That's hardly an anti-Brexit argument. It's a 'Both Germany and Britain have a lot at stake, so let's all be reasonable about a post-Brexit trade agreement argument.'
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
That's hardly an anti-Brexit argument. It's a 'Both Germany and Britain have a lot at stake, so let's all be reasonable about a post-Brexit trade agreement argument.'
I wonder if it's a good plan though because the other countries who have the same vote than Germany might think that for the UK only Germany counts.
Unfortunately its not up to Germany but to all 27 eu nations. Unlike the uk were england command and the rest follow the eu works with the consent of every single eu country and region
Furthermore, the UK might overestimate Germany's love for Britain. There are a number of issues where Germany is much closer to France and other EU member states.
I was going to tag you, you are right Germany and France are pretty close. I also noticed that German politicians are fairly strict when it comes to EU principles, they will probably be the most difficult to convince.
Yep. The best recipe for rigor mortis ever conceived. How politicians convinced themselves such an arrangement was a sensible way to run the affairs of Europe's peoples.....?
It's ironic that the torturous protocols of Britain's departure will shine a light on the sclerotic institution she's leaving behind.
I am very doubtful as to whether the UK can have its cake and eat it but is it wholly unrealistic to expect some kind of fudged immigration deal to ensure free market access? Something that would allow the UK government to save face (as the Swiss recently did when they retained a few restrictions while basically ignoring the 2014 referendum result) but still allows a significant degree of right to work? Or something closer to what Cameron wanted earlier this year? In any case, the UK does have leverage beyond "we buy German cars". For example, with Vlad's buddy now in the White House, does Poland really want to alienate the UK?
There is no other alternatives since the EU isn't a country every member is sovereign.
Any future deal would obviously have to be mutually beneficial, and I did make the point that it would have to be some time further on.
Last edited:
What do you have in mind exactly?
None of us can be 100% sure (though there's a few that think they can), I just can't see it myself. The UK would still be in Nato of course.
Then again I suppose you could ask how many of us foresaw Brexit and Trump?
The European Union is like the Holy Trinity - three persons in one God, separate but indivisible, etc.
But the EU is not an exercise in theological metaphysics, but an institution which has to run the affairs of hundred of millions of people. Its inherent contradictions have real, and damaging, consequences for its citizens.
With trump being putin best mate does that matter? Do you really think the uk will involve itself in any sort of conflict the us doesnt give its go ahead first? Its 2017 not 1930s
Good question. Probably a window dressing solution where you have to consider first (advertise the position to) British candidates, even though 99% of the time you end up hiring the EU candidate. Things must change so that things can stay the same....
It will only further alienate the uk voter and postpone the inevitable. I think de gaulle was right. The uk shouldnt be in europe. I hope that they get a deal similar to canada (copy and paste) but thats all
As of today, no. But that's not really the point. For Poland and the three tiny Baltic states (who, as you are keen to remind us, have the same veto right, as Germany), the election of Trump means they are now in a world of at best, realpolitik, and, at worse, Berlusconi-esque venality. In such circumstances, it would not be surprising if their attitude towards the EU negotiations with the UK were influenced by different factors than if it were Hilary in charge.
From a realpolik POV surely those states best interest is a continuation of the EU, something which if Brexit is an astounding success would be brought into further question.
It was only a 4% margin and, being blunt, a fair chunk of those leavers will be dead in the next 10-15 years. It would be a political highwire act but, with Labour currently a circus, I think it is doable without committing political suicide.
Just under 2% margin. But while Labour is a shambles, the Tory party has a tiny majority that would certainly be lost if they piss off the rural racists.
I've always thought rural people shouldn't be allowed to vote personally. After all, they couldn't possibly be in daily contact with enough people to form a valid opinion.
I was referring to the Swiss case earlier today. As I understand their new law, it's nothing that goes anywhere near face-saving, and if the UK follow that path, it would not deliver any of the promises made by Brexiters. The changes are of cosmetic nature and apparently the EU still review whether it is acceptable.
It is true though, you're more likely to be homophobic or xenophobic or whatever else the fewer gay or foreign or whatever else people you meet. And the conservative party caters to those people. Nothing to do with taking away their votes, just the reality of why politicians say the things they do in the forums they say them. Labour actively targets the working classes and urban areas with their messaging, Greens have the dirty hippies and so on.
The government is in a tricky situation because although UKIP claim the credit for Brexit, the Tories have got the responsibilties. Whatever happens - soft or hard Brexit, if it leads to significant and /or rapid economic decline, no decrease or even an increase in immigation, they will be held accountable. UKIP will just be able to sit back like vultures and say "Well, vote us in and we'll sort it out"
Of course if people just perceived Brexit as a bad mistake, it'd be a different story but one that would lead to more uncertainty with four incompetent parties vying for power plus the problem of revoking the invoking of article 50 It's not even clear if that could be done or whether new conditions could be set - such as joining the Eurozone.
Of course if people just perceived Brexit as a bad mistake, it'd be a different story but one that would lead to more uncertainty with four incompetent parties vying for power plus the problem of revoking the invoking of article 50
It's not even clear if that could be done or whether new conditions could be set - such as joining the Eurozone. I was thinking of issues like a common EU defense policy, a harmonized foreign policy, acceptance of more intervention of a state into the economy compared to the UK, more protection of workers' rights compared to the UK, a certain level of state welfare, etc.
These were issues where the UK often held very different positions. Hence, once the UK leave, we might see faster progress on these fields of EU policies.
Last edited:
It's already the case in most countries.
You have not answered the question, the EU isn't a country, every member is sovereign. So how do you take important decisions without having the approval of everyone?
There are fewer homosexuals in rural areas? Is it the country air?
If the US commands the UK to jump it will keep on jumping till it does of exhaustion. Even now, Boris had to go begging at Trump's feet for a trade deal and that after previously saying that he doesn't go New York because he risk meeting him there.
Eastern Europe should stop provoking Russia by treating Russian speaking citizens differently. Russia is our neighbour and we should respect it. There again, I think Brexit will strengthen their hand rather then weakening it. With the UK having zero influence over Europe, the EU can move to an EU army without risking the veto
The fewer people that live near you the less diverse they're likely to be.
That rate is as big as it is because they believe that leaving the single market is suicide. I believe that the vast majority of the UK are eurosceptic who hate a united Europe. That's fair enough but the EU can't keep on tolerating an 'enemy within' who keeps sending the likes of Farage in the EP and who vetoes any sort of collaboration between EU countries
Brexit will be tough for the EU but its also an opportunity to get rid from a country who never really believed in the project in the first place
As someone who's against the idea of the EU, I hardly need to answer that question. In a Europe of nation states, you don't need to answer it.
The problem is simple. Sovereignty can't be shared without being lost. But the EU can't function without shared sovereignty.
Is that really how they're provoking Russia? Nothing to do with Putins ambitions? And decades/centuries of Russian control and meddling in the area?
I got Eastern European friends, who aren't exactly pro Russian but who claim widespread discrimination in their own country because of their Russian origins. A friend of mine wasn't accepted to a top quality school because she had a Russian surname and that despite being an Estonian citizen + all her family were born there. In matter of fact that's why she moved to the UK
With good reason. It is true that the effects of hard Brexit might be the highest in Germany as it is Europe´s biggest economy and heavily focused on export business. However, Germany is also the country which is the most invested in keeping the Union stable for both economical and political reasons. Any preferable deal for Great Britain would had the potential to cause a domino effect of other countries also pushing for the same path, ultimatively splitting the Union in two parts, the richer West and North and the less wealthy South and East.
I actually expect Germany to be the frontrunner in driving a hard bargain in the negotiations. It also helps that the UK government is so without a real plan that it gives at least the large German companies time to prepare for the blow a hard Brexit might bring. The moment the British voted out was the moment the economical focus shifted away from Great Britain, mostly in the Eastern direction.
If GB leaves the single market, they won´t be a different trading partner than let´s say India or China afterall.
So no single market?
Sure, but it's not so simple. The USSR was going strong within living memory, after all.
If the UK hadn't gone for Brexit there would be no jeopardy so that alone is an anti-Brexit argument. Remember who started this.
On those figures alone who has the most to lose. Yes it doesn't suit anyone but the fault lies where.
Thirdly if it is a hard Brexit, Germany still have trade deals set up with the rest of the EU and other agreements elsewhere. The moment the UK leave the EU under a hard Brexit they have deals with nobody and start all over again.
I expect the same. Boris should change completely his strategy, he needs to convince the countries that the UK are currently insulting, those are the countries who are able to convince Germany.
There's no fault. The British people made a sovereign decision to enter the EEC; they've now made a sovereign decision to leave the EU.
The 'deals with nobody' stuff is nonsense. Britain has existing trade relations with countries all over the world. It's not all going to suddenly stop because Britain leaves a trading bloc. The world doesn't work like that.
Putin is no saint. However Russia is a powerful neighbour who will never go away. Them poking the bear while thinking the EU will protect them is stupid. For a Union that is so proud with equal rights it should keep the Eastern European countries under check on this especially in terms of citizens of Russian descend and Roma people.
So they made the decision and that decision brings consequences.
The only trading they could do is through WTO