Brexit

Excerpt from an Economist article.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2170...atile-financial

 

"The priority for the rest of the EU will be to make sure that nobody follows Britain’s example. That precludes giving Britain a good deal. Leavers have retorted that, because Britain imports more from the EU than it sells to it, the other countries must offer a generous free-trade deal. But this betrays a misunderstanding of both EU politics and trade talks. The EU cannot let Britain have full access to the single market without its obligations lest others ask for similar treatment. And Germany cannot offer Britain anything on its own, however strongly its carmakers push for it. Any deal must be approved by all 27 countries, several of which do little trade with Britain. Spanish carmakers might like tariffs on cars traded between Britain and Germany. Romania sees little gain in a free-trade deal that lets Britain block immigration.

 

In practice the EU will offer Britain only two possible deals. The first is to join Norway in the European Economic Area. This would preserve full access to the single market. But, like Norway, Britain would have to make a hefty contribution to the EU budget (Norway pays about 85% as much as Britain per head), observe all EU single-market regulations with no say in making them and, crucially, accept free movement of people from the EU. It is hard to imagine a post-Brexit government accepting this. The second is a free-trade deal like the EU’s with Canada. Yet this does not cover all trade, does not eliminate non-tariff barriers, excludes most financial services and could take years to agree.

 

The other option for Britain is to revert to trading with the EU as America, China and India do, under normal World Trade Organisation rules. But most economists say this would make the economic damage from Brexit worse. It would bring back mutual tariffs on cars, pharmaceuticals, food and fish. It would reinstate many non-tariff barriers. And it would exclude most services, including financial services.

 

The economic and trade problems arising from Brexit will dominate British politics for years to come. Security and foreign-policy concerns will also emerge. The home secretary, the security services and the police may try to replicate the co-ordinating measures that they have in place now with the rest of the EU, notably on intelligence-sharing. The Foreign Office may try to maintain its input into the EU’s foreign-policy discussions. But none of this will be easy and some may be impossible.

 

There will also be questions over the future of the United Kingdom. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted by clear majorities to remain in the EU, only to be overruled by the English and Welsh. Before the vote Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, said Brexit might justify a second referendum on Scottish independence, though she is likely to proceed with caution. Northern Ireland will be more immediately troubled. If Britain ends free movement of people, that may require the return of a hard border between Northern Ireland and its southern neighbour."

 

So it's a clusterfuck...

Where did I say every single worker in an entire government must be elected to have a democracy? Does the term straw man mean anything to you? The point is the people making the laws (or with final say over making the laws) are not put in that position directly by the people the laws govern, which is obvious from your brief description of the byzantine setup they have in place. The last I heard this Council of Ministers makes most or all of its decisions behind closed doors, without even making a transcript of its discussions available. Does that sound democratic? Now if you want to argue that it's not that much more undemocratic than the British Parliament, that may be a different issue, as the BP is not as democratic as we are here in the U.S. The EU as an economic union of some sort made sense, but the desire to transform it into a political union did not IMO.

What you last heard is wrong. I'm sure your government doesn't publish transcripts of all their dealings and discussions? The European Parliament is elected, we vote those people in there, the council of Ministers is also made up of elected officials, the Commission does not have final say on anything, it can not do anything without the consent of directly elected officials. The commission does not have as much power as people think, it's blown out of proportion by the anti EU crowd. Aside from said laws not necessarily being governing laws, they set standards and practices, for example in the UK's case I think around 12-15% of laws are EU laws, laws which were drawn up by Brits as well (they were never excluded), and voted for by Brits as well, for other countries it may be less or more, it depends. Like for example in the USA you have federal and state laws, it's the same system. The people who pass these laws are elected officials. The commission can not by itself make any sort of laws or policy decisions without the consent of the Parliament, which is an elected body. The Commission is mostly made up of tehnocrats, which makes sense.

 

I'll try to explain the role the European Commission has, it seems it's greatly misunderstood. The EC itself can not legislate, it does however have the right to draft legislation along with impact studies after consultation with parties of interest, and it needs approval from the EU Parliament and European Council (both made up of elected representatives). Governments, NGOs and citizens have the right to petition the Commission to draft laws, and it usually only drafts laws on request. The EU can only legislate when action is more effective at an EU level rather than at state or local level. For an EU law to pass, it needs approval from the Parliament and Council. The Parliament also has the power to block legislation, regardless of the fact that the Council endorsed it, it is the supreme decision maker. The Commission also engages in consultation when drafting a law, which is why they've acquired this false stigma of 'backroom dealing' in the eyes of the anti EU crowd, it's simply twisting facts to suit their rethoric (but hey, who gives a shit about facts these days?). They are by law required to consult with various NGOs, governments etc, when drafting a proposal. The Commission also has the very important role of seeing said legislation properly implemented by EU countries.

 

Yes it's bureaucratic and it does sound like a cumbersome process, but given the fact that it does not legislate everything and much of the legislation is left to the states, it's not as bad as it sounds. Countries in Europe have different codes of law, traditions and practices, it is impossible for the EU to legislate everything, that's why they mostly stick to broad policies, that are better applied when done EU wide not locally. For example on agriculture subsidies. It is in the interest of all to have a coherent policy on agriculture, and there are many more examples.

 

There are other problems with the EU and they legitimately require attention, and reformation, imo, but that's not the topic of discussion here. And I agree reform is needed in some areas, and I personally despise excessive bureaucracy, but how would the UK have been better served? I think they'd have been better served by staying and championing the cause of EU reform, they were some of the most vocal countries on this issue. It's a lose-lose situation imo. They chose to say F**k you all, we're out, after decades of hard work, instead of making an effort. The EU has had a crucial role in healing the wounds of WW2 and maintaining the peace. Just because everything isn't perfect it doesn't mean it has no benefits or merits.

Excerpt from an Economist article.

 

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2170...atile-financial

 

 

So it's a clusterfuck...

 

So how many more countries leaving, or which countries leaving would tip the balance of power/trade, etc. away from the EU? Would Germany by itself do that? France? Combo of the two?

So how many more countries leaving, or which countries leaving would tip the balance of power/trade, etc. away from the EU? Would Germany by itself do that? France? Combo of the two?

I think if either of them leaves ( and assuming they also get off the euro when they do) it will be the end.

Saw that.

 

The other interesting thing will be if others follow suit to dump the EU. Who will be next, and how soon will it be? Any guess'?

 

 

This is what I've been pondering. I somehow feel Spain may be next. I'd like to think Germany would be next but I suspect they know they'd lose massively in unpaid debt if that did happen.

Russia is very happy.

 

Brexit, Opinions?

 

Here is mine - We are screwed.

 

I blame the Remain politicians. The blame is equally attributable to the Conservatives and the Labour party. For the conservatives it was a political civil war fought on the battlefield of our children's and grandchildren's future. To say the labour party support for remain was half hearted would be a monumental exaggeration. They simply didn't show up. As for the SNP the referendum played right in to their hands. Scotland voted remain but the SNP deceitfully wanted leave. They knew it would trigger a referendum. Which they know they will win this time round. This will precipitate the break up of the UK with Northern Ireland leaving some time after Scotland leaves. I believe Wales will stay. We will be a United Kingdom of 2 countries that will at best become second rate nations after not too many years.

 

However, the country voted Leave for a reason. In particular the labour heartlands in the north, which swung the result, voted against official party policy for a reason. That reason was immigration. The reality is that we are a small island and people believe we are being swamped. Also, many people (irrationally imo) blame immigrants for their social and financial woes. Amazingly some prominent Leave politicians are now denying that they said that immigration to the UK will be cut as a result of the Brexit. If you think about it this makes sense. There have been millions and millions of immigrants to the UK over the last 40 years not from the EU. We could have prevented these non EU immigrants entering at any time but chose not to do so. Why would we suddenly change now? And yet the Leave politicians gave the impression that inward immigration would stop if we left. Total bollocks. They deceived the poorly informed and played on base instinct of some of the electorate.

 

Those not from the UK possibly don't realise what a difficult decision this was for many of us. I was of voting age (just) when we voted to join. However I voted to join what was then the EEC which was a free trade club. It then morphed in to a political club without us really noticing until it was too late. I didn't vote to join a political union 40+ years ago.

The UK is the birthplace of parliamentary democracy. Despite what others have said the EU has too high a proportion of undemocratic decision making institutions and persons. There is an innate distaste for this within the British people. We like to be given the chance to kick politicians out every 4 or 5 years and give the other side a chance. We were denied this with many of the people in the EU with power. There was also the matter of corruption. Farmers with 5 cows claiming the subsidies for 200 cows. The accounts for the EU haven't been signed off by the auditors for years, if ever. There are many other examples of corruption and unaccountable spend in the EU. The recent influx of people from the middle east and north Africa to mainland Europe was also a concern. The laws of probability make it inevitable that some within the midst of genuine refugees will be terrorists hiding in plain sight. With free movement in the EU eventually some would have made their way here. For these and other reasons it was a very difficult decision for many of us. Me included.

 

I voted Remain. In the end it was my daughter that swung it. I walked her down the aisle on Monday. In the days prior to her wedding the family was together and we talked about the vote. I figured that since it was she and her husband that would have to live the consequences that her opinion was what mattered more than my concerns regarding the undemocratic shape of the EU. I also realised that she would be economically screwed as a result of Brexit at exactly the point in her life when she would be least able to cope and recover from said economic shafting. I also wanted her to live her life in a strong and whole UK.

 

I fear that won't happen now. Repeating what I said at the beginning of this missive. I think we are screwed.

 

 

I read Turkey was considering a referendum on leaving.

Russia is very happy.

 

A weaker Europe is always a good thing for the Russians.

 

If Germany or France leaves the EU is over. It will never recover.

 

As to the question who's next? I think most countries considering leaving might want to see what happens to the canary in the coal mine first....

 

Next up the American election.....

So this guy, Boris Johnson, is the pro-Brexit politician who may replace David Cameron as British Prime Minister:

 

 

And this guy is who may be America's next president:

 

 

:eusa_think:

A weaker Europe is always a good thing for the Russians.

 

If Germany or France leaves the EU is over. It will never recover.

 

As to the question who's next? I think most countries considering leaving might want to see what happens to the canary in the coal mine first....

 

Next up the American election.....

 

I wouldn't think Germany would want to leave, as they are the most powerful nation (economically) in the E.U. Why give up all that power?

I wouldn't think Germany would want to leave, as they are the most powerful nation (economically) in the E.U. Why give up all that power?

 

 

I agree it is highly unlikely though refugee problem in Germany is immense. I was talking with an expat german friend this morning that just got back from a month in Munich. It's a real problem. Merkal is up for reelection next year.

So this guy, Boris Johnson, is the pro-Brexit politician who may replace David Cameron as British Prime Minister:

 

 

And this guy is who may be America's next president:

 

 

:eusa_think:

 

What I see:

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

^At least with Goku, all he needs is to collect all the Dragon Balls, summon the dragon and any wish will be granted. It's gonna take much much more than that to solve the issues here.

Yes Minister — Why Britain Joined the European Union

 

France will leave soon as will Poland. Spain can't afford to leave.

 

Putin is licking his chops

^At least with Goku, all he needs is to collect all the Dragon Balls, summon the dragon and any wish will be granted. It's gonna take much much more than that to solve the issues here.

 

Comment of the year so far

I agree it is highly unlikely though refugee problem in Germany is immense. I was talking with an expat german friend this morning that just got back from a month in Munich. It's a real problem. Merkal is up for reelection next year.

I wouldn't expect her to get re-elected considering the blowback she is getting for all the refugee influx.

Ultimate irony - Churchill called for the formation of a United States of Europe in 1946.

Putin is licking his chops

Why? Trying to regain areas lost at the end of the cold war?

Why? Trying to regain areas lost at the end of the cold war?

 

If you ask him they were never "lost," Russia just went on sabbatical for a bit but now they're back with the house keys

 

 

 

 

If you ask him they were never "lost," Russia just went on sabbatical for a bit but now they're back with the house keys

 

Low oil prices may make this difficult in the short term...but it is definitely on the agenda.

 

If you ask him they were never "lost," Russia just went on sabbatical for a bit but now they're back with the house keys

Speaking of that. I went on a very long road trip last weekend (500 miles each way). I listened to a book on Audible.com, "Blind Mans Bluff", a book about Cold War Submarine actions. It was a good book, which I have in paper copy too. Really gives some good ideas of how everything went down in the cold war. I wonder what they are doing now.

 

If I was smart enough I would have liked to go on a Sub, but I cant swim and Im not smart.

Low oil prices may make this difficult in the short term...but it is definitely on the agenda.

 

Yep, only a matter of time. If Germany starts flexing it's muscles it could be enough of an excuse for Russia to make it's move.

 

If I was smart enough I would have liked to go on a Sub, but I cant swim and Im not smart.

 

A submarine is prison with the threat of drowning...toss in no natural light for months on end and it doesn't sound like a fun place to be.

I agree it is highly unlikely though refugee problem in Germany is immense. I was talking with an expat german friend this morning that just got back from a month in Munich. It's a real problem. Merkal is up for reelection next year.

Merkel is politically finished. She had a great deal to do with the outcome of this referendum, it is precisely these half witted, one sided political decisions that have increased euro skepticism, put the European project in danger, and gave rise to a lot of the recent anti German and anti EU rethoric.

 

I wouldn't expect her to get re-elected considering the blowback she is getting for all the refugee influx.

And rightly so.

 

What she basically did was this: In the wake of the refugee crisis, in a fit of completely unbecoming and inappropriate emotional behavior, invited and encouraged refugees to come to Germany, against the advice of her councillors, local governments, ministers, governments of other countries etc. Seeing as this ignited a mass movement of refugees to Germany, and being unable to cope, she, over the course of a few weeks tried to spin this as a European problem, and using Germany's full political clout, tried, but failed to impose refugee quotas on the rest of the EU countries, in the name of European solidarity. The backlash was massive, as everyone felt they were being forced to deal with the consequences of a decision they did not make or agree to. And why should everyone be forced to deal with a problem they did not create? It is her short sightedness, and the west's inability to contain the problems in the Middle East that have put the EU in danger of dissolution.