How do you work all this out? What Junker is saying is exactly why Farage and his chums have been telling us for years that we need to get out for. They feel totally vindicated by what Junker has said. One pro Brexit paper declared that Junker has taken over Farage as the number one salesman for Brexit.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
How do you work all this out? What Junker is saying is exactly why Farage and his chums have been telling us for years that we need to get out for. They feel totally vindicated by what Junker has said. One pro Brexit paper declared that Junker has taken over Farage as the number one salesman for Brexit.
A union takes strength from unity, that's its function
I dont know about that. What it does seem to happen is that brexit had been the number one salesman for the eu project.
I matter of face i doubt we would have even seen a unified europe with the brits around. So we need to thank the brexiters for it
Last edited:
Junker never forgave Cameron for trying to oppose his appointment, so he hit back at him by refusing to budge on Cameron's proposals for EU reform, in particular the freedom of movement issues (well as much as he could have done under the Treaty of Rome statutes). Result, Cameron holds EU referendum and at last 'with one bound' the UK escaped from Brussels (oh yes and Strasbourg!).
Well done J. Claude I'm sure you will get a medal as soon as your colleagues work out what you've done, a nice big one from Mrs Merkel, especially when she see's how much more Germany has to fork out to keep the EU afloat, now the UK has scarpered!
Well done J. Claude I'm sure you will get a medal as soon as your colleagues work out what you've done, a nice big one from Mrs Merkel, especially when she see's how much more Germany has to fork out to keep the EU afloat, now the UK has scarpered!
Why does there have to be a European superstate for Europe to be 'unified'? Personally I think that overreach will end the EU rather than unite it.
That's all fine and dandy but you ignored the point I was making against that - namely:
The bit about the huge GDP / per capita disparity between member states and unemployment / budget surplasses of certain countries like Germany vs Spain is also relevant.
The bit about Scotland wasn't a great example no, but I was just showing some of the ways Scotland does benefit. They don't need to barter their autonomy because they themselves chose to remain part of the UK - at least partially due to the concessions the UK gov offered them (compare the same offered to the UK by the EU). Even at the last general election the SNP took a heavy beating due to their desire for a 2nd referendum - a sign that support for independence in Scotland isn't strong. Crucially, unlike in the EU, Scotland is very culturally and economically similar to the UK, has representation in politics and ways through their devolved gov to benefit themselves vs the rest of the UK.
Well the richest and more efficiently run in the world are in fact a united group of states ( US,Russian Federation, the UK, China etc). I don't think the we will see a united states of Europe soon. However a more integrated Europe with less redtape and an army of its own will ensure its independence, it will strengthen its hand on trade deals and it will make it more efficient on issues such as immigration.
Which part have I ignored? Even the most EU extremist suggests a majority rule which is way more to what Wales, Scotland and N Ireland has in the UK. In most important cases (ex Brexit) England decide and the others simply follow
Also why should an entire continent depend on third party countries to defend itself? What political price does it have to pay for it? Europe will never be taken seriously unless its able to secure its border, manage immigration and defend itself without anyone's help. A unified Europe can help on that.
But that 'independence' will come at a price of the further erosion of the independence of nation states within the EU, nation states with long and proud histories and a further dilution of the democratic rights of citizens. I just don't believe it will be popular. Isn't Macron pushing for quite the opposite of this currently and asking for reform?
As said to @marktan even the most of EU extremists suggest a majority rule which is way more to what the likes of Wales and Scotland has in the UK. I don't think that we will see the sort of integration Juncker is suggesting. However I strongly believe that better integration in certain cases (ex immigration, military and trade deals) will help Europe a great deal. We cant have a situation where a trade deal risks of going tits up because of Wallonia and we certainly can't have clowns treating to pull the plug of Europe defence as long as we provide them with the trade deal they want and walk according to their rules. Its not within EU interests for that to continue
The bit about Hungary, which I even quoted for you. Using the UK as a parallel doesn't hold up one bit because it's members are in a formal union and have been for a long time, which works because of all the cultural and economic similarities between the countries. I could live in anyone of those 4 countries and not notice anything (and many people do move around).
Majority rule doesn't work in the EU, for precisely the issue given with Hungary. Will you force a sovereign nation accept refugees against its will? What if they then pine for independence? The whole thing falls apart. There's just not enough cultural, linguistic and economic similarities for it to work. It works in the UK, the USA because of precisely those similarities. An economic union for increasing free trade works fine, even closer defence works fine (which the UK wants to keep), but when you push into sovereignty questions those differences just don't make closer ties workable. That in a nutshell is how a lot of Brits viewed the EU during the Brexit referendum.
At one point some countries will have to decide whether to stay in a further integrated Europe or leave. I have a feeling that the project can survive if it loses a country who takes alot of euros in EU help, it sends alot of immigrants to Western Europe and expects to offer zero solidarity in return. Actually, if Hungary sticks to that 'supermarket' mentality then the EU is better off without it. I wonder if Hungary is better off without the EU though expecially with the Russian bear being so close
Also as said Im not expected Europe to turn into some sort of 1 ruling country with the rest obeying it. Not even Juncker expects that. As you said these countries don't have the 'cultural and economic similarities' to accept that
Last edited:
Like facebook at it's worst. Some wanker on there today posted a picture of a bacon sandwich on a British flag with the message that he had allegedly been warned it was racist and offensive. This shite's no better.
So you really don't know how a further integrated EU would work in such scenarios, other than countries like Hungary can accept a bit of money from the EU in return for their sovereignty or they can leave. It's not viable at all long-term. You make Hungary accept refugees against its will like the EU are currently trying to do, and it's a one way ticket to make their population want to leave.
A lot of people deride Brexiters as being 'little englanders' or 'immigrants haters' but they question they were asked will be one a lot of other countries will face too. Do you accept closer economic ties and benefits, some bodies and some defence benefits in return for an erosion of sovereignty? It's not an easy question at all and I wasn't surprised in the least that so many were willing to accept the economic fallout for the gain in sovereignty. Someone somewhere really needs to sit down and analyse where this is all going because these questions aren't unknown ones but the push seems to be to further integration despite the glaringly obvious problems it'll create.
No, that's what he is "pushing" for. A more integrated EU with more tools, like an actual police and an actual Custom force.
My apologies. I have switched off from Brexit pretty much until Junker popped up again.
NOW WE@VE LEFT THE EU I CAN FINALLY POST THIS
So you expect that hungary just pick its cheque while south European countries nanny immigrants on all europe behalf? Or should we go further and let immigrants sink at sea?
Hungary cant expect unrestricted access to all europe's markets and money (including fom fpr its people) and then shy away from european problems. Its a union of countries built on solidarity not a supermarket. That was the spirit that allowed poor countries like hungary to join the union even though that meant spending millions on its infrastructure and it wont change now that hungary is made to do some sacrifices in return. If it cant accept its responsibity in front of a humanitarian crisis of such magnitude (especially because of islamophobia) then it has no choice but leaving the union.
Taking control means other will do the same. Hungary might find itself having to settle back thousands of hungarian immigrants back + the industry which moved to hungary because of the single market might move back. Oh well they can always grovel for a bald and close relationship of cherry picking. After all they will leave the eu not europe.
You mentioned the uk as being a group of countries sharing similar values. Whats wrong in eurppe in creating a similar union? If there are countries who cant accept the mutual solidarity europe believe in, then there are ways and means to leave the union
Last edited:
Devilish, what if Poland takes a similar stance to Hungary?
For me we have four blocks in Europe (exc UK & ire):
The PIGs -(no offence intended) for Southern Europe largely tourist and agricultural dependent and historically prone to devaluations.
The Baltics - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Switz (not Baltic yet good fit here) and Finland - except Finland all reasonably affluent (survived most of WWII intact.)
Western Northern Europe - France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany all of these were helped by the Marshall plan to rebuild post WWII.
Central Europe - Former Soviet republics - Czech, Austria, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary. Rumania, Bulgaria and some of the Balkans - even here there is a divide with the Southern nations being poorer yet they all share the shadow of Soviet Occupation.
For me the PIGS are struggling and I think if one of them breaks and devalues, others will follow. Italy recently fell foul of the ECB by refusing to bail-in (shocking proposal) investors deposits and instead the state bailed out the troubled banks.
The Baltics - Norway, Denmark and Switzerland have their own currencies and are contributors to the EU, Norway is already expressing problems with assisting migrants whom are mainly Muslim. Sweden (left thinking population) and Finland I think will stay.
Western Northern Europe - similar living standards and I think will stay.
Central Europe - Poland, Hungary, Czech, Austria, Slovakia have all fortified it's borders and after only recently escaping the clutches of communism and foreign control are revolting over the freedom of movement as regards refugees / economic migrants. Probably only the fact that most are recipients of aid is the reason that they have not taken stronger steps.
For the EU to stay they will need to slow down its program and possibly give more rights for countries to take Sovereign decisions. The PIGs will most likely go under unless they can devalue, bond yields for getting loans are becoming much more expensive this cannot go on for ever.
The timing of what might happen might change the Brexit negotiations or not yet it is possible we are going to see changes anyway as other countries take the initiative.
Last edited:
Eastern european politicians talk tough, but their nations would crash outside the EU, grandstanding for votes.
I think with Poland, Russian invasion is the big fear. Of course if we promised to protect it's borders and moved our troops from Germany with adding some more they might be persuaded.
Junker has already made noises about all countries having to join the Euro, of course that was off script yet many might be thinking he has let slip the truth and they are now concerned.
It's not about pick&choose vs. solidarity. It's about the question how to proceed from the legal status-quo.
There are two different directions. "Ever closer union" vs. "flexible union".
The first approach tries to centralise as much power as possible when ever this is possible. Even if member states or citizens are against it.
The second approach accepts that different nations want different things and allows an Europe of different speeds. Its would be okay to create sub-clubs that move ahead in some areas while other don't. Naturally the second depends a lot more on intergovernmental and not supranational cooperation.
The first vision is supported by almost everyone working in the EU and by many important politicians in its member states (e.g. in Germany, France, Spain, Italy). The challenge of this vision is that it needs consensus in many policy fields that doesn't exist yet. You have to force governments and citizens to go along if they disagree. That puts a lot of pressure on the union and fuels old rivalries.
The second vision is less ambitious, slower, but only moves forward when there is consensus. It's pretty clear that it's not wanted by the europhile elite.
They are blinded by ideology and believe that they have to "drag along the ignorant masses". What they fail to see is that they risk the whole union. When you force one vision on everyone, you'll end up with many groups that'll see their interests violated. They make enemies out of neighbours. We are seeing this now on every single big issue.
Nowadays there are roughly three camps in the EU.
1: southern Europe + France: more integration with expansive and vertical economic policies
2: Benelux, Baltic's, Germany, Sweden, Finland (Austria): more integration, but with restrictive and horizontal economic policies
3: Denmark, eastern Europe, (Austria): stop further integration
Any major reform is going to piss off at least two groups and creates the risk that another country is going to leave.
There are two different directions. "Ever closer union" vs. "flexible union".
The first approach tries to centralise as much power as possible when ever this is possible. Even if member states or citizens are against it.
The second approach accepts that different nations want different things and allows an Europe of different speeds. Its would be okay to create sub-clubs that move ahead in some areas while other don't. Naturally the second depends a lot more on intergovernmental and not supranational cooperation.
The first vision is supported by almost everyone working in the EU and by many important politicians in its member states (e.g. in Germany, France, Spain, Italy). The challenge of this vision is that it needs consensus in many policy fields that doesn't exist yet. You have to force governments and citizens to go along if they disagree. That puts a lot of pressure on the union and fuels old rivalries.
The second vision is less ambitious, slower, but only moves forward when there is consensus. It's pretty clear that it's not wanted by the europhile elite.
They are blinded by ideology and believe that they have to "drag along the ignorant masses". What they fail to see is that they risk the whole union. When you force one vision on everyone, you'll end up with many groups that'll see their interests violated. They make enemies out of neighbours. We are seeing this now on every single big issue.
Nowadays there are roughly three camps in the EU.
1: southern Europe + France: more integration with expansive and vertical economic policies
2: Benelux, Baltic's, Germany, Sweden, Finland (Austria): more integration, but with restrictive and horizontal economic policies
3: Denmark, eastern Europe, (Austria): stop further integration
Any major reform is going to piss off at least two groups and creates the risk that another country is going to leave.
If poland insist on the same islamophobic stance held by hungary then they are free to leave the union. There is currently over 1m pole living in germany alone so if Poland leaves the EU then we might end up in need of asylum seekers to fill those jobs.
I wonder if that horde of polish immigrants would be happy at the prospect of having to return home though. Poland's economic resurgence is mostly down to unrestricted access to the single market which lead to numerous factories moving there and the generous eu money invested in its infrastructure. All of that will be lost as companies will be forced to move back to other side probably in countries like Italy.
In my opinion the EU biggest threat doesnt come from hungary or poland but by the richer countries who are paying loads of money and are feeling short changed. Case in point is Italy whose been struggling with immigrants year after year without anyone bothering to help. If the eastern European countries leave because of immigration than the EU would be in a better position to offer solidarity to the likes of Italy and to seal trade deals with the rest of the world. The uk itself might remain in the union considering that a big chunk of voters voted brexit because of eastern european immigration
Last edited:
Nah its mostly down to people perceiving the EU as some sort of Father Christmas that allows freedom of movement, give unrestricted access to the single market (ie European companies moving there because of cheaper labour) and spend loads of dosh in its infrastructure. No wonder why they complain when things don't go according to their way. However rest assured none of them would leave. They cant afford it.
The biggest threat for the EU existence come from the richer countries who feel that they are carrying the rest and taking little in exchange (whether that's feeling is justified is open to discussion). In matter of fact the first leaver was the UK not Romania, not Poland, not Hungary but the UK. That's also the reason why the one knocking at the EU doors hard to enter aren't the rich countries like Norway but countries like Croatia and Macedonia who are jealous of the success made by Poland and also want their share of the pie.
I believe that the project needs to go back to the drawing board to re balance rights with duties. A more integrated and reformed EU will be fairer, more efficient and faster in signing trade deals and respond to immigration in a fairer. A leaner EU has a bigger chance to achieve that
Just think of all the mental gymnastics the Brexiteers have done since the vote. The redefinition of the word let's, the refusal to acknowledge the even more precise poster Boris and Liam Fox made speeches in front of, Nick on here trying to convince everyone that they'd actually clarified it was £100m prior to the vote, despite Vote Leave's twitter banner STILL saying £350m on it. All for absolutely fecking nothing...
Last edited:
There us only one direction, ever closer union. Those who argue that they want flexibility don't understand what the purpose of a union is. The strength comes from the unity
Some of those Boris suggestions are not as stupid as you'd normally expect from him (infrastructure investment) but nothing radical and nothing he has come up with by himself. I wonder if he'll be the dud candidate for some other Brexiteer to step in and make things even worse.
Are they though? The Tories biggest point over Labour has been that Labour planned to borrow more as part of their manifesto - yet Boris' plan talks about borrowing. He's put the £350m sum back in the headlines, no longer simply tying it to the Vote Leave campaign but now the Tories themselves. I mean one of the 10 points in Boris' plan to make Brexit a success is "Brexit will be a success".
I am not saying they're original, just that I agree with one point which Labour have been making for years. I also think non-residents should not be allowed to buy properties in the UK, especially in over-populated regions and I have a bit of an idea of what I'm talking about here.
The rest are mostly rubbish but that's about my expectation of the Johnson, so unless he offers to start a war, it's hard for him to disappoint me
.
The rest are mostly rubbish but that's about my expectation of the Johnson, so unless he offers to start a war, it's hard for him to disappoint me
.I don't understand Boris. Why resurrecting something that even the most extremist of brexiteers admit to be a lie?
Snake gonna Snake.
he is trying to put distance between himself and what may will say next week - ultimately so that a couple of weeks after that he can use the conservative party conference to see of there is a viable opportunity for him to still be leader... sadly most of the audience he is really pitching to only believe things if they are written in the daily mail
Another thing is people already know his game.
He's a busted flush.
Poland is largely Catholic, remember the unexpected election of a Polish Pope around the time of Lech Walensa. This was building momentum for Poland to exit the Soviet Union and less than thirty years later they are being told to accept 'third' world immigrants with a different religious culture possibly violent to other religions ( the jury is out on this one it is not black and white IMO).
I do accept the Polish immigrants would need some thought though surely Germany, France and others would soak up some of that excess labour especially if they take business from the City of London.
I agree the richer countries do pose the bigger risk unless Britain reaches out to the likes of Poland behind back doors to force their hand for what @PedroMendez eloquently poses above as the possible move towards a second tier 'flexible union'.
Re Italy I don't think they have been facing the immigrant crisis for years and years, I think that has been Greece yet I do agree they have that problem in the last couple of years and that larger nations should have been lending a hand. I think the problem was there was a political mindset to allow this immigration into the EU. Cheap labour or other less obvious and possibly sinister motives, I'm not sure. On the surface what seemed strange was that a lot of the asylum seekers all had modern phones showing them the route to take. For me it suggested certain NGO's were encouraging this and dishing out phones with instructions. Italy is primarily a target because the West decided to take out Gadhafi and Libya is close to Italy.
The West has never wanted Africa to be successful and EU loans to Africa had strict conditions and coincidentally Gadhafi was hoarding gold with the intention of setting up a Pan-National African Bank.
I don't think the Brexit immigration factor was just about Eastern European immigration I think it was just against large scale immigration from everywhere yet any debates about this turned towards the ECHR as telling us we could not stop it, so in people's minds the EU was seen as the barrier to preventing all types of immigration and not just from the EU. I don't think most people are against foreigners it just seems too much has happened too quickly.
Last edited:
I actually met a Brexiteer on a who articulated his reasonsing fairly well, although I disagreed with him. His reason was largely due to low skilled EU labour driving down wages for British workers. He said a few other things that I don't remember. The guy was fully behind Brexit and thinks it will do us good long term. The guy had a good job in Saudi Arabia and was in his late 20s.
He did also throw in a few "I'm not racist, but..." though he did make me realise the bubble I live in again.
He did also throw in a few "I'm not racist, but..." though he did make me realise the bubble I live in again.
The UK did pick&chose to some extend and I agree that this is became a problem. Other countries - especially in eastern Europe and the Baltic's - are perfectly happy with the single market and free movement. In fact some of these countries (e.g Baltic's) are the biggest defenders of the lawful and agreed legal status. They just don't want further political integration, if it goes against their interests.
Why should eastern Europe take migrants from Germany, when Merkel unilaterally ended the Dublin agreement?
Why should any other country be forced to join the euro against their wishes; especially when the existing problems are not solved?
Why should the Baltic's agree to subsidize richer countries "to save them"?
It's all nice and dandy that Macedonia wants to join the union, but without being disrespectful: they are politically and economically tiny compared to Europe. The UK alone was as big as the smallest 15-20 EU members. The big southern European countries struggle to carry themselves. They can't stabilise the EU. If the small and medium sized net-payers would contemplate to leave it would be the end of the EU. It's still a long way but there is huge dissatisfaction and the UK leaving (many of them saw the UK as the powerful nation that stand up for shared values/ideas) will only strengthen these voices.
Forcing deeper integration now against their interests is a ticking bomb.
Why should eastern Europe take migrants from Germany, when Merkel unilaterally ended the Dublin agreement?
Why should any other country be forced to join the euro against their wishes; especially when the existing problems are not solved?
Why should the Baltic's agree to subsidize richer countries "to save them"?
It's all nice and dandy that Macedonia wants to join the union, but without being disrespectful: they are politically and economically tiny compared to Europe. The UK alone was as big as the smallest 15-20 EU members. The big southern European countries struggle to carry themselves. They can't stabilise the EU. If the small and medium sized net-payers would contemplate to leave it would be the end of the EU. It's still a long way but there is huge dissatisfaction and the UK leaving (many of them saw the UK as the powerful nation that stand up for shared values/ideas) will only strengthen these voices.
Forcing deeper integration now against their interests is a ticking bomb.
On the Euro part because that was the deal before they submit their entry application, they haven't been caught by surprise, if they didn't want the common currency they shouldn't have applied in the first place. If they don't like the EU, then they shouldn't try to be members.