How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 15)
Discussion
crankedup said:
GrumpyV8 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Is £82B of covid fund that we're not on the hook for sufficiently quantifiable?
Reuters reporting Macron may be reducing his stance on fishing.EFA.
Edited by gooner1 on Saturday 24th October 14:38
gooner1 said:
crankedup said:
GrumpyV8 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Is £82B of covid fund that we're not on the hook for sufficiently quantifiable?
Reuters reporting Macron may be reducing his stance on fishing.
roger.mellie said:
JNW1 said:
roger.mellie said:
As usual you're attacking part of my sentence rather than the intended point. The UK is stepping into the unknownl.
I think most would agree leaving the EU was to some extent a step into the unknown; after all, who could know exactly how, say, a future trading relationship with the EU would look? However, what I was taking issue with was your comment that staying in the EU meant everything was known - it meant nothing of the sort. Ok, probably less uncertainty than leaving but IMO it's just nonsense to say everything would have stayed as it was in 2016 and was therefore known....There’s a bit too much projection going on above on my opinions. The simple summary is I’ve yet to see a quantifiable benefit leaving has achieved specifically due to leaving.
I've mentioned previously on these threads that, at the time of the referendum, that I think that membership had been good for the UK and that, on balance, there were still more pros to membership than cons. The trend was clear though, the Commission's 'ever closer union' end game had been made clear all along. 2016 was, and is, the right point to get out.
During the early days of our EU membership the UK voted against the EU very rarely ( 2% ), between 2009 and 2015, that had risen to 12.3%. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims... . In the 2015-2016 period running up to the referendum it was 18.9% iirc.
The points regarding QMV and debt mutualisation have already been made by others.
Rejoin the EU?? Good luck with that one.
Crackie said:
In my experience, remain advocates push the narrative regarding quantifiable benefits..............leavers on the other hand tend to focus on the fallacy of the status quo.
I've mentioned previously on these threads that, at the time of the referendum, that I think that membership had been good for the UK and that, on balance, there were still more pros to membership than cons. The trend was clear though, the Commission's 'ever closer union' end game had been made clear all along. 2016 was, and is, the right point to get out.
During the early days of our EU membership the UK voted against the EU very rarely ( 2% ), between 2009 and 2015, that had risen to 12.3%. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims... . In the 2015-2016 period running up to the referendum it was 18.9% iirc.
The points regarding QMV and debt mutualisation have already been made by others.
Rejoin the EU?? Good luck with that one.
I’m certainly not expecting the UK to re-join. What’s done is done. Everyone should now be focussing on the current negotiations and holding the government to account if they screw up.I've mentioned previously on these threads that, at the time of the referendum, that I think that membership had been good for the UK and that, on balance, there were still more pros to membership than cons. The trend was clear though, the Commission's 'ever closer union' end game had been made clear all along. 2016 was, and is, the right point to get out.
During the early days of our EU membership the UK voted against the EU very rarely ( 2% ), between 2009 and 2015, that had risen to 12.3%. https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims... . In the 2015-2016 period running up to the referendum it was 18.9% iirc.
The points regarding QMV and debt mutualisation have already been made by others.
Rejoin the EU?? Good luck with that one.
I do think there’ll be continual alignment with the EU due to the realities of trading. No deal would just mean no deal for now. I don’t mean to be flippant in my use of the word “just” as it would cause lots of pain for many businesses at the worst possible time, but it’s fairly obvious that will happen.
Crackie said:
I've mentioned previously on these threads that, at the time of the referendum, that I think that membership had been good for the UK and that, on balance, there were still more pros to membership than cons. The trend was clear though, the Commission's 'ever closer union' end game had been made clear all along. 2016 was, and is, the right point to get out.
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)roger.mellie said:
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.
Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?)
GREECE?Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)gooner1 said:
crankedup said:
GrumpyV8 said:
Biggy Stardust said:
Is £82B of covid fund that we're not on the hook for sufficiently quantifiable?
Reuters reporting Macron may be reducing his stance on fishing.EFA.
Edited by gooner1 on Saturday 24th October 14:38
Go on get outta here with your fish Friday’s
gruffalo said:
roger.mellie said:
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.
Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?)
GREECE?Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)gruffalo said:
roger.mellie said:
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.
Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?)
GREECE?Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)I’d agree they’d have been far better off outside the euro with their recent woes but the euro isn’t the EU. Being able to use rampant currency devaluation to make up for political corruption is not an argument I’d make in favour of staying out
, but it’s an argument I’d accept against the euro.roger.mellie said:
Crackie said:
I've mentioned previously on these threads that, at the time of the referendum, that I think that membership had been good for the UK and that, on balance, there were still more pros to membership than cons. The trend was clear though, the Commission's 'ever closer union' end game had been made clear all along. 2016 was, and is, the right point to get out.
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)The EU model sort of works for the richer countries because FOM means they get young talent from the poorer countries on the cheap - and it works for poor countries because they get cash handed to them to level up their infrastructure with help to invest in new roads, airports, railways and their education systems etc.
The Brexit debate centred around whether or not you agreed with the EU’s long term plan. FOM has caused an exodus of young talent from PIGS and eastern European countries; consequently these poorest countries lose their most gifted young people. Conversely, FOM means that the richer countries have less incentive to invest in homegrown talent because they have a rich stream of well educated and low cost talent from overseas.
The problem with the model is wage suppression and stagnation for the middle classes in the richer countries. Wages and GDP grow rapidly in the poorer countries which makes it attractive for people to return…………potentially leaving a very large void behind in the richer countries.
See Barcleona Agreement / Treaty of the Mediterranean regarding the EU's longer term plan. https://www.barcelona.com/barcelona_news/the_barce...
The Commission does not appear to care that so few citizens subscribe to their long term plan https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 25th October 09:06
Crackie said:
roger.mellie said:
Crackie said:
I've mentioned previously on these threads that, at the time of the referendum, that I think that membership had been good for the UK and that, on balance, there were still more pros to membership than cons. The trend was clear though, the Commission's 'ever closer union' end game had been made clear all along. 2016 was, and is, the right point to get out.
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)The EU model sort of works for the richer countries because FOM means they get young talent from the poorer countries on the cheap - and it works for poor countries because they get cash handed to them to level up their infrastructure with help to invest in new roads, airports, railways and their education systems etc.
The Brexit debate centred around whether or not you agreed with the EU’s long term plan. FOM has caused an exodus of young talent from PIGS and eastern European countries; consequently these poorest countries lose their most gifted young people. Conversely, FOM means that the richer countries have less incentive to invest in homegrown talent because they have a rich stream of well educated and low cost talent from overseas.
The problem with the model is wage suppression and stagnation for the middle classes in the richer countries. Wages and GDP grow rapidly in the poorer countries which makes it attractive for people to return…………potentially leaving a very large void behind in the richer countries.
See Barcleona Agreement / Treaty of the Mediterranean regarding the EU's longer term plan. https://www.barcelona.com/barcelona_news/the_barce...
The Commission does not appear to care about so few citizens subscribe to that long term plan https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
I know this could sound snobbish but the average FOM argument at the time was much less academic and principled than yours.
That said, I agree with the point you’re making. But in my view leaving the EU is not going to solve that problem any more than pissing into the wind is a good way to keep your shoes dry. Globalisation has brought many problems and all nations are working out how to deal with it but it’s not going away in or out of the EU, at some point there’ll be a deal between the uk and the eu that won’t be called FOM for the optics but it’ll walk and talk like the same duck.
loafer123 said:
PushedDover said:
roger.mellie said:
What’s done is done. Everyone should now be focussing on the current negotiations and holding the government to account if they screw up.
Who hacked this account? Crackie said:
Interesting point regarding EU expansionism.
The EU model sort of works for the richer countries because FOM means they get young talent from the poorer countries on the cheap - and it works for poor countries because they get cash handed to them to level up their infrastructure with help to invest in new roads, airports, railways and their education systems etc.
The Brexit debate centred around whether or not you agreed with the EU’s long term plan. FOM has caused an exodus of young talent from PIGS and eastern European countries; consequently these poorest countries lose their most gifted young people. Conversely, FOM means that the richer countries have less incentive to invest in homegrown talent because they have a rich stream of well educated and low cost talent from overseas.
The problem with the model is wage suppression and stagnation for the middle classes in the richer countries. Wages and GDP grow rapidly in the poorer countries which makes it attractive for people to return…………potentially leaving a very large void behind in the richer countries.
See Barcleona Agreement / Treaty of the Mediterranean regarding the EU's longer term plan. https://www.barcelona.com/barcelona_news/the_barce...
The Commission does not appear to care about so few citizens subscribe to that long term plan https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
An excellent observation, people migrate towards prosperity.The EU model sort of works for the richer countries because FOM means they get young talent from the poorer countries on the cheap - and it works for poor countries because they get cash handed to them to level up their infrastructure with help to invest in new roads, airports, railways and their education systems etc.
The Brexit debate centred around whether or not you agreed with the EU’s long term plan. FOM has caused an exodus of young talent from PIGS and eastern European countries; consequently these poorest countries lose their most gifted young people. Conversely, FOM means that the richer countries have less incentive to invest in homegrown talent because they have a rich stream of well educated and low cost talent from overseas.
The problem with the model is wage suppression and stagnation for the middle classes in the richer countries. Wages and GDP grow rapidly in the poorer countries which makes it attractive for people to return…………potentially leaving a very large void behind in the richer countries.
See Barcleona Agreement / Treaty of the Mediterranean regarding the EU's longer term plan. https://www.barcelona.com/barcelona_news/the_barce...
The Commission does not appear to care about so few citizens subscribe to that long term plan https://www.politico.eu/article/most-citizens-not-...
roger.mellie said:
expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK)
It's worth bearing in mind that although the UK voted for X, y and z while in the EU, those holding that vote misrepresented the views of the UK consistently for at least the last 20 years, so it's not really a fair stick to beat us with.Remember Gordon Brown sneaking off to sign Lisbon because he knew we didn't want any part of it?
paulrockliffe said:
roger.mellie said:
expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK)
It's worth bearing in mind that although the UK voted for X, y and z while in the EU, those holding that vote misrepresented the views of the UK consistently for at least the last 20 years, so it's not really a fair stick to beat us with.Remember Gordon Brown sneaking off to sign Lisbon because he knew we didn't want any part of it?
The people making the decisions were further and further detached from the people they represented. It needed to stop.
This is the bit that many Remainers crying into their milk and bleating on about how destitute the country will be, will never ever understand.
As for Labour, those duplicitous arse stains promised a referendum on the treaty change. They weaseled out of it by saying the Lisbon Treaty was different to the Constitutional Treaty they promised about, which by that point had been kyboshed as a dog turd by sufficient numbers of other EU citizens...unfortunately the Lisbon Treaty was fundamentally no different.
Another example of a UK government pulling a fast one - the colour of the government matters not. They ALL brought this on themselves. Starting with Major (the big one IMO).
roger.mellie said:
gruffalo said:
roger.mellie said:
Apologies, forgot to reply to this point.
Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?)
GREECE?Creating a monetary union means a tighter fiscal one was always on the cards. That doesn’t bother me in principle but I do think the expansionist policies of the EU (strongly advocated for by the UK) have made it a much bigger can of worms. I can’t see that the UK would ever have been forced to join the euro, how much that would insulate them I don’t know.
I’d struggle to point at any eu member and say they’d have been better off never joining. But there are so many members now I’m not familiar with them all so I accept I could be wrong on that in some cases. In some ways it’s impossible to know, but the UK is now an experimental guinea pig that many will be watching.
(Is my iPad wanting to auto correct guinea to Guinness a sign of how frequently it’s part of my vocabulary ?
)I’d agree they’d have been far better off outside the euro with their recent woes but the euro isn’t the EU. Being able to use rampant currency devaluation to make up for political corruption is not an argument I’d make in favour of staying out
, but it’s an argument I’d accept against the euro.What would arguably have been the right thing for the people of Greece would have been to drop out of the Euro return to their original currency and devalue it to attract the tourists and export markets back. That was not allowed to happen because of the threat to the EU project that would cause.
When the project is more important than the people the project is meant to serve is that not an indication that the project is broken?
For Greece, Italy and Portugal their financial futures were sacrificed for the good of the EU not its people.
gruffalo said:
It the the EU that forced a regime change in Greece to make the country agree to take the bail out to make sure the Euro Zone did not disintegrate and therefore probably the EU as well.
What would arguably have been the right thing for the people of Greece would have been to drop out of the Euro return to their original currency and devalue it to attract the tourists and export markets back. That was not allowed to happen because of the threat to the EU project that would cause.
When the project is more important than the people the project is meant to serve is that not an indication that the project is broken?
For Greece, Italy and Portugal their financial futures were sacrificed for the good of the EU not its people.
The Greek bailout was to save the major European banks, who were all leveraged to such a level with Greek debt (because a Greek Euro was the same as a German Euro until they realised it wasnt as the ECB was a fake central bank) they would have taken down the entire European banking system. France was especially vulnerable.What would arguably have been the right thing for the people of Greece would have been to drop out of the Euro return to their original currency and devalue it to attract the tourists and export markets back. That was not allowed to happen because of the threat to the EU project that would cause.
When the project is more important than the people the project is meant to serve is that not an indication that the project is broken?
For Greece, Italy and Portugal their financial futures were sacrificed for the good of the EU not its people.
The troika forced Greece to accept that bailout, the money went into and then straight back out of Greece to pay down the over leveraged banks.
Greece should have defaulted, it would have cost them a fraction of the bailout costs, but it would have destroyed the Euro and most of the major banks.
Still a great talk 5 years on. https://youtu.be/rGvZil0qWPg
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff