simple. They will get financial aid. We've all seen the chart that shows amount paid in vs amount received. even with our rebate we are a net loss. Whereas the (lets be honest) financially incompetent/poor ones are net gain (surprised to see Poland topping it!)
It baffles me that other states are not at least irritated, at worst full on f
ked off with this arrangement. How much trade does the UK gain from Latvia. Google says Latvias top 3 export markets are Lithuania 17.7% Russia 14.7% Estonia 11.2% Clearly one isn't even in the EU!
How much French produce is consumed in Romania?
How many German electronics are bought in Bulgaria?
So WHERE is the benefit in keeping these crap countries in a Union that sucks all the finances out of the EU?
In fact there's a strong argument for the EU to be based entirely on the countries GDP. There's literally no point or benefit in trying to smash together 28 nations that are massively different. Setting it to the top 10 countries would actually encourage closer ties since there would be some semblance of financial balance.
rs1952 said:
Rich_W said:
rs1952 said:
CaptainSlow said:
Not the first time the UK has had a difference of opinion with the continent over the last 100 years, maybe things would have been easier if we'd just capitulated each time.
Interesting. So if the UK doesn't get its way then we declare war on the EU?I wonder which side the Yanks will back this time...
Well we didn't, but the state in the EU did. They didn't get what they wanted from "negotiations" designed to weaken Poland so jumped to war.What we then saw was the slow encroachment on sovereign nations by another more powerful state that wished for all people to follow their preferred way to live, and to hell with their individualism
Eventually in July '40 Hitler wanted the UK to surrender. We did not. Apparently he was surprised we did not cede to their might.
Whilst clearly Brexit will never lead to any form of combat, you have to say that the similarities are there...
Strange we never hear the views from the leaders of Italy, Spain and Portugal or have them negotiating with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees into the EU, or authorising the Greek bail outs He (or she)who holds the purse strings calls the shots
As to why impoverish eastern European countries want to join the EU and their billion Euro hand-outs, who knows? Over the last 24 months it seems given the choice many would want to exit given the mess Merkel has created.
CaptainSlow said:
Merkel and, to a lesser extent, Macron run the show. Juncker and Tusk are irrelevant.
Strange we never hear the views from the leaders of Italy, Spain and Portugal or have them negotiating with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees into the EU, or authorising the Greek bail outs He (or she)who holds the purse strings calls the shots
As to why impoverish eastern European countries want to join the EU and their billion Euro hand-outs, who knows? Over the last 24 months it seems given the choice many would want to exit given the mess Merkel has created.
It's a great shame that Juncker is involved at all. He certainly doesn't consider himself irrelevant and he's probably done more than most other EU officials to rile Brits at every opportunity. If the EU are happy to have such a drunk running part of their operations then I'm equally happen to be leaving them to it.Strange we never hear the views from the leaders of Italy, Spain and Portugal or have them negotiating with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees into the EU, or authorising the Greek bail outs He (or she)who holds the purse strings calls the shots
As to why impoverish eastern European countries want to join the EU and their billion Euro hand-outs, who knows? Over the last 24 months it seems given the choice many would want to exit given the mess Merkel has created.
CaptainSlow said:
Merkel and, to a lesser extent, Macron run the show. Juncker and Tusk are irrelevant.
Strange we never hear the views from the leaders of Italy, Spain and Portugal or have them negotiating with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees into the EU, or authorising the Greek bail outs He (or she)who holds the purse strings calls the shots
As to why impoverish eastern European countries want to join the EU and their billion Euro hand-outs, who knows? Over the last 24 months it seems given the choice many would want to exit given the mess Merkel has created.
The eastern block countries are benefiting massively from the EU because of the infrastructure investment they are receiving in order to facilitate them as the low cost German supply chain to their automotive industry. The Eastern block countries are running large surplus economies as a result. The East provides cheap well educated engineering labour due to the old USSR philosophy of education in the technical subjects and Mathematics. Strange we never hear the views from the leaders of Italy, Spain and Portugal or have them negotiating with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees into the EU, or authorising the Greek bail outs He (or she)who holds the purse strings calls the shots
As to why impoverish eastern European countries want to join the EU and their billion Euro hand-outs, who knows? Over the last 24 months it seems given the choice many would want to exit given the mess Merkel has created.
Its a terrible deal for France, Spain and Italy though who have less of an export based economy and are being screwed by the Euro as they have to run a permanent deficit/austerity program to balance out the Euro.with such large surplus economies in the north/east.
Until the Euro changes to a proper currency with fiscal transfers, its only going to get worse for countries like France and Italy.
Robertj21a said:
It's a great shame that Juncker is involved at all. He certainly doesn't consider himself irrelevant and he's probably done more than most other EU officials to rile Brits at every opportunity. If the EU are happy to have such a drunk running part of their operations then I'm equally happen to be leaving them to it.
Just to go off on a tangent here, I'm not sure that you ought to be making too much of Juncker's imbibing habits.I seem to recall that the UK Prime Minister during most of WW2, for whom many on here appear to show a good deal of respect, was well known for putting away rather more than the occasional half of shandy. It might just be why the EU gave him the job in the first place..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff