Europe In Out Shake it all about | Page 107 | Vital Football

Europe In Out Shake it all about

BodyButter - 28/12/2017 12:45

I believe the deal that the UK will end up with is the Norway deal unless someone can halt this runaway train. The way I see it playing out is this:

Nobody in Northern Ireland wants a return to a hard border.

May needs the DUP to keep her majority and they have already vetoed one deal May had agreed to.

The DUP will hold May hostage over the position of Northern Ireland in a Brexit deal.

To keep a soft border between the North and the Republic, the EU will insist on regularity convergence meaning that Britain follows the EU rules despite not having any say in how those rules are made.

If May hadn't called that election, Northern Ireland would probably have been abandoned by the UK but then if Princip hadn't killed the Archduke, we'd never be in this mess.
Click to expand...

There is an alternative that would also work, not that I know if this is even being considered but, the UK could always join the Schengen Agreement, which doesn't require EU membership and keeps the borders open(ish).

As for Norway's relationship to the EU, they certainly don't keep all EU regulations but do in terms of commodities traded with EU nation states. It's important to remember that politics is not exclusively about trade.



 
Villan Of The North - 28/12/2017 20:49

Agreed, the leave campaign was a load of lies but that does not mean that there is not a good argument to leave. As for material benefits, in the short term I agree but on the long term that is dependant on how being outside the EU effects trade with other potential partners and as I mentioned previously, it's far too early to say. Besides, not everything should be about materialism, should it?

The arguments are not all jingoistic, or did you not read my post?
Click to expand...

Generally, countries trade with their neighbours. The UK exports about £11bn of goods and services to China each year and £18bn to Ireland. The Chinese market is 260 times bigger but Ireland is next door.

It's theoretically possible that the UK could do fantastic trade deals with Australia and Peru but realistically, the majority of UK business is still going to be done with France and Germany long after Brexit.

Life isn't all about materialism but the business of government absolutely is.
 
I disagree with your last statement BB, if it were to be the case then there would (taking it to extremes) be no need for laws and regulations that protect people from agressors or unscrupulous employers.

As for trade partners, pre 1973 we had a huge amound of trade with former and current Commonwealth member states but we turned our backs on them to join the EEC, leaving a number of them high and dry and looking for new trading partners. Now whilst I could understand many of them not wanting to return to those days, considering how we treated them, they do show how things move on, new trade deals are struck and ultimately most have thrived. Australia, Canada and New Zealand don't seem to be struggling too much, Canada turned more to the US whilst the other two turned to Asia (which does back up your point about trading with neighbours) but they also trade with the EU without having to keep EU rules, all they have to do is trade goods and services that are approved in the EU.

 
The amount of trade is inversely proportional to distance. Every example, for every country tells us this, and I posted a paper about it before the vote. You cannot change these types of economic reality.

There is not one good reason for leaving the EU. Not one.
 
BodyButter - 28/12/2017 08:16

VOTN, can you give me an example of one benefit of being outside the EU?
Click to expand...

A blue passport, try to keep up!

(tongue in cheek folks before anyone gets upset)

(or is it?)

:15: :15:
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 28/12/2017 13:46


There is not one good reason for leaving the EU. Not one.
Click to expand...

I disagree, you saying it in such an authorattative way doesn't actually make it fact. You could try reading my earlier post for a pretty good reason.

I feel that I'm arguing as a Brexiteer here, I'm not but I also feel that genuine reasons to leave have not been heard and they should be. Goodness knows the leave campaign did a terrible job of it.........but then that campaign was not about the Brexiteers wanting to leave, it was about individuals trying to further their careers.

 
It's probably me, but I can't see where you've given a good reason, Ian. What was it?

I have heard so many with their view on why we should leave, and every time it's based on incorrect information or just pure delusion.

Economically, socially, legally, culturally and defensively we are weaker.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 28/12/2017 15:07

It's probably me, but I can't see where you've given a good reason, Ian. What was it?

I have heard so many with their view on why we should leave, and every time it's based on incorrect information or just pure delusion.

Economically, socially, legally, culturally and defensively we are weaker.
Click to expand...

This is my view Bob. I'm not saying it outweighs all other arguments, I'm just saying that it's a valid argument for leaving. As I've said, I'm still not sure what's best, the only thing that I'm sure about is that I don't trust any of the current top placed politicians to deliver what the country needs post Brexit and as such it's probably foolhardy to leave at this moment in time.

However, this is a bigger issue than economics, although everything within the political sphere will affect and be affected by economics. I'm a big believer in democracy, I don't believe in mob rule, there should always be checks and balances in place to avoid some fo the stupid things done in the name of democracy but I believe that one of the most fundemental issues in democracy is accountability.

The bigger the government, the more distant the governing powers are from the people, the less accountable they are. As things stand the British can hold a small number of MEPs accountable and only, generally 2, at any one time, of the council of ministers (which is where EU really power lies). The concept of big government encourages more and more bureaucracy, which, although a certain level is innevitable and essential, is often one of the biggest drains on resources in any large organisation. If we want people to engage in politics, if we want them to use their voices (in parliamentary procedure there is something called a voice vote or "viva voce" which is latin for "live voice") we need to bring it to them, recent election turnouts evidence a general disinterest and la lack of belief that they can make a difference.

The best way, in my opinion, to govern AND engage the people in their own governance, is to limit big government to those matters that must be governed om a large scale, everthing else should be actioned on a local level. In my opinion 600 MPs is far too many, they should be reduced to max 200, then an English parliament should be established to deal with English matters, matching the parlaiments in the other UK member states and more power should be given to local authorities to tackle issues in the most appropriate way for local conditions. The current EU is moving in the opposite direction, with more and more being decided at an international level.

If one engages the people, gives them ownership, they will take more responsibility for society which will, in turn, build the country and the economy. It's a long process but every process has to start somewhere.

Is there a place in the EU in this structure? Possibly but not in its current form, hence my ambivolence around the whole situation.
Click to expand...

It's not so much a Brexit issue as a general big government issue. If the EU can pull back a bit and restructure I could quite happily stay in the EU and abolish the UK government in favour of national governments for England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland but we all know that this type of change is not going to happen unless it's forced and MPs are not going to be turkeys voting for Christmas so the only viable way forward, from what I can see, is Brexit. But as I said, I'm not sure it's worth it.

However, as we know that Brexit will be happening, whether we like it or not, is not the issue now to see what we can do to make it work rather than complain about something that we can't actually change? Or do you believe that the process can be reversed?



 
I think that would work in the '50s, but today that is just not feasible. Too many people are not engaged in anything community based. A good proportion won't even know their neighbours properly. Local or not, it's just too late. I have experience in this matter, as I helped my friend who ran for the local elections. The apathy is frightening.

I also wonder how being in the EU stopped us doing as you suggest? Our own electoral system is still ours, and as for the wider laws, we had the veto, so we had full control over what was actually prescribed by the EU. I'm not sure people understood that. Earlier in this thread I asked people to name one bad law or regulation we've implemented since joining the EU. From memory, it was teh debunked ones like bent bananas that people were upset about.

It's just smoke and mirrors.
 
It's very confusing the lack of understanding -
did we really have a veto and thus full control over EU laws ?
Sounds great - but I thought Lisbon had introduced qmv for lots policy areas thus removing a power of veto ? (maybe you meant had a veto in just some areas)
I mean it'd be barmy for one country to have a veto as the EU moves towards the dream of a federal state

bit like the debunk of the debunk of bendy nanas - etc etc
 
The veto argument is overstated and only applies to a small number of decisions made.

From http://www.eu-facts.org.uk/arguments-by-topic/can-the-uk-veto-new-eu-laws/

Where can we use a veto?
There are now only a few areas of EU policy where changes require a unanimous vote. In these few areas member states still effectively have a veto on EU decisions. They are.


Common Foreign and Security Policy (with the exception of certain clearly defined cases which require qualified majority, e.g. Appointment of a special representative)
Citizenship – the granting of new rights to EU citizens
New EU membership
Harmonisation of national legislation on indirect taxation
EU finances (own resources, the multiannual financial framework)
Certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.)
Harmonisation of national legislation in the field of social security and social protection.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/unanimity/

The UK cannot veto decisions in areas where it has secures opt-out, such as euro monetary policy.

Where we do not have a veto
In almost all other policy areas the EU is capable of passing legislation that affects member states without unanimous agreement. In these areas a vote in the European Parliament and a system of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of the EU is used to approve or reject proposals by the European Commission. About 80% of all EU legislation is adopted with this procedure.
 
We have a full veto on Constitutional matters.

And then, we have the Luxembourg Compromise, which is a gentleman's agreement between members that one country can indefinitely block a majority vote in the Council of Ministers if it believes that its 'very important interests' are threatened.
 
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 28/12/2017 15:43

I think that would work in the '50s, but today that is just not feasible. Too many people are not engaged in anything community based. A good proportion won't even know their neighbours properly. Local or not, it's just too late. I have experience in this matter, as I helped my friend who ran for the local elections. The apathy is frightening.
Click to expand...

Do you not think that this apathy is a result of people feeling powerless as out of touch politicians precide over matters for which they have little interest, knowledge or connection to?

 
No, I think it's down to media overload. The only politicians people really used to know were their local ones. These days it's wall to wall Westminster, Brussels and more. People think their vote doesn't make a difference, because in reality, for most it hasn't.
 
I just can't see that the big government is bad and small government is good arguement holds water.

We have local councils to deal with local issues. Then Scotland, Wales and NI have national assemblies to deal with their national issues (England should have one too), there is Westminster to deal with British issues and the EU to deal with EU issues.

There are lots of ineffective and/or corrupt local councils.
 
Maybe it's just a view with rose tinted glasses, but I remember a time when local councils were run by people we knew. It was a vocation, rather than a career.

Is that just me looking back wrong, or has it really changed that much?
 
Perhaps this should be in the Politics thread, but when I see Theresa May make any kind of speech or watch an interview with her on TV, I really struggle to understand what she thinks she will be known for in the future. We all have our own ideas, objectives, morals and so on, with Theresa May will she look back on her career in 20 years time from the old peoples home and think to herself that she did a great job defiantly following the wishes of the 52% at a single point in time even at the detriment of the country economically, socially and politically because she did what the people wanted?

Considering she's so out of touch with the average working man, woman, child, LGBT (need all that with the PC nonsense these days) I can't get my head around who or what she wants to be. Perhaps Maggie T is some kind of benchmark?
 
BodyButter - 28/12/2017 16:25

I just can't see that the big government is bad and small government is good arguement holds water.

We have local councils to deal with local issues. Then Scotland, Wales and NI have national assemblies to deal with their national issues (England should have one too), there is Westminster to deal with British issues and the EU to deal with EU issues.

There are lots of ineffective and/or corrupt local councils.
Click to expand...

One of the best quotes I heard from a colleague during Brexit was "Brussels cares more for the British people than Westminster does".

There are some great examples of positives the EU has brought us Brits from farming subsidies, to sustainable fishing quotes in the seas to working hour directives. Take EU targets on air quality. Air pollution in London kills thousands of people and is probably impacting the other 7.9m people in some form every second of every day. Yet when we leave the EU, what is the consequence to the British government for poor air quality? Presumably there will not be a fine or a penalty. So what if a few thousand people die directly from the issue, there are 60m other people to fill the void right?

The UK government can't hit an air quality target for love nor money with the threat of the consequences let alone an environment without the overarching legislation.
 
danvilla2 - 29/12/2017 06:53

Perhaps this should be in the Politics thread, but when I see Theresa May make any kind of speech or watch an interview with her on TV, I really struggle to understand what she thinks she will be known for in the future. We all have our own ideas, objectives, morals and so on, with Theresa May will she look back on her career in 20 years time from the old peoples home and think to herself that she did a great job defiantly following the wishes of the 52% at a single point in time even at the detriment of the country economically, socially and politically because she did what the people wanted?

Considering she's so out of touch with the average working man, woman, child, LGBT (need all that with the PC nonsense these days) I can't get my head around who or what she wants to be. Perhaps Maggie T is some kind of benchmark?
Click to expand...

She is hanging on to her job by her fingernails. If there was anyone else, she'd be gone by now. Her government could fall at any money over the wrong Brexit deal so she's lying through her teeth about red, white and blue Brexits etc.

If she can get through the Brexit minefield and out the other side, she'll have some scope for thinking of a legacy. At the moment, it's coughing, homelessness and incompetence.
 
Even before she called the election and put herself on the ropes, she tried to come across as a straight up leader yet lied several times through her back teeth. I personnally hate all this “daughter of a vicar” bull shit spouted as though it’s meant to automatically mean she has some kind of moral or ethical values that do not need to be proven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.