Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
RedChip said:
Quite incredible that after all that has gone on, they still believe shite like this. I can see the fallout from Brexit being one of those stupid civil wars that no sane outsider can comprehend.
Click to expand...

I would think the rest of the world is looking on in disbelief at what's going on in the UK. The few programmes we have on the subject have all the same theme. They discuss it rationably and sensibly and although they recognise there are problems with the EU, the sense is that the UK are providing the best advert there is for being part of the EU.
Like most Brexiters seem to think the EU will break up without them, it is actually having the opposite effect and reinforcing it.
 
Cheesy said:
My point isn't whether or not it's a good idea - my point is that several countries are going to be opposed or fairly wary to it, and if it's going to pass you're going to need the approval of all countries involved. Trying to mesh together 20+ different sovereign nation states into one US-like entity in a single swoop, many of whom speak different main languages and have very different cultural backgrounds from each other, isn't going to happen, and if it does happen I don't think it'd be particularly smooth.
Click to expand...

It's already happening.

People said the same about the single currency.

Geopolitical forces will bring Europe together because either Europe unites or it divides, or maybe even gets conquered in the future.
Economically the European Union is a powerhouse competing with the United States and more powerful than China. This is not going to remain the case for ever. But being economically powerful is not enough. For historical reasons militarily the EU is a mess with its separate armies and over reliance on NATO.

The world of tomorrow doesn't care about your separate nation states.

Arguably, by uniting, such nation states can be protected.
 
RW2 said:
90% support EU membership in Ireland.
No other country in Europe os more pro-EU.

On Irish neutrality, the Irish were never neutral. Not neutral during WW2, not neutral during the Iraq war.
Ireland would never give up its EU membership, and if that means a referendum to allow for an EU army, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Ireland was technically neutral during WW2. You can argue about Irish soldiers joining the UK argue and our help with D Day weather reports etc. but we were neutral. Same with the cold war and Iraq war.

And there's a big difference between helping the allies and actively taking part in creating an EU army and instigating a regional state.

Besides, our biggest attraction to foreign companies is our tax rate and we would never join something that could jeopardize it, regardless of how pro EU we are. And the fact that it would probably need a referendum we would surely reject.

By the way back in 2007 we were the most anti EU country in all polls so things can change pretty quickly.
 
Cheesy said:
There's a difference between supporting the EU in its current form and supporting giving up your sovereignty to become a regional state within a national EU.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The most you could say is that the door is left open for it, generations down the line, should they see it as a good idea. As we stand today it's both unpalatable and unworkable.
 
RW2 said:
It's already happening.

People said the same about the single currency.

Geopolitical forces will bring Europe together because either Europe unites or it divides, or maybe even gets conquered in the future.
Economically the European Union is a powerhouse competing with the United States and more powerful than China. This is not going to remain the case for ever. But being economically powerful is not enough. For historical reasons militarily the EU is a mess with its separate armies and over reliance on NATO.

The world of tomorrow doesn't care about your separate nation states.
Click to expand...

And yet a number of EU countries still don't use that single currency because they prefer their own. Indeed the EU, while urging its members to take up that single currency, quite literally has mechanisms designed so countries can get around it. Because they know that while most countries are keen to be in the EU, they're not that keen on all amalgamating into the one big country. If anything the currency issues disproves your argument: plenty are dissatisfied with the Euro to the point where they're considering leaving (Italy) - if that's the case now, imagine the EU proposing to Italy that they give up their national sovereignty and become part of this one larger country? For now it's a non-starter.

France and Germany will likely work towards an increasingly closer union, especially with the UK gone, but it's not happening for a long time. I imagine a lot of the Eastern European former Soviet states would be extremely wary of joining, for example, due to their history of essentially being controlled by a much larger power who could impose its own will on them. This would be different, of course, but that wariness would likely remain.

You can think whatever you want of nationalism in all its various incarnations, but the fact is that trying to merge over 20 nation states together in one swoop isn't going to happen. It's naive to think there wouldn't be immense divisions from the first moment.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Ireland was technically neutral during WW2. You can argue about Irish soldiers joining the UK argue and our help with D Day weather reports etc. but we were neutral. Same with the cold war and Iraq war.
Click to expand...

Shannon airport is basically a US base. I landed there once and saw nothing but soldiers with American accents.
That's making a farce of neutrality.

Besides, our biggest attraction to foreign companies is our tax rate and we would never join something that could jeopardize it, regardless of how pro EU we are. And the fact that it would probably need a referendum we would surely reject.
Click to expand...

Ireland's low CT rate is only part of the picture. It's membership of the European Union is far more important. There are other EU countries with lower rates than Ireland but they cannot compete in other areas.

50.2% of Ireland's exports go to the EU28 (including UK).
 
RW2 said:
Shannon airport is basically a US base. I landed there once and saw nothing but soldiers with American accents.
That's making a farce of neutrality.



Ireland's low CT rate is only part of the picture. It's membership of the European Union is far more important. There are other EU countries with lower rates than Ireland but they cannot compete in other areas.

50.2% of Ireland's exports go to the EU28 (including UK).
Click to expand...
But we're still neutral.

The second part has nothing to do with what is being suggested here. Ireland likes the EU in its current form, we wouldn't like it in this future form. The EU won't kick us out for not agreeing to their demands. It would be terrible for them.
 
Cheesy said:
And yet a number of EU countries still don't use that single currency because they prefer their own. Indeed the EU, while urging its members to take up that single currency, quite literally has mechanisms designed so countries can get around it. Because they know that while most countries are keen to be in the EU, they're not that keen on all amalgamating into the one big country. If anything the currency issues disproves your argument: plenty are dissatisfied with the Euro to the point where they're considering leaving (Italy) - if that's the case now, imagine the EU proposing to Italy that they give up their national sovereignty and become part of this one larger country? For now it's a non-starter.
Click to expand...

EU countries were given their own choice to join the Euro and EVERY EU country is obliged to join the Euro at some point in the future.

Put down the Torygraph (and other related anti-EU propaganda). The Euro has been one of the great success stories of the European project. It has survived the 2008 economic crash and it just happens to be the case that those who are "opposed" happen to be in countries which flagrantly borrowed and spent beyond their means in the years leading up to 2008. All the talk was of Greece leaving the Euro. The EU was prepared to cut them loose, allowing the drachma to return, and giving the Greeks a chance to rejoin in the future. . . . The Greeks, under Syriza, were having none of it.

France and Germany will likely work towards an increasingly closer union, especially with the UK gone, but it's not happening for a long time. I imagine a lot of the Eastern European former Soviet states would be extremely wary of joining, for example, due to their history of essentially being controlled by a much larger power who could impose its own will on them. This would be different, of course, but that wariness would likely remain.

You can think whatever you want of nationalism in all its various incarnations, but the fact is that trying to merge over 20 nation states together in one swoop isn't going to happen. It's naive to think there wouldn't be immense divisions from the first moment.
Click to expand...

Eastern bloc countries are banging on the EU door to become members.

As regard merging states not going to happen?
It has already happened economically.
Politics comes next.
 
Massive Spanner said:
But we're still neutral.
Click to expand...

Ireland is not neutral.
Just because you write words on a page which states "we're neutral" does not make it so.

The second part has nothing to do with what is being suggested here. Ireland likes the EU in its current form, we wouldn't like it in this future form. The EU won't kick us out for not agreeing to their demands. It would be terrible for them.
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself.
 
Interesting points @RW2. I'm not sure how I feel about it in the near time but long term it makes sense that Europe would aim to be more congruent....
 
NinjaFletch said:
You're right on some areas, but a lot of the necessary things that would have to be put in place would come under one of the areas which requires unanimity in the council.

Whilst they're are mechanisms the EU could use to get round that (e.g. when Cameron vetoed a treaty in 2011) in this area I don't think there is any realistic prospect that could happen without it being seen as an infringement of that member states sovereignty and causing a crisis that makes Brexit pale in comparison.
Click to expand...

You are only correct if you think that it would be an amendment of the current treaties while I'm suggesting that it would be a new treaty which means that countries would have two options, join or opt-out.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
That's interesting that people here are now realising that the EU is evolving into a federation. There's been talk of an EU army recently. People here dismissed these things when I raised them during the run up to the referendum.
Click to expand...
Settle down there Luke Skywalker. Do you not think it’s better to be involved and push for change for the better than be on the outside realizing that the government is run by a bunch of incompetent fools who will flush the place down the shitter?
 
RW2 said:
EU countries were given their own choice to join the Euro and EVERY EU country is obliged to join the Euro at some point in the future.

Put down the Torygraph (and other related anti-EU propaganda). The Euro has been one of the great success stories of the European project. It has survived the 2008 economic crash and it just happens to be the case that those who are "opposed" happen to be in countries which flagrantly borrowed and spent beyond their means in the years leading up to 2008. All the talk was of Greece leaving the Euro. The EU was prepared to cut them loose, allowing the drachma to return, and giving the Greeks a chance to rejoin in the future. . . . The Greeks, under Syriza, were having none of it.

Eastern bloc countries are banging on the EU door to become members.

As regard merging states not going to happen?
It has already happened economically.
Politics comes next.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there is no definitive date as to when that is. Ergo, some countries continually postpone joining. If they're hesitant about that, why will they be willing to become an active part of an EU nation?

I'm not anti-EU. You're misunderstanding me here - I'm not saying that the Euro, or EU, isn't a success story. I'm saying that there's a certain level of hostility towards it in certain member states and that a number of them will simply not want to give up their own sovereignty to become part of a larger nation state. Closer integration will continually happen but we're a long way off the EU becoming a single sovereign entity.
 
RW2 said:
Ireland is not neutral.
Just because you write words on a page which states "we're neutral" does not make it so.



Don't kid yourself.
Click to expand...
Kicking a country out goes against everything the EU wants to be seen as, they couldn't do it. If they didn't kick Greece out they won't kick anyone out.

If it went to referendum and we rejected it, it would likely be like Lisbon and we get rebates and concessions and then vote again.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Kicking a country out goes against everything the EU wants to be seen as, they couldn't do it. If they didn't kick Greece out they won't kick anyone out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at a time when they want to appear united in the face of Britain leaving, it'd be beyond bizarre for them to start ejecting other member states. Won't happen.
 
Cheesy said:
Yeah, at a time when they want to appear united in the face of Britain leaving, it'd be beyond bizarre for them to start ejecting other member states. Won't happen.
Click to expand...

Greece leaving the EU was never on the agenda.
 
Massive Spanner said:
Kicking a country out goes against everything the EU wants to be seen as, they couldn't do it. If they didn't kick Greece out they won't kick anyone out.

If it went to referendum and we rejected it, it would likely be like Lisbon and we get rebates and concessions and then vote again.
Click to expand...

What is the context? I don't see a subject that would require or lead to Ireland being kicked out.
 
golden_blunder said:
Settle down there Luke Skywalker. Do you not think it’s better to be involved and push for change for the better than be on the outside realizing that the government is run by a bunch of incompetent fools who will flush the place down the shitter?
Click to expand...

Didn't Cameron try that?
 
RW2 said:
Greece leaving the EU was never on the agenda.
Click to expand...

The comment I replied to was when you said 'don't kid yourself' to the suggestion that Ireland leaving the EU if they refused to give into their demands wouldn't be bad for the EU. Clearly if the EU start kicking out countries who don't want to merge into one nation state then that isn't going to be perceived as a good thing at a time when the EU are focused on appearing united.
 
Cheesy said:
The comment I replied to was when you said 'don't kid yourself' to the suggestion that Ireland leaving the EU if they refused to give into their demands wouldn't be bad for the EU. Clearly if the EU start kicking out countries who don't want to merge into one nation state then that isn't going to be perceived as a good thing at a time when the EU are focused on appearing united.
Click to expand...

EU doesn't kick out countries.

If countries want to leave they are free to do so. Be prepared to accept the consequences.

But leaving the EU is a bit like a nation deciding to leave the internet. I mean. . . It can be done but it's a pretty stupid thing to do.
 
RW2 said:
EU doesn't kick out countries.

If countries want to leave they are free to do so. Be prepared to accept the consequences.

But leaving the EU is a bit like a nation deciding to leave the internet. I mean. . . It can be done but it's a pretty stupid thing to do.
Click to expand...

Indeed. So if several EU member states don't want the EU to become one sovereign entity, as is currently the case, it won't happen.
 
JPRouve said:
You are only correct if you think that it would be an amendment of the current treaties while I'm suggesting that it would be a new treaty which means that countries would have two options, join or opt-out.
Click to expand...

Not in reference to an EU army, which is the particular part of EU integration that I have issue with, based upon any of the EU's own documents I have read (providing a fullfact link here as they have linked to the primary sources, rather than for their explaination of them: https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/ ), but I'd happily be corrected if you can point me to where you have read otherwise.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I would think the rest of the world is looking on in disbelief at what's going on in the UK. The few programmes we have on the subject have all the same theme. They discuss it rationably and sensibly and although they recognise there are problems with the EU, the sense is that the UK are providing the best advert there is for being part of the EU.
Like most Brexiters seem to think the EU will break up without them, it is actually having the opposite effect and reinforcing it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would seem so:
‘It doesn’t make sense’: Europe puzzled by UK Brexit meltdown
 
Cheesy said:
Indeed. So if several EU member states don't want the EU to become one sovereign entity, as is currently the case, it won't happen.
Click to expand...

They can choose to leave if the majority wish to form a sovereign state.
 
RW2 said:
They can choose to leave if the majority wish to form a sovereign state.
Click to expand...
Would they have to trigger article 50 and have 2 years to figure it all out ... Giving up all their existing trade agreements or having to agree to remain in a customs union...

Just saying it might not be entirely straight forward
 
sun_tzu said:
Would they have to trigger article 50 and have 2 years to figure it all out ... Giving up all their existing trade agreements or having to agree to remain in a customs union...

Just saying it might not be entirely straight forward
Click to expand...

Otherwise known as "doing a brexit".
 
RW2 said:
They can choose to leave if the majority wish to form a sovereign state.
Click to expand...

They can. But it's fairly obvious that at a time when they want to appear united, the EU won't push for being a single sovereign entity if multiple states don't want it to happen and intend to leave as a result.
 
In the end this is where brexit is headed I'd say:

Voted down in UK parliament, then many politicians (some former brexit supporters) will campaign for a second referendum (around May/June), UK asks for an extension to article 50 to accommodate a second referendum, UK then votes to remain. International humiliation for the UK.

The only way brexit can now happen is if May's deal passes.

Some might say May planned this all along. :)
 
NinjaFletch said:
Not in reference to an EU army, which is the particular part of EU integration that I have issue with, based upon any of the EU's own documents I have read (providing a fullfact link here as they have linked to the primary sources, rather than for their explaination of them: https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army/ ), but I'd happily be corrected if you can point me to where you have read otherwise.
Click to expand...

I thought that you were talking about a federation like the posters you quoted. And fullfact are actually supporting my point, this isn't a EU subject it's a national government subject which is why it would be based on a new treaty between member states and not an amendment of a current treaty. Also PESCO is the perfect example of how an agreement on CFSP can be taken without unanimity, the member states simply do it between themselves, it only engages the countries that want to be part of it, that's why Denmark and Malta opted out.
 
RW2 said:
EU countries were given their own choice to join the Euro and EVERY EU country is obliged to join the Euro at some point in the future.

Put down the Torygraph (and other related anti-EU propaganda). The Euro has been one of the great success stories of the European project. It has survived the 2008 economic crash and it just happens to be the case that those who are "opposed" happen to be in countries which flagrantly borrowed and spent beyond their means in the years leading up to 2008. All the talk was of Greece leaving the Euro. The EU was prepared to cut them loose, allowing the drachma to return, and giving the Greeks a chance to rejoin in the future. . . . The Greeks, under Syriza, were having none of it.



Eastern bloc countries are banging on the EU door to become members.

As regard merging states not going to happen?
It has already happened economically.
Politics comes next.
Click to expand...
For Germany sure, but way less so for the Mediterranean states who have suffered at various points in the cycle because they can't set their own interest rates.
 


I image France is going to very different in a few years time, so might want to put the whole army shtick on hold.
 
Sweet Square said:


I image France is going to very different in a few years time, so might want to put the whole army shtick on hold.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't bet on that, the opposition is even worse at this moment out of the high profile politicians only the prime minister is holding himself in a respectable position and they have basically the same philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.