Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Kentonio]

Hard right? He is just right.

I was basing that off this description from CNN..

Fillon aims to end the 35-hour work week, cut public spending, abolish the wealth tax, reduce immigration and invest 12 billion euros in security, defense and justice.

It also said he wants to fight the unions, voted against gay marraige, wants closer ties with Russia and supported the burkini ban.

Dial back 5 years before the current wave of far right extremism become almost commonplace and those positions would make him sound seriously hard right.

 

[JPRouve]

I was basing that off this description from CNN..



It also said he wants to fight the unions, voted against gay marraige, wants closer ties with Russia and supported the burkini ban.

Dial back 5 years before the current wave of far right extremism become almost commonplace and those positions would make him sound seriously hard right.

You dial back 5 years ago and people are against the 35 hours week(no one works 35 hours in the private), people want cuts in public spending, no one cares about wealth tax, he is against the medically assisted procreation but has nothing against gay marriage(politically), he hasn't asked for closer ties with Russia but he is against the sanctions and finally he is for a vote at the parliament concerning the Burkini ban because according to him this question can't rest on the mayors subjectivities.

 

[Kentonio]

You dial back 5 years ago and people are against the 35 hours week(no one works 35 hours in the private), people want cuts in public spending, no one cares about wealth tax, he is against the medically assisted procreation but has nothing against gay marriage(politically), he hasn't asked for closer ties with Russia but he is against the sanctions and finally he is for a vote at the parliament concerning the Burkini ban because according to him this question can't rest on the mayors subjectivities.

People want cuts in public spending? I guess that depends which people you talk to (although as he's almost certain to win next year I guess that's a majority of people).

 

[JPRouve]

People want cuts in public spending? I guess that depends which people you talk to (although as he's almost certain to win next year I guess that's a majority of people).

Yes, people want cuts in public spending at the exception of public workers, it has been a subject for as long as I can remember(since Jospin). Personally, I am not against it as long as it is done smartly and 500k public servant not replaced in 5 years, I think that he planned it on 7 years, isn't smart.

 

[Adebesi]

I actually quite like the EU citizenship opt-in idea. Not because it would be workable or particularly useful for me personally, as I am very unlikely to move out of the UK. But simply because it will piss the British Brexit crowd off no end.

At the end of the day I like Guy Verhofstadt more than David Davis, Boris Johnson or Liam Fox. Or pretty much any other Tory, for that matter.

 

[Adisa]

Government is facing another legal challenge.
This time against A127.
The lawyers claim, the referendum said nothing about the single market, so should not be part of any negotiations.
And if it is, parliament must vote.

 

[devilish]

I actually quite like the EU citizenship opt-in idea. Not because it would be workable or particularly useful for me personally, as I am very unlikely to move out of the UK. But simply because it will piss the British Brexit crowd off no end.

At the end of the day I like Guy Verhofstadt more than David Davis, Boris Johnson or Liam Fox. Or pretty much any other Tory, for that matter.

Why would it be the case? They should be thrilled of this cherry picking deal

 

[Adebesi]

Why would it be the case? They should be thrilled of this cherry picking deal

Youre right, its a very British way to deal with the issue.

 

[devilish]

Youre right, its a very British way to deal with the issue.

Seriously how can we, as Europeans, give unrestricted freedom of movement to a country who had left the EU primarly to restrict freedom of movement to us?

The EU would be stupid to offer it unless the UK is ready to offer the same to all EU citizens.

 

[Adebesi]

Seriously how can we, as Europeans, give unrestricted freedom of movement to a country who had left the EU primarly to restrict freedom of movement to us?

The EU would be stupid to offer it unless the UK is ready to offer the same to all EU citizens.

I guess it depends on how much money they were looking to charge Brits for this associate status.

But clearly this isnt about such practicalities, its about driving a wedge into the British electorate to exacerbate those divisions that have been exposed by the referendum. I mean, it surely isnt being presented as a piece of policy that anyone expects to ever materialise, its more a tactical move to try and destabilise the Brexiters? And it is probably good public relations in the EU as well if the idea generates interest, reminding people that not everyone in Britain is Eurosceptic.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[devilish]

I guess it depends on how much money they were looking to charge Brits for this associate status.

But clearly this isnt about such practicalities, its about driving a wedge into the British electorate to exacerbate those divisions that have been exposed by the referendum. I mean, it surely isnt being presented as a piece of policy that anyone expects to ever materialise, its more a tactical move to try and destabilise the Brexiters? And it is probably good public relations in the EU as well if the idea generates interest, reminding people that not everyone in Britain is Eurosceptic.

That's how I see it anyway.

I disagree. There's people in the EU (ex the federalists and the greens) who are obsessed with open borders and FOM, no questions or restrictions asked. I debate with these people every day. For example there's a big debate in my country about failed asylum seekers who are being deported. The Greens are upsolutely furious about it, arguing that its unfair bla bla bla.

Don't take me wrong, I agree with FOM (to a certain extent). However like anything good, it must be carefully managed else it becomes bad.

Believe it or not I share some of the Brexiteers concerns about FOM. However I believe that their arguments are wrongly placed. the EU should make restrictions in terms of FOM to avoid

a- crime shopping (ex were a person commit petty crimes across all Europe and use the fact that he's a first offender in that particular country to get away with it lightly)
b- benefit scoungers
c- ruthless companies who advertise vacancies only outside the country to pay little.

In my opinion this should be made illegal (in terms of C) and people who abuse of their freedom of movement should be barred from it for a couple of years.

 

[Adebesi]

I disagree. There's people in the EU (ex the federalists and the greens) who are obsessed with open borders and FOM, no questions or restrictions asked and will offer it to anyone and everybody. I debate with these people every day. For example there's a big debate in my country about failed asylum seekers who are being deported. The Greens are upsolutely furious about it, arguing that its unfair bla bla bla. Its really not the case.

Don't take me wrong, I agree with FOM (to a certain extent). However like anything good, it must be carefully managed else it becomes bad.

Believe it or not I share some of the Brexiteers concerns about FOM. However I believe that their arguments are wrongly placed. the EU should make restrictions in terms of FOM to avoid

a- thief shopping (ex were a person commit petty crimes across all Europe and use the fact that he's a first offender in that particular country to get away with it lightly)
b- benefit scoungers
c- ruthless companies who advertise vacancies only outside the country to pay little.

In my opinion this should be made illegal (in terms of C) and people who abuse of their freedom of movement should be barred from it for a couple of years.

OK... not sure what any of that has to do with the opt-in citizenship proposals though? I mean as you said, making, say, 20% of Brits associate EU members is not going to have any implications for freedom of movement into the UK, it would presumably allow Brits to go and live in the EU but I dont really see how that furthers the EU agenda of ever closer union and freedom of movement within the EU itself?

As far as what you are saying is concerned, I get the sense Brexiters are banking on there being a lot of this kind of sentiment bubbling under the surface in the EU. Once the negotiations begin in earnest and the Brits smile innocently and say, "all we ever wanted was the ability to put 'sensible limits' on freedom of movement, (and perhaps if you had given us more when Cameron was negotiating with you none of this would have happened)", some EU countries will (they (probably) hope) say, "well yeah, actually, now that the entire population of Syria is living in Germany, we quite want to restrict movement as well, as it happens...." Or maybe people will be looking at Belgium's inability to control its extremists, or the attacks that have happened in France, and wondering whether unrestricted movement makes sense for them - didnt a border go up somewhere like between Switzerland and France, or somewhere like that, somewhere Alpine?

 

[Dobba]

Government is facing another legal challenge.
This time against A127.
The lawyers claim, the referendum said nothing about the single market, so should not be part of any negotiations.
And if it is, parliament must vote.

If one of the judges is openly gay again, the meltdown from this will be biblical.

 

[devilish]

OK... not sure what any of that has to do with the opt-in citizenship proposals though? I mean as you said, making, say, 20% of Brits associate EU members is not going to have any implications for freedom of movement into the UK, it would presumably allow Brits to go and live in the EU but I dont really see how that furthers the EU agenda of ever closer union and freedom of movement within the EU itself?

As far as what you are saying is concerned, I get the sense Brexiters are banking on there being a lot of this kind of sentiment bubbling under the surface in the EU. Once the negotiations begin in earnest and the Brits smile innocently and say, "all we ever wanted was the ability to put 'sensible limits' on freedom of movement, (and perhaps if you had given us more when Cameron was negotiating with you none of this would have happened)", some EU countries will (they (probably) hope) say, "well yeah, actually, now that the entire population of Syria is living in Germany, we quite want to restrict movement as well, as it happens...." Or maybe people will be looking at Belgium's inability to control its extremists, or the attacks that have happened in France, and wondering whether unrestricted movement makes sense for them - didnt a border go up somewhere like between Switzerland and France, or somewhere like that, somewhere Alpine?

It does because they believe that the more people having freedom of movement to travel and work in Europe the better. Its purely ideological and hence why I never vote for the Greens.

From the vibes Im getting, mainstream EU people, know exactly what Brexit is and while they will use Brexit to push necessary reforms they will also make sure that the UK will not go cherry picking. There's also an increase in awareness that the Brexit government is shaking and trembling. Who knows maybe if they make stiff resistance then maybe this house of cards will fall and Brexit won't happen at all.

 

[Adebesi]

It does because they believe that the more people having freedom of movement to travel and work in Europe the better. Its purely ideological and hence why I never vote for the Greens.

From the vibes Im getting, mainstream EU people, know exactly what Brexit is and while they will use Brexit to push necessary reforms they will also make sure that the UK will not go cherry picking. There's also an increase in awareness that the Brexit government is shaking and trembling. Who knows maybe if they make stiff resistance then maybe this house of cards will fall and Brexit won't happen at all.

I still dont quite follow, surely freedom of movement is a quid pro quo thing, as you suggested in your original comment that triggered this conversation. If EU citizens cant work in the UK, why would it be an advantage to let more Brits in to compete with EU residents for jobs? I mean, if this is about ideology trumping economics why limit this to the UK? Why not tell the Chinese they can become EU citizens for the bargain price of €500 per year, then they can have billions more people wandering around the EU willy nilly.

Having said all that the fact I dont understand it doesnt mean you arent right, who knows what motivates politicians.

What I would say is that what I was suggesting - suggesting in terms of it looking like part of the British gameplan (to the extent we have one) is NOT that the UK is allowed to cherry pick. Quite the opposite. What it might be banking on is that the things that the UK wants, actually a lot of people across Europe want. Obviously as you have said, a lot of people want the exact opposite as well, the FOM purists, the ever closer union people, the Federalists. But the EU might be facing an existential threat here (reminder: I am not arguing my own opinion here, I am hypothesising about possible Brexit strategy plans and hopes) and with so much anti EU and anti immigration sentiment, it might conclude a tactical retreat on this is necessary to avoid complete collapse. I think the UK believes that while the EU parliament is absolutely opposed to what Brexiters want, the EU council might be more persuadable because their own voters feel similarly to how the UK voters feel.

Or it could go the other way, as you said: confidence in the UK keeps falling, Fillon and other pro EU candidates win around Europe leaving UK isolated, and eventually Britain does a u turn and says we're sorry please let us stay, please please please.

Both scenarios look quite possible to me. As does Le Pen winning in France, declaring France will withdraw and the EU just collapsing. And numerous other scenarios. We live in interesting times, anything seems possible all of a sudden.

 

[Adebesi]

There's also a source of disharmony in the EU that has nothing at all to do with Brexit and that is attitudes towards Russia. Itll be interesting to see how that dynamic influences EU politics in the next couple of years.

 

[devilish]

I still dont quite follow, surely freedom of movement is a quid pro quo thing, as you suggested in your original comment that triggered this conversation. If EU citizens cant work in the UK, why would it be an advantage to let more Brits in to compete with EU residents for jobs? I mean, if this is about ideology trumping economics why limit this to the UK? Why not tell the Chinese they can become EU citizens for the bargain price of €500 per year, then they can have billions more people wandering around the EU willy nilly.

Having said all that the fact I dont understand it doesnt mean you arent right, who knows what motivates politicians.

What I would say is that what I was suggesting - suggesting in terms of it looking like part of the British gameplan (to the extent we have one) is NOT that the UK is allowed to cherry pick. Quite the opposite. What it might be banking on is that the things that the UK wants, actually a lot of people across Europe want. Obviously as you have said, a lot of people want the exact opposite as well, the FOM purists, the ever closer union people, the Federalists. But the EU might be facing an existential threat here (reminder: I am not arguing my own opinion here, I am hypothesising about possible Brexit strategy plans and hopes) and with so much anti EU and anti immigration sentiment, it might conclude a tactical retreat on this is necessary to avoid complete collapse. I think the UK believes that while the EU parliament is absolutely opposed to what Brexiters want, the EU council might be more persuadable because their own voters feel similarly to how the UK voters feel.

Or it could go the other way, as you said: confidence in the UK keeps falling, Fillon and other pro EU candidates win around Europe leaving UK isolated, and eventually Britain does a u turn and says we're sorry please let us stay, please please please.

Both scenarios look quite possible to me. As does Le Pen winning in France, declaring France will withdraw and the EU just collapsing. And numerous other scenarios. We live in interesting times, anything seems possible all of a sudden.

FOM has its set of challenges and its own set of advantages. One big advantage is that countries are more willing to give other foreign countries unrestricted access to their market if they know that its own people can move to that country and be treated like citizens there. That allow both countries to prosper as businesses have the flexibility they need to make the best out of both worlds. Take the car industry as an example. Eastern Europe provides cheap labour while countries like France and the UK can provide highly skilled labour. Hence a company can build factories in both countries, exploiting these two countries diverse characteristic, without having to face red tape and tarriffs. The UK wont be able to do everything itself because the costs of building such cars and selling it to a tariff heavy Europe makes it unfeasable for companies to do so and the Eastern European countries are able to take a slice of the cake by getting part of the business + they can offer their citizens freedom of movement to the entire continent. Such deal works for everybody.

I find the UK 'we want unrestricted access to your money and market but feck off from my land' stance as both unfeasable and outrageous. Hence why I agree with the EU stance that unless the UK accepts unrestricted freedom of movement then it shouldn't be allowed to have unrestricted access to the single market. If the UK insist on control over its border then I am in favour of the UK being offered the same deal given to another European ally (ie Canada) and for Scotland and Northern Ireland to be given a quick route into the EU as long as they leave the UK and treat England/Wales as a third country but that is all.

Returning to subject. This proposal was Charles Goerens a liberal and was backed by Guy Verhofstadt another liberal. I confess that I don't have contact with these people but I do have contact with people in my country who support them (the Green party) and I believe that I can do 1+1 together and understand the philosophy behind it. These people tend to be big supporters of an open border policy. They are usually at the front line whenever this concept is threatened whether its between one EU country to another (threat to the Shengen deal) or between an EU country to a non EU country. Anything who goes against that concept is judged by them as xenophobic and bigoted. In matter of fact, they find the very concept of having borders as racist and bigoted.

This deal is yet another attempt to push their agenda. If they actually win it then they will push to phase 2 were other third countries who happen to be allies to the EU as the UK is (US?, Canada?, Turkey?) will be offered the same deal. After that they will probably argue that its ridiculous that we offer rich immigrants a chance of buying their way into the EU but we do not offer the same deal for people who are too poor to afford it. . Hence they will use that argument as a way to open the gates to non EU people who wouldn't qualify for neither a work permit nor rights of asylum.

Luckily for us, these people make part of a minority whose getting smaller by the second.

 

[Adisa]

There's also a source of disharmony in the EU that has nothing at all to do with Brexit and that is attitudes towards Russia. Itll be interesting to see how that dynamic influences EU politics in the next couple of years.

i expect the sanctions to be lifted within two years regardless of Russia's actions. There simply isn't enough political will, to take a tough stance against Russia.

 

[Adebesi]

I find the UK 'we want unrestricted access to your money and market but feck off from my land' stance as both unfeasable and outrageous. Hence why I agree with the EU stance that unless the UK accepts unrestricted freedom of movement then it shouldn't be allowed to have unrestricted access to the single market. If the UK insist on control over its border then I am in favour of the UK being offered the same deal given to another European ally (ie Canada) and for Scotland and Northern Ireland to be given a quick route into the EU as long as they leave the UK and treat England/Wales as a third country but that is all.

Agree 100%. The UK should NOT be allowed free access to the single market if it wants to restrict immigration. UNLESS it is able to rewrite the rules for immigration that apply across the board to all EU members. So UK does not get special treatment, but the rules for everyone are changed in a way that the UK and other members can live with.

 

[Adebesi]

i expect the sanctions to be lifted within two years regardless of Russia's actions. There simply isn't enough political will, to take a tough stance against Russia.

Especially if the US lifts them first.

 

[devilish]

Agree 100%. The UK should NOT be allowed free access to the single market if it wants to restrict immigration. UNLESS it is able to rewrite the rules for immigration that apply across the board to all EU members. So UK does not get special treatment, but the rules for everyone are changed in a way that the UK and other members can live with.

The funny thing is that Brexit will make any reform in terms of FOM more difficult. EU beurocrats who might have been keen to tweak the rules a bit to make sure it remains in the EU will now argue that they won't accept any reforms because that will allow the UK to cherry pick it deal. The UK was way more influential in Europe when it was part of the EU then outside of it

 

[Adebesi]

The funny thing is that Brexit will make any reform in terms of FOM more difficult. EU beurocrats who might have been keen to tweak the rules a bit to make sure it remains in the EU will now argue that they won't accept any reforms because that will allow the UK to cherry pick it deal. The UK was way more influential in Europe when it was part of the EU then outside of it

Again, I agree with your last statement.

I am bothered by your repeated use of the words 'cherry pick' though, because I am not suggesting the EU will allow the UK "a la carte" access, which is what cherry picking implies. Rather, the main hope of the UK finding a resolution is convincing the EU that its own voters also want the same changes that the UK wants (which I think many of them do) and that the rules should be changed FOR ALL. That is not cherry picking.

If the EU wanted to do that anyway it really should have done it when Cameron was trying to negotiate a new settlement before the vote. The EU cannot ignore the role it played in all this. Of course the UK is mainly culpable, but the EU was its usual stubborn and arrogant self. Speaking as a liberal who values open borders in Europe, the EU should have recognised the concerns that many, many Europeans (and Americans, and others) have about immigration, and addressed them in a meaningful way. But no, as we saw with Cameron, the fact that someone asks for it is reason enough to say no. That is the small thing I disagree on. "EU beurocrats who might have been keen to tweak the rules a bit to make sure it remains in the EU will now argue that they won't accept any reforms." The have already shown they were not willing to tweak the rules. They will dig their heels in now, they dug their heels in when we asked nicely. What do you actually have to do to get what you want, not even ask? No, the truth is the EU is completely dysfunctional. I console myself with the hope that it is only through crises that meaningful change ever happens, and that maybe, out of all this, a better EU (inc UK) will emerge, that addresses the concerns of voters, and becomes more accountable. Either through collapse of the existing EU (which I think is now necessary if something better is to take its place) or through urgent reform that is taken once another member says it wants out, and it realises the writing is on the wall.

Having said that, as I said, I agree that the UK was more influential inside than it will be out. Brexiters feel we are utterly without influence in Europe, because we cannot control it. They ignore the fact that the UK was its free trade champion, and that the single market would not be what it is today without UK influence. For that matter, the EU would probably not have been enlarged eastwards without UK influence. That second statement is far more speculative and debatable, but it is a matter of record that the UK argued for expansion. Making it all the more ridiculous that it was enlargement, and inclusion of weaker economies into the bloc, that created "problem" immigration, which ultimately led us to vote to leave. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

 

[devilish]

Again, I agree with your last statement.

I am bothered by your repeated use of the words 'cherry pick' though, because I am not suggesting the EU will allow the UK "a la carte" access, which is what cherry picking implies. Rather, the main hope of the UK finding a resolution is convincing the EU that its own voters also want the same changes that the UK wants (which I think many of them do) and that the rules should be changed FOR ALL. That is not cherry picking.

If the EU wanted to do that anyway it really should have done it when Cameron was trying to negotiate a new settlement before the vote. The EU cannot ignore the role it played in all this. Of course the UK is mainly culpable, but the EU was its usual stubborn and arrogant self. Speaking as a liberal who values open borders in Europe, the EU should have recognised the concerns that many, many Europeans (and Americans, and others) have about immigration, and addressed them in a meaningful way. But no, as we saw with Cameron, the fact that someone asks for it is reason enough to say no. That is the small thing I disagree on. "EU beurocrats who might have been keen to tweak the rules a bit to make sure it remains in the EU will now argue that they won't accept any reforms." The have already shown they were not willing to tweak the rules. They will dig their heels in now, they dug their heels in when we asked nicely. What do you actually have to do to get what you want, not even ask? No, the truth is the EU is completely dysfunctional. I console myself with the hope that it is only through crises that meaningful change ever happens, and that maybe, out of all this, a better EU (inc UK) will emerge, that addresses the concerns of voters, and becomes more accountable. Either through collapse of the existing EU (which I think is now necessary if something better is to take its place) or through urgent reform that is taken once another member says it wants out, and it realises the writing is on the wall.

Having said that, as I said, I agree that the UK was more influential inside than it will be out. Brexiters feel we are utterly without influence in Europe, because we cannot control it. They ignore the fact that the UK was its free trade champion, and that the single market would not be what it is today without UK influence. For that matter, the EU would probably not have been enlarged eastwards without UK influence. That second statement is far more speculative and debatable, but it is a matter of record that the UK argued for expansion. Making it all the more ridiculous that it was enlargement, and inclusion of weaker economies into the bloc, that created "problem" immigration, which ultimately led us to vote to leave. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

If you ask me, the UK should have never been allowed to be part of the EU. It was a never a European country to start with. Ever since Julius Caesar marched his legions to Brittania forcing it to become part of Europe, the British Isles had seen a Unified and strong Europe as an enemy to fear and avoid. A divided Europe who was busy fighting one another provided protection from the French and Spanish powerhouses and brought prosperity to the Brits who were allowed to build its own empire with little competition. Hence why the British empire were at the fore front to stop anyone willing to unify Europe by engaging itself to war and financing anyone willing to weaken any European empire. Case in point is the unification of Italy who was heavily financed by the British who saw it as a way to weaken the Austrian empire. Till this very day there’s resentment to that with the Southerners hating the Northerners and the Northerners feeling more North Europeans then Italian themselves.
You might dismiss history as irrelevant but it is not. Till this very day (and even within this very thread) you’ll find Brexiteers who hope that Le Pen wins, that the Italians leave the Euro or any other opportunity which might bring the EU crashing to the ground. Brexit in itself is an attempt to that. A direct hit to the EU project at a time when its weak. Don’t take me wrong, the Europeans are far from immune to such irrational and innate hatred themselves. Most of continental Europe hates Russia in the same way the Brits hate Europe. It is a mentality that is buried so deep in the European psyche and which is way older then Russian communism which is, probably, the only justification for such hatred.

Returning to Brexit, the main problem is a cultural shock. The UK likes to talk big and tend to get things done quickly. They adore politicians like Thatcher and Churchill who got things done even though they might have cut corners into doing it (which ended up hurting entire communities). The EU is obsessed with getting the consensus of everyone and to give a voice to everybody. Hence why things move at a glacier pace and why little Wallonia nearly sunk one of the best trade deals Europe had ever made. The EU concept of shared democracy is interpreted as a threat to a country’s sovereignty and red tape at the other side of the border. On the other hand the British concept of bullying its way and come out with a pro business deal quickly is interpreted as cherry picking and bullying in mainland Europe. The UK will argue that enlarging the EU with Eastern European countries would upset the balance. The EU will counter to that by saying that the EU allowed the UK in when it was the sick person in Europe and thanks to the EU its now a financial powerhouse. That can happen also with these countries (and in some occasions it did ex Poland). Please don't take me wrong in my opinion the truth is somehow in the middle. For every success story (Ex Poland and Malta) there's a Bulgaria or Hungary who see the EU as a dumping ground for their own undesirable people.Not to forget that the EU obsession of giving everyone a voice and its reluctance in intruding in a sovereign country internal politics is being exploited by the so called populist who are usually lead by uneducated people (Bossi, Salvini, Farage, Grillo etc) who hope to make a quick buck by hitting the gentle giant who never hits back.

Cameron would have probably got a good deal if only he was ready to work at the EU’s pace and way ie by slowly building up his pool of allies and keep pushing and pushing until he got what he wanted. Case in point is the Dublin 2 regulation that pushed the immigration problem right on the Southern EU countries laps and which was a big win by the anti FOM fans. There are many countries (even among the FOM fans like Spain, France and Italy) who are keen to put guards on FOM especially in terms of crime and benefit shopping. All they needed was a leader and the UK could have been that leader. Unfortunately for everybody Cameron made a promise he couldn’t possibly maintain (ie a serious reduction to the immigration rate) even if the country left the EU. He continued fudging the issue by trying to negotiate a deal in a totally unrealistic timeframes and rightly so, he ended up with nothing but hot air.

To conclude what we’re left with is a mess. The UK won’t get the deal it wants because the EU is determined not to give it to it and the EU have lost an important member who had the potential to change things up. Lets hope that Fillon can be the guy that push the EU for some serious reforms. Surely it won’t be the UK who will, most probably lose every shred of influence over the continent.

 

[Adebesi]

@devilish You are fond of the odd tangent arent you?

Thanks though, interesting thoughts. And I assure you, as a history graduate I agree it is very relevant.

You probably have a good point that things could have been achieved with more time. But how much more? Before the referendum I essentially agreed with you, i.e. I thought the democratisation of the EU was possible, despite all evidence to the contrary. I voted to remain, despite feeling the EU is dysfunctional and deeply imperfect, because a) I believed that change could and would come, but it would be slow, as you said, and b) because even with its imperfections I thought it was better than the alternative.

But now we are where we are. And so now I do find myself in the slightly perverse position of wanting to see the EU fail, as I said, so that it can do a Phoenix from the Flames routine and be born again as a fully democratic, accountable entity without this mania for centralisation, that I do not believe has a mandate, certainly not in the UK but I suspect in most other places as well. I mean, I am actually more open to European federalism than most people, definitely in the UK but I suspect more than the European average as well. I like Europe's political instincts, which are far more socially liberal than the UK's. Where many of my fellow Brits see interference and red tape, I see protection of workers' rights. But it does have to be more democratic than it is and, Im sorry, and maybe this is where you tell me the UK and Europe are fundamentally incompatible, it needs to happen faster. Look around you, the world is falling apart, pussyfooting about trying to reach a perfect consensus, which by the way means fudging things so that everybody has a completely different idea about what was agreed - which means that in fact nothing was actually agreed, it was only the appearance of agreement - is not going to cut it.

If it carries on as it is it wont work out anyway, whether Le Pen wins or not, whatever Italy decides, whatever the outcome of German elections. Europe is buckling under the weight of its own contradictions. It has monetary union but will not countenance fiscal union or issuing central, EU bonds. It has open borders but no unified border control. It wants to centralise everything, but is so obsessed with consensus (as you said) that it is unable to take simple decisions.

 

[JPRouve]

I thought the democratisation of the EU was possible, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The EU is democratic, there isn't a single non democratic aspect of it.

 

[Adebesi]

The EU is democratic, there isn't a single non democratic aspect of it.

Well people can elect MEPs to the EU Parliament, so that is democratic, and it is more the fault of people who cant be bothered to vote for it, rather than being undemocratic. But I guess the complaint is that the Parliament doesnt seem to do anything meaningful and most real decisions are taken behind closed doors within the Council. That is democratic in the sense of comprising representatives of democratically elected national governments. But it lacks transparency and accountability. And there is also a sense that basically Germany decides what happens in Europe, which doesnt feel very democratic to a lot of people.

 

[Kentonio]

Again, I agree with your last statement.

I am bothered by your repeated use of the words 'cherry pick' though, because I am not suggesting the EU will allow the UK "a la carte" access, which is what cherry picking implies. Rather, the main hope of the UK finding a resolution is convincing the EU that its own voters also want the same changes that the UK wants (which I think many of them do) and that the rules should be changed FOR ALL. That is not cherry picking.

If the EU wanted to do that anyway it really should have done it when Cameron was trying to negotiate a new settlement before the vote. The EU cannot ignore the role it played in all this. Of course the UK is mainly culpable, but the EU was its usual stubborn and arrogant self. Speaking as a liberal who values open borders in Europe, the EU should have recognised the concerns that many, many Europeans (and Americans, and others) have about immigration, and addressed them in a meaningful way. But no, as we saw with Cameron, the fact that someone asks for it is reason enough to say no. That is the small thing I disagree on. "EU beurocrats who might have been keen to tweak the rules a bit to make sure it remains in the EU will now argue that they won't accept any reforms." The have already shown they were not willing to tweak the rules. They will dig their heels in now, they dug their heels in when we asked nicely. What do you actually have to do to get what you want, not even ask? No, the truth is the EU is completely dysfunctional. I console myself with the hope that it is only through crises that meaningful change ever happens, and that maybe, out of all this, a better EU (inc UK) will emerge, that addresses the concerns of voters, and becomes more accountable. Either through collapse of the existing EU (which I think is now necessary if something better is to take its place) or through urgent reform that is taken once another member says it wants out, and it realises the writing is on the wall.

Having said that, as I said, I agree that the UK was more influential inside than it will be out. Brexiters feel we are utterly without influence in Europe, because we cannot control it. They ignore the fact that the UK was its free trade champion, and that the single market would not be what it is today without UK influence. For that matter, the EU would probably not have been enlarged eastwards without UK influence. That second statement is far more speculative and debatable, but it is a matter of record that the UK argued for expansion. Making it all the more ridiculous that it was enlargement, and inclusion of weaker economies into the bloc, that created "problem" immigration, which ultimately led us to vote to leave. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that immigration reform is necessary and beneficial. From that assumption you build up to a conclusion that the EU is 'completely dysfunctional'.

That's a pretty huge assumption.

 

[JPRouve]

Well people can elect MEPs to the EU Parliament, so that is democratic, and it is more the fault of people who cant be bothered to vote for it, rather than being undemocratic. But I guess the complaint is that the Parliament doesnt seem to do anything meaningful and most real decisions are taken behind closed doors within the Council. That is democratic in the sense of comprising representatives of democratically elected national governments. But it lacks transparency and accountability. And there is also a sense that basically Germany decides what happens in Europe, which doesnt feel very democratic to a lot of people.

Germany doesn't decide shit, since everything requires a qualified majority or unanimity, and there are vetoes on pretty much everything, so everyone is responsible for every decisions taken by the council and therefore the EU.

The Council is the executive and like everywhere else the executive takes most of the decisions but the parliament is the controlling organ, he shares the budgetary power with the council and he has a say in matters of "foreign" deals.

Transparency and accountabilty, the EU isn't less transparent than any other country and as for accountability every nationals have the power to decide who seats at the council table through elections, so if they are not happy about their country foreign policy they should elect someone else.

 

[Stanley Road]

the EU should have recognised the concerns that many, many Europeans (and Americans, and others) have about immigration, and addressed them in a meaningful way.

But that would mean listening to people, something the EU leaders keep saying they need to start doing, which means they aren't at the moment, don't hold your breath

 

[Adebesi]

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that immigration reform is necessary and beneficial. From that assumption you build up to a conclusion that the EU is 'completely dysfunctional'.

That's a pretty huge assumption.

No I think it's dysfunctional in everything it does, immigration is simply an example. It's more its paralysing inability to take decisions and its tendency to fudge the decisions it does take, in order to secure general agreement, that makes it dysfunctional.

 

[JPRouve]

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that immigration reform is necessary and beneficial. From that assumption you build up to a conclusion that the EU is 'completely dysfunctional'.

That's a pretty huge assumption.

And it assumes that EU members want a reform of the custom Union, something that they clearly don't want. No one wants to send more money to the EU along with the actual customs powers, that's one of the most powerful administration.

 

[Tyrion]

I was basing that off this description from CNN..



It also said he wants to fight the unions, voted against gay marraige, wants closer ties with Russia and supported the burkini ban.

Dial back 5 years before the current wave of far right extremism become almost commonplace and those positions would make him sound seriously hard right.

True but not wanting to destroy every institution the West has built over the last 50+ years makes you centre right at worse now. Obviously this is all the left's fault. Somehow.

 

[Tyrion]

No I think it's dysfunctional in everything it does, immigration is simply an example. It's more its paralysing inability to take decisions and its tendency to fudge the decisions it does take, in order to secure general agreement, that makes it dysfunctional.

Does that not describe every democratic government in the world over the last 5-10 years?

 

[Adebesi]

Does that not describe every democratic government in the world over the last 5-10 years?

It probably does to some extent. That's OK when the sun is shining but becomes a problem when times are tough. So I doubt Trump will be the only "anti establishment" victory we'll see in coming months.

 

[devilish]

@devilish You are fond of the odd tangent arent you?

Thanks though, interesting thoughts. And I assure you, as a history graduate I agree it is very relevant.

You probably have a good point that things could have been achieved with more time. But how much more? Before the referendum I essentially agreed with you, i.e. I thought the democratisation of the EU was possible, despite all evidence to the contrary. I voted to remain, despite feeling the EU is dysfunctional and deeply imperfect, because a) I believed that change could and would come, but it would be slow, as you said, and b) because even with its imperfections I thought it was better than the alternative.

But now we are where we are. And so now I do find myself in the slightly perverse position of wanting to see the EU fail, as I said, so that it can do a Phoenix from the Flames routine and be born again as a fully democratic, accountable entity without this mania for centralisation, that I do not believe has a mandate, certainly not in the UK but I suspect in most other places as well. I mean, I am actually more open to European federalism than most people, definitely in the UK but I suspect more than the European average as well. I like Europe's political instincts, which are far more socially liberal than the UK's. Where many of my fellow Brits see interference and red tape, I see protection of workers' rights. But it does have to be more democratic than it is and, Im sorry, and maybe this is where you tell me the UK and Europe are fundamentally incompatible, it needs to happen faster. Look around you, the world is falling apart, pussyfooting about trying to reach a perfect consensus, which by the way means fudging things so that everybody has a completely different idea about what was agreed - which means that in fact nothing was actually agreed, it was only the appearance of agreement - is not going to cut it.

If it carries on as it is it wont work out anyway, whether Le Pen wins or not, whatever Italy decides, whatever the outcome of German elections. Europe is buckling under the weight of its own contradictions. It has monetary union but will not countenance fiscal union or issuing central, EU bonds. It has open borders but no unified border control. It wants to centralise everything, but is so obsessed with consensus (as you said) that it is unable to take simple decisions.

In my opinion we won’t be able to really discuss Brexit and any future relationship between the EU and the UK without going deep in the psyche of both parties.

There are two types of immigrants ie EU immigrants and asylum seekers.

You’ve asked me a good question and the short answer to that is I do not know. What I do know is

a- There are already systems in place to try and limit FOM abusers and it was up the UK government to start to use them. However I have to admit that they were not enough.

b- Regarding EU immigrants - Many countries admit that there need to be some sort of reform in terms of FOM and that include some big guns. France for example had been deporting ROMA people since 2009. The Italians aren’t very fond of them either and so are the Spanish and the Greeks. Don’t forget that most of these countries have a thriving tourism industry and the last thing they want is having a horde of petty thieves around. For example I was raised in a country were pickpocketing was not existent. Nowadays it is not uncommon to hear that someone had his mobile phone nicked and I assure you people aren’t happy with it and expect the government to do something about it. No wonder why Joseph Muscat had said that whatever deals the UK gets it should be made available to everybody within the EU.

c- The asylum seeker issue is more complicated however things are changing on that matter too. In the past when Malta complained about the immigration flow, people like Malmstrom would come to our country throwing cents to us to try and silence us down (it never worked anyway). When Italy insisted on pushback all hell went loose, with Italy being dragged into court and all Europe labelling it as racist. Nowadays Greece had sealed its own pushback deal with Turkey, the EU had just signed repatriation deals with many African countries (including Mali) and pushback had been suggested by German Wolfgang Schaeuble as yet another option to consider. Once mandatory burden sharing fail (it will fail because the Eastern European bloc doesn’t want it) then the pandora’s box will open. Southern Europe will argue that an alternative to it is needed (ie more pushback and repatriation deals) and they will also point out that its unfair for them to accept FOM from eastern Europeans when EE refuse to lend a hand in terms of asylum seekers and refugees. This can lead to either the EE being pushed out (the EU will need a mandate for that) which will pave the way for Mandatory burden sharing or more pushbacks. On that terms its a shame that the UK is jumping ship at this crucial stage because it would have been quite an ally for reform.

As said I don’t think that the UK should have been in the EU in the first place. It speaks a different language altogether and has an innate fear of a united Europe, which, tbf, is understandable considering its history. The democracy thing is yet another case of how the UK struggles to understand the European psyche. The EU is democratic but it is heavily stacked towards giving every country a meaningful voice. That is why Wallonia nearly sunk CETA while England is dragging out Scotland and Northern Ireland outside the EU like a typical 1950s teacher dragging out two naughty 6 year old pupils out of class.


That leads us to the beginning ie the UK should have never been allowed in the EU in the first place. In matter of fact I think that the UK is more comfortable with the US than with any European country. When you think about the UK Prime ministers and their best partners in ‘crime’ you’ll think of Churchill and Roosevelt, Thatcher and Reagan and more recently Bush and Blair and Trump and Farage. You won't think of Cameron and Renzi, Churchill and De Gaulle or May and Merkel

I hope that the EU reform. Either way I also hope that the UK is kept at an arm's length and away from having any influence whatsoever. Its good for us and its good for them.

 

[Adebesi]

@devilish Definitely I hope the EU reforms and, as much as you dont want us, I hope the UK finds a way to stay in - without completely ignoring the result of the referendum. So that means EU reform so that the UK is happy to stay. I dont expect that to happen though. As I said before I personally like Europe and I like what the EU tries to be. I think you are right that the UK is closer to the US than it is to Europe, but that is not true for all its citizens.

Im not sure what the good question I asked you was - but thanks for the interesting answers to it anyway.

 

[JPRouve]

@devilish Definitely I hope the EU reforms and, as much as you dont want us, I hope the UK finds a way to stay in - without completely ignoring the result of the referendum. So that means EU reform so that the UK is happy to stay. I dont expect that to happen though. As I said before I personally like Europe and I like what the EU tries to be. I think you are right that the UK is closer to the US than it is to Europe, but that is not true for all its citizens.

Im not sure what the good question I asked you was - but thanks for the interesting answers to it anyway.

What type of reforms do you want?

 

[Adebesi]

What type of reforms do you want?

I would like it to be more accountable. You have already dismissed my assertion that there is a democratic deficit in the EU so I dont suppose you will see anything substantive in that. Less of the waste, no decamping to Strasbourg once a month, more decisiveness.

Ultimately, as I have said before, I like Europe. So my desire for reform is less about a personal wish list, which might have things like less immigration or less red tape on it. I dont especially want to see less of either of those things, personally. But apparently a majority in the UK do want to see those kinds of things, and if we dont get them, meaning if the whole of the EU doesnt get them, we will be out. And that is what I dont want to see.

So if voters feel there is a problem with immigration, Id like to see reforms that addressed those concerns. Even though I personally dont have a problem with immigration, (people will tell me that is because my job is safe from the competition and wage pressures they bring.)

A tiered approach to EU integration is probably the only way forward that allows us to stay in. If I remember rightly that is something the UK has traditionally fought against - for the reasons Devilish hinted at, that the UK worries about a strong and functioning Europe, and a core that harmonised further without us there to put the breaks on would be impossible for the UK to control. But maybe we will get to the point where we transcend that kind of realpolitik. Further harmonisation is definitely needed to make the euro work, so the eurozone should push on with the necessary integration which will make it a core United States of Europe, there will be no end to the eurozone crises unless that happens. But obviously the UK would need to move in the opposite direction if it was to stay in.

So yes, reforms that address the concerns of UK voters (immigration and an end to the gravy train) and whatever concerns voters in other countries have. More accountable, with a core free to move ahead with more integration and others allowed to opt out of that and treat it more as a free trade zone with common standards.

 

[devilish]

@devilish Definitely I hope the EU reforms and, as much as you dont want us, I hope the UK finds a way to stay in - without completely ignoring the result of the referendum. So that means EU reform so that the UK is happy to stay. I dont expect that to happen though. As I said before I personally like Europe and I like what the EU tries to be. I think you are right that the UK is closer to the US than it is to Europe, but that is not true for all its citizens.

Im not sure what the good question I asked you was - but thanks for the interesting answers to it anyway.

Its not that I want the Brits out. Malta is a historical UK ally and we'll probably worse off with out you around. What I think is both the EU and the UK are better off with Brexit in long term. The UK is closer to the US than to Europe and Europe is better off without having somebody objecting every plans on the way.

I also think that its impossible for the UK to remain in the EU now. The Brexiteers will go ballistic and the UK would lose every shred of credibility.

PS the question was this

You probably have a good point that things could have been achieved with more time. But how much more?

 

[Adebesi]

I also think that its impossible for the UK to remain in the EU now. The Brexiteers will go ballistic and the UK would lose every shred of credibility.

Certainly something very big would have to change. But in the UK there is a big feeling among the Remainers (or Remoaners) that there should be another referendum once the terms of Brexit are clear, because the whole thing was sold to voters on a lie, that they could have controlled immigration and access to the single market and an extra £350m a week for the NHS. It may be that, once the reality of what was on offer became clear, the UK would vote to remain. However, I dont suppose the EU will give us the right to do that - and I suspect the Tories wont give us that option either.

Even if they did, it might be that that second referendum would be lost anyway, if the EU had been seen to be excessively punitive in its treatment of the UK. I think there's a good chance the whole process will create so much ill feeling between us that people who were formerly remainers would vote to leave.