The haggis is in the fire for sure

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Really it's been Germany that's been propping up the EU. The UK was really never that into it (note that it kept it's own currency.) I don't think the UK's leaving would effect the EU much. But I think it will have a huge negative effect on the UK. A lot of jobs are going to shift out of the UK to EU countries.

The EU will certainly hurt from losing its second-biggest economy, and a power with considerable global standing. If the UK crashes out with no deal, it will just hurt a lot more from losing the backing of the combined members, free trade with its biggest market, and the 40 third parties the EU has free trade agreements with. It's a question of relative scale.

The whole idea behind the EU was creating an entity with a combined political and economic weight that would allow it to negotiate at eye level with existing and emerging big powers like the US and China, rather than having terms dictated to individual smaller parties. That's in fact exactly what the UK has been experiencing in the negotiations surrounding Brexit. Not just with the EU; the British government claimed those 40 free trade agreements with third parties could simply be rubberstamped to apply to the post-Brexit UK.

In reality, they have only managed to do that with six smaller partners like Switzerland and Chile so far. Bigger countries like Canada, Japan and Turkey have seen no reason to give them the same favorable terms as they have the whole EU. The US government has already let them know that they'd pretty much have to accept American conditions in any kind of trade agreement. That's before we come to the several hundred international agreements on air travel, fishery, legal cooperation etc. the EU has in place.

I'm always puzzled when people claim that some organisation needs a particular member more than that member needs it. That may be true for the US in many cases, since it typically outpowers and outspends the combined majority of the other parties. But the UK is not even the biggest economic power in the EU, and in fact not even the second-biggest financial contributor despite its economy, since Margaret Thatcher secured a special rebate for it.

Other parties like Turkey and Greece have acted like the EU needed to oblige their demands in negotiations for accession or bailing them out of their financial troubles. Now some healthy self-confidence is always a good thing in negotiations, but there is a point you're just deluding yourself and setting yourself up for a crash with reality.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Really it's been Germany that's been propping up the EU. The UK was really never that into it (note that it kept it's own currency.) I don't think the UK's leaving would effect the EU much. But I think it will have a huge negative effect on the UK. A lot of jobs are going to shift out of the UK to EU countries.

The EU will certainly hurt from losing its second-biggest economy, and a power with considerable global standing. If the UK crashes out with no deal, it will just hurt a lot more from losing the backing of the combined members, free trade with its biggest market, and the 40 third parties the EU has free trade agreements with. It's a question of relative scale.

The whole idea behind the EU was creating an entity with a combined political and economic weight that would allow it to negotiate at eye level with existing and emerging big powers like the US and China, rather than having terms dictated to individual smaller parties. That's in fact exactly what the UK has been experiencing in the negotiations surrounding Brexit. Not just with the EU; the British government claimed those 40 free trade agreements with third parties could simply be rubberstamped to apply to the post-Brexit UK.

In reality, they have only managed to do that with six smaller partners like Switzerland and Chile so far. Bigger countries like Canada, Japan and Turkey have seen no reason to give them the same favorable terms as they have the whole EU. The US government has already let them know that they'd pretty much have to accept American conditions in any kind of trade agreement. That's before we come to the several hundred international agreements on air travel, fishery, legal cooperation etc. the EU has in place.

I'm always puzzled when people claim that some organisation needs a particular member more than that member needs it. That may be true for the US in many cases, since it typically outpowers and outspends the combined majority of the other parties. But the UK is not even the biggest economic power in the EU, and in fact not even the second-biggest financial contributor despite its economy, since Margaret Thatcher secured a special rebate for it.

Other parties like Turkey and Greece have acted like the EU needed to oblige their demands in negotiations for accession or bailing them out of their financial troubles. Now some healthy self-confidence is always a good thing in negotiations, but there is a point you're just deluding yourself and setting yourself up for a crash with reality.

Good post - lots of truehood in it.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Really it's been Germany that's been propping up the EU. The UK was really never that into it (note that it kept it's own currency.) I don't think the UK's leaving would effect the EU much. But I think it will have a huge negative effect on the UK. A lot of jobs are going to shift out of the UK to EU countries.

The EU will certainly hurt from losing its second-biggest economy, and a power with considerable global standing. If the UK crashes out with no deal, it will just hurt a lot more from losing the backing of the combined members, free trade with its biggest market, and the 40 third parties the EU has free trade agreements with. It's a question of relative scale.

The whole idea behind the EU was creating an entity with a combined political and economic weight that would allow it to negotiate at eye level with existing and emerging big powers like the US and China, rather than having terms dictated to individual smaller parties. That's in fact exactly what the UK has been experiencing in the negotiations surrounding Brexit. Not just with the EU; the British government claimed those 40 free trade agreements with third parties could simply be rubberstamped to apply to the post-Brexit UK.

In reality, they have only managed to do that with six smaller partners like Switzerland and Chile so far. Bigger countries like Canada, Japan and Turkey have seen no reason to give them the same favorable terms as they have the whole EU. The US government has already let them know that they'd pretty much have to accept American conditions in any kind of trade agreement. That's before we come to the several hundred international agreements on air travel, fishery, legal cooperation etc. the EU has in place.

I'm always puzzled when people claim that some organisation needs a particular member more than that member needs it. That may be true for the US in many cases, since it typically outpowers and outspends the combined majority of the other parties. But the UK is not even the biggest economic power in the EU, and in fact not even the second-biggest financial contributor despite its economy, since Margaret Thatcher secured a special rebate for it.

Other parties like Turkey and Greece have acted like the EU needed to oblige their demands in negotiations for accession or bailing them out of their financial troubles. Now some healthy self-confidence is always a good thing in negotiations, but there is a point you're just deluding yourself and setting yourself up for a crash with reality.

Good post - lots of truehood in it.

I respectfully disagree. While there may be some isolated examples of being worse off, the freedom from the EU will be a shit shot in the arm of Great Britain, and the will stronger, I believe, in every sense of the word. Freedom can be very difficult to quantify, but is very infectious.

Edited to fix typo!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bcereuss,

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:
While there may be some isolated examples of being worse off, the freedom from the EU will be a shit in the arm of Great Britain, and the will stronger, I believe, in every sense of the word.

Sorry for the cheap return, but I think you happened to get it exactly right by accident.

I think the more interesting aspect of this whole Brexit situation is that the UK has almost the exact same problem as the US. The elites in government are both detached from their citizens and unwilling to rule according to their demands and wishes. Whether Brexit is right/wrong, good/bad, is secondary to the fact that people voted in the majority to leave the EU, and parliament continues to ignore that direction. If government, both here and in the UK, continues to ignore the people who elect them, I don't see this ending well for anyone.

Can someone please just tell us- without 16 freaking paragraphs of European shit- just what is going on with this? I'm not asking for the freakin' history of postal deliveries in 16th century Dusselldorf, OK? Just tell us what all this means, and if Great Britain is going to actually be able to get away from the continental Eurotrash and their inevitabe rush towards Muslim disaster.

quote:

Just tell us what all this means, and if Great Britain is going to actually be able to get away from the continental Eurotrash and their inevitable rush towards Muslim disaster.

It's a good question.
Prime Minister Theresa May and many members of the British Parliament are attempting to do whatever they can to keep Brexit from happening.
The EU is making it clear that they want it to be painful for Britain to leave.
It's all supposed to happen on March 29 but I don't think anyone really knows what will happen on March 29 until we get there. Many in the British Parliament continue to push for delay or even a second referendum.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Prime Minister Theresa May and many members of the British Parliament are attempting to do whatever they can to keep Brexit from happening.
The EU is making it clear that they want it to be painful for Britain to leave.

Both just as I and many others predicted would happen.

Quite simply: A not insignificant portion of the populations in many of the EU member states are not particularly fond of the EU--which is looking and acting increasingly like a hegemony. (Also predicted by me and many others.) The EU knows that if the UK successfully exits the EU without the sky falling, other member states may be encouraged to follow suit. If enough member states exit: The EU will disintegrate.

So the UK must be made an example of. The EU will do whatever it must to ensure that either Brexit doesn't happen or the UK suffers badly if it does. (Actually, I expect the EU will ensure the UK suffers, either way, for having the temerity to even attempt to leave.)

There are several other states, one not even a member of the EU, the governments or citizens of which are balking at Brussels' edicts. I predict that if Brexit fails, this will encourage the EU to bear down on them--hard.

Btw: I expect this whole Brexit thing, and these other states balking at Brussels' control, is somehow going to be our fault

If you argue that the Brits voted for what Brexiteers promised them, the confusion in Parliament is actually pretty representative of the impossible mandate the government has been given: Leave the EU, but retain all the benefits of its Single Market with none of the obligations. This was based on the "they need us more than we need them" thought; the UK was supposedly such an important market that the EU would give in to all British demands out of its own economic interest. Hence Parliament first voting against the deal, then voting against a no-deal Brexit, then once more against the deal, etc. The fact that the referendum was 52 vs. 48 percent and both camps consider the other utter lunatics, and that there are leavers, moderates and remainers in both the government and opposition parties doesn't exactly help to fulfill "the will of the people".

The EU meanwhile is acting like any organization does: guarding the benefits of its members rather than giving it to (future) non-members, or it would have no reason to exist. Since the pre-determined end state is the UK leaving, the EU is under no obligation to give it anything; or you might as well ask the US and Canada to continue applying NAFTA rules to Mexico after it dropped out. Nor can it make the Brits fulfill any of its own demands if they reject the deal; they just have to be prepared to face the consequences of a hard Brexit. You can call that "making an example of the UK" (in fact public opinion of the EU has improved across all its member states since the Brexit referendum), but both sides are acting completely natural under the circumstances.

BTW, Muslim population in the UK was 6.3 percent in 2016, less than in (in order) Bulgaria with its native Turkish minority at 11.1, France, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands and Austria (all between about nine and seven), but more than all other European countries. Which had very little to do with the EU, but rather is the result of a century-plus of immigration by British Commonwealth citizens. That's not going to change with Brexit; in fact former Secretary of State for International Development Priti Patel (herself from an Ugandan Indian family) while campaigning for Brexit before the referendum promised that essential British industry, the curry house business, that they would get more staff from South Asia after freedom of movement for EU citizens to the UK ended. Which could be summed up as "Keep Britain British, out with the Poles, in with the Bangladeshi".

The British Parliament is very different than our Congress.

So what is the government motion being voted on today? Here it is, in its own words:

"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement."

And the vote is in - the UK parliament rejects a No-Deal Brexit by 312-308.

Still... The result of this vote will come as a shock to many. The narrow margin - a majority of just 4 - suggests some ministers are likely to have rebelled and voted against the government whip.

The amendment is not legally binding, so does not automatically change the process. It has no mechanism for avoiding no deal, and offers no further path away from one. No deal remains the legal default.

The question is, what will the EU do if the deadline hits and no deal is in place. Will they allow an extension?

The official line has been that an extension only makes sense if there is going to be another referendum or general elections, since the deal will not be renegotiated. And another referendum really only makes sense if it presents the options accept the deal, leave without a deal, or whatever, let's just stay. There are still people who hope for the latter, but even on the EU side most are tired and just want to get through with the split.

The thing is, there are elections for the European Parliament from 23 to 26 May, and it's highly unlikely the UK could organize a referendum to reverse the Brexit decision, then organize an election campaign for the EP in the remaining two months. However, if the UK was still an EU member by the time the new parliament convenes on 2 July without them having participated in the elections, all sorts of paradoxes would occur; they would have no parliamentary representation, couldn't elect the next president of the EU Commission or confirm the Commission as a whole, and in theory could be prosecuted under the EU treaties for withholding democratic participation from their citizens.

Also, the seats so far held by British MEPs have already been redistributed to give some smaller member states better representation in the future parliament. For all practical purposes, the ship for an exit from Brexit has sailed, and the limited remaining time would be best used to let the British electorate itself decide on deal or no deal to break the parliamentary stalemate.

Meanwhile. journalists and analysts have been baffled by May's continued insistence that MPs must choose between her deal, no deal or no Brexit. Even the most discerning observers in the Brexit press corp have no idea what might happen next, and although it doesn't take a genius to realize the wheels have finally come off May's Brexit clown car, Wall Street banks are finally beginning to revise their projections.

And while they're still probably still underestimating the probability that the UK crashes out of the trade bloc without a deal at the end of the month (just like they underestimating the likelihood that UK voters would opt to leave the EU), a team of analysts at Deutsche Bank that has been closely tracking different Brexit potentialities has raised the odds of a no-deal exit to their highest level yet - to 20%, from 15% in a prior assessment.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...her-it-has-ever-been

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
The thing is, there are elections for the European Parliament from 23 to 26 May, and it's highly unlikely the UK could organize a referendum to reverse the Brexit decision, then organize an election campaign for the EP in the remaining two months. However, if the UK was still an EU member by the time the new parliament convenes on 2 July without them having participated in the elections, all sorts of paradoxes would occur; they would have no parliamentary representation, couldn't elect the next president of the EU Commission or confirm the Commission as a whole, and in theory could be prosecuted under the EU treaties for withholding democratic participation from their citizens.

After yesterday's meeting of Theresa May with the heads of EU members, new immediate Brexit deadline is 12 April, which is apparently the latest point the UK could launch a campaign for the European Parliament elections by domestic regulations. If they don't sign off on the deal next week and don't unilaterally withdraw their application to leave by that date, they're out right there. If they agree to the deal, leave date will be 22 May.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Can someone please just tell us- without 16 freaking paragraphs of European shit- just what is going on with this? I'm not asking for the freakin' history of postal deliveries in 16th century Dusselldorf, OK? Just tell us what all this means, and if Great Britain is going to actually be able to get away from the continental Eurotrash and their inevitabe rush towards Muslim disaster.

Sir, it is not just Great Britain, but Northern Ireland as well, the fourth and often constituent part of the United Kingdom.

Great Britain is only England, Scotland and Wales.

And don't ask me, just because I live here means that I'm just 'too close to the tracks' to be able to distinguish what kind of a train is passing by. I'm just as confused about it as you are.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Can someone please just tell us- without 16 freaking paragraphs of European shit- just what is going on with this? I'm not asking for the freakin' history of postal deliveries in 16th century Dusselldorf, OK? Just tell us what all this means, and if Great Britain is going to actually be able to get away from the continental Eurotrash and their inevitabe rush towards Muslim disaster.

Sir, it is not just Great Britain, but Northern Ireland as well, the fourth and often constituent part of the United Kingdom.

Great Britain is only England, Scotland and Wales.

And don't ask me, just because I live here means that I'm just 'too close to the tracks' to be able to distinguish what kind of a train is passing by. I'm just as confused about it as you are.

The merits of Brexit aside, I can think of few huge examples of governments failing their constituents more spectacularly and publicly than in this effort. Talk about showing the English electorate that you're 1) utterly worthless and 2) completely disinterested in their opinion on a topic that they perceive to impact their lives. Wow, just wow!

Someone really could cash in on making some of these for this whole 'Brexit' thing.

BansheeOne

How accurate is the DOKU on the ZDF.de site about
'Die Größten Sieben Fehler Der EU?"

I found it quite enlightening. Fehler 1 was with the US being a silent partner in the grounding of the EU.

I know plenty of history, including European, most of it self-taught since in US schools its the US version of European history, focusing on the 'obvious' part of it.

The Irony of Brexit is that it was PM Cameron's attempt to remain / win election. Again, a Politician operating for their self-interest / profit over serving the people they are elected by. The verse 'You reap what you sow.' comes to mind.

Watched it just now. My main formal criticism would be that like so often in popular debate, it just subsumes all development in European integration prior to 1992 under "the EU" before its actual foundation, to the point they have to overlay an explanation when one interviewee uses the correct term of European Economic Community before that. While of course the EU evolved from the EEC, established in 1957 along with the European Atomic Energy Community (and the even earlier 1951 Coal and Steel Community, jointly known as the European Communities), there is a distinctly different political quality to it. I'm aware that time is precious on TV, but they could have spent 30 seconds on showing a timeline to explain that the EU didn't spring fully formed from Churchill's mind in 1948.

The points they bring up as critical, with possibly wrong decisions made, are valid in my opinion. The continued indulgence in British special demands; the acceptance of Greece (and other weak Southern European economies with different approaches to public and financial accountability); the habit of national politicians to leverage desired measures via Brussels, then blame regulation-happy "European bureaucrats" for them at home; the great Eastern European (possibly over-)extension post-Cold War; and the introduction of the Euro without regard to different economic performances of the member states, a French condition for German reunification aimed at reigning in the overbearing economic power of a competitor - which didn't quite turn out as intended.

Finally, the long-time democratic deficit in European decisions, though they do a good job of depicting the emancipation of the European Parliament in the 2005 election of Jean-Claude Juncker as Commission President. But unlike portrayed, it wasn't just David Cameron opposing this; others in the EU Council were reluctant to yield the power of the national governments to select the candidate, too. Including Angela Merkel, though Juncker was the candidate of her own European People's Party group in parliament. The major remaining lack is that the EP has no right of legal initiative, though again this is actually due to apprehension of the member states to share even more sovereignty with the supra-national pillar of the EU.

As for the American angle, this strikes me as being of a conspirationalist bend common in Europe, on both the political Left and Right - based upon the spectacular discovery that political alliances are founded not just upon altruism, but also hard interests of power and economy. This also shows up in the bits about Greece being admitted to avoid them falling under communist sway, and the connection between EU und NATO membership of the Eastern Europeans. Of course there is a similar long-standing narrative on the political fringes that the US is only in NATO for its own gain, neglecting that alliances of partners with common interests are for everybody's gain. Between noting that the US pushed for admittance of the UK, Greece and the Eastern Europeans, all that's missing is the frequent charge that it did the same for Turkey.

Basing the claim that the CIA wanted to bring about a European central state since the 40s on a line from a document warning about the danger to US interests from a possible economic collapse and consequent communist accession to power in Western Europe is on about the same level as Eurosceptics quoting former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing that "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly" - actually a criticism of such suggestions, taken out of context. Overall, there is a slight leftist bend to the critique in the ZDF piece, evident in the charge of "neo-liberalism" supposedly pushed onto the EU by Margaret Thatcher, and that introduction of the Euro was not accompanied by full economic and social union to counteract its distorting effects; i.e., internal balance of different performances, like within a national state.

It seems widely unknown in the US that Euroscepticism is not just a thing of the right, but also the left fringe in Europe itself; leftists frequently charge that the EU is hellbent on eroding workers' rights and protections, privatizing public services, etc. For example, the German Left Party has it written into their platform that it is a neo-liberal, undemocratic and militaristic tool of wealthy capitalists for the oppression of the masses. British opposition leader Jeremy Corbin, a throwback to the Labour Party's 70s hard left wing, is a bigger Eurosceptic than Theresa May. His former comrade George Galloway, thrown out of the party in 2003 for his anti-Zionist, anti-war, anti-American, pro-Palestinian activities campaigned for Brexit with Nigel Farage (who of course has claimed that the EU has been trying to make the UK privatize its National Health Service). Overall, the European far Left and Right typically share the same outlook on labor and welfare policy, which makes them natural allies against the "neo-liberal" EU.