advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+5)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
To whatever degree the UK did or didn't change the direction of the EU in all those years, 28 members and growing, QMV and the UK's position increasingly towards the outer walls of the centrifuge have and will progressively reduce any such influence. However, I respect the opinion that just inside the fence may have been better than just outside.

For better or for worse we aren't France, Germany or Italy, and neither would we ignore legislation, nor I suspect would we escape the attentions of the ECJ if we did. Such is just one aspect of the essential distinctions (for better or worse) between us and our European mainland neighbours, the founder members of the EC/EEC/EU.

Hold that thought then re-visit where this has got us.

The only real card the UK had was so enthusiatically dealt too early by Brexiteers as a moronic sign of defiance - triggering A50. Possibly the worst decision since holding a binary vote on a complex relationship. It was then quickly followed by the Dec statement and that was end game. Forget the Chequers agreement, triggering A50 with no clue was the guarantee that we would have our arses handed to us, it's just taking a while to sink in. I strongly suspect the UK Leave element would be screaming for blood if the roles were reversed and we were talking about another country leaving. DM headlines of 'make 'em pay, not a penny more' etc.
 
It would appear we are capable of self harm an order of magnitude greater than any harm Soros could currently inflict.
 
.... circular arguments are a breach of the AUP.

Blimey, if that's the case and the AUP ever gets enforced, it should thin this thread out a bit. It will be left with the half-handful such as yourself who never actually provide an argument or engage in the debate taking snipy potshots at articles by Nigel Farage and Rees-Mogg in the DM that nobody here actually reads.
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/eu-was-always-going-to-punish-us-for-brexit-mqdb3890m

"These two currents of feeling — fear of Euroscepticism and love for the EU — are why those on the Continent were always destined to ignore the UK’s pleading for a mutually beneficial deal, whatever the rational economic arguments for trade that is as open and frictionless as possible. A good deal for the UK would risk emboldening Eurosceptics elsewhere and undermining the European project, so it was never going to happen. As the former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis (who bears the scars from his own run-ins with Brussels) has said, the EU’s “greatest nightmare is a mutually advantageous agreement between Britain and the European Union. They are only concerned with one thing: how to signal to the rest of Europe that anyone who votes … in a manner which challenges the authority of the deep establishment in Europe will get crushed.”

The EU intransigence Liam Fox rages about was destined from the start. So let no Brexiteers claim, when the current shambles deepens to a crisis, that it would all have been different if we’d been more bold, if we’d had more hope or optimism, or if the government had prepared more thoroughly for a no-deal outcome. Let no one hang this all on the hapless Theresa May, the greatest fall-guy in political history who (though not good at her job) could have as easily changed the mind of the EU establishment as changed the tides of the sea.

The Europeans were always going to put first the integrity of the single market, the four freedoms, the project they believe in so passionately. Britain was always going to scrape a deal that would leave us worse off than before, or no deal that will take us God knows where. The writing was always on the wall. That’s why Brexit was always a terrible idea."



Never mind, a stiff upper lip and steadfast refusal to face facts will carry us to the sunny uplands and a free trade Nirvana. Or possibly not.
How about a little more patriotism round here?
 
Blimey, if that's the case and the AUP ever gets enforced, it should thin this thread out a bit. It will be left with the half-handful such as yourself who never actually provide an argument or engage in the debate taking snipy potshots at articles by Nigel Farage and Rees-Mogg in the DM that nobody here actually reads.

Dusty Ass II: Anger Management
 
Bully for you!
If I could have a pound for every time I've avoided trying to score a cheap point for typo, grammatical and spelling errors on pfm, I'd have a pretty good income stream

Just take the embarrassment of wheeling out your big word and getting it wrong on the chin. Ditto with your Leave vote when the country collapses next April.
 
Hold that thought then re-visit where this has got us.

The only real card the UK had was so enthusiatically dealt too early by Brexiteers as a moronic sign of defiance - triggering A50. Possibly the worst decision since holding a binary vote on a complex relationship. It was then quickly followed by the Dec statement and that was end game. Forget the Chequers agreement, triggering A50 with no clue was the guarantee that we would have our arses handed to us, it's just taking a while to sink in. I strongly suspect the UK Leave element would be screaming for blood if the roles were reversed and we were talking about another country leaving. DM headlines of 'make 'em pay, not a penny more' etc.
^ The summation of fatal Tory hubris. The railhead of all stupids, in a nutshell.
 
Blimey, if that's the case and the AUP ever gets enforced, it should thin this thread out a bit. It will be left with the half-handful such as yourself who never actually provide an argument or engage in the debate taking snipy potshots at articles by Nigel Farage and Rees-Mogg in the DM that nobody here actually reads.

There`s a clause in the AUP that gives circular argument immunity to Brexit threads and Cable threads..............well, it`s the only explanation I can think of.
 
So you will applaud British vassalage and total subservience to the European Commission, without end? You would submit this country completely to the organisation that has brought utter economic chaos to half of Europe <snip>

Do you really think that this is wise?

<snip> I would like to see an economic community of sovereign nations rather than a political union of the countries of Europe, so my mind is far from closed to the organs that permit the nations to trade freely together. But the CU is policed by the politically activist Court of Justice of the EU, which would place us into an unacceptable post-Brexit vasselage to the politically activist EC.
<snip>
So, in short, I am fairly open as long as we are properly insulated from overt EC meddling or influence in our lawmaking and political processes.
I hear 'vassalage' and think 'Rees-Mogg'. Is that really what you want, EV?

On your other point, I think the fundamental difficulty with an economic community sans any remnant of political union is that you'll get nation states competing for position at the expense of the others. The accession states in the last decade upset the applecart a fair bit (and the UK didn't help itself by neglecting measures which would have helped it) but in the longer term, everybody settles to a broadly similar level. At least some of the reluctance of Eastern Europeans to come here to do manual work stems from the rise of prosperity (=wages) in their own countries and the weak pound, making the economic differential not worth the aggro they've been getting.

So without some form of political union, you'd get a race to the bottom on regulation and costs, for economic advantage. Political union gives you a mechanism to level the playing field. If you're really going to have a proper community, you need that community to respect a set of ground rules. Which inevitably leads to at least a degree of political union. I think the two are indivisible, once you start talking about a community the size of the EU (even when it was half the number it is now).

I don't see the 'ever closer union' as some Machiavellian scheme, so much as a recognition that in a generation from now, the community will be stronger if it stands together politically, economically and ideologically.
 
I hear 'vassalage' and think 'Rees-Mogg'. Is that really what you want, EV?

I refer you back to the second sentence of the second paragraph in the post (#1803) to which you are responding.

On your other point, I think the fundamental difficulty with an economic community sans any remnant of political union is that you'll get nation states competing for position at the expense of the others. The accession states in the last decade upset the applecart a fair bit (and the UK didn't help itself by neglecting measures which would have helped it) but in the longer term, everybody settles to a broadly similar level. At least some of the reluctance of Eastern Europeans to come here to do manual work stems from the rise of prosperity (=wages) in their own countries and the weak pound, making the economic differential not worth the aggro they've been getting.

So without some form of political union, you'd get a race to the bottom on regulation and costs, for economic advantage. Political union gives you a mechanism to level the playing field. If you're really going to have a proper community, you need that community to respect a set of ground rules. Which inevitably leads to at least a degree of political union. I think the two are indivisible, once you start talking about a community the size of the EU (even when it was half the number it is now).

I don't see the 'ever closer union' as some Machiavellian scheme, so much as a recognition that in a generation from now, the community will be stronger if it stands together politically, economically and ideologically.

This is all a perfect example of the kind of cognitive dissonance that I keep calling out. Fine, woolly, utopian crypto-socialist theory which entirely fails to take into account the nature of humanity - our natural striving for individuality, our essential tribalism and competitiveness, our attachment to customs and cultural distinctions and histories that have been a thousand years in the making, our pride and sense of self and of belonging - and of the actual, harsh reality. The EU project, for all that has done to lift the formerly oppressed eastern and southern European countries out of the darkness of post-communism and dictatorship, is now, precisely by the constant and progressive imposition of economic and political union, and of its top-down attempts at cultural imperialism, a divisive, even destructive force. And you can't look me in the eye (metaphorically, obviously) and tell me that Germany hasn't played the Euro project to its own massive advantage, and to the very ugly disadvantage of the clubmed countries and even France, that the eastern countries don't compete for the car factories, that London doesn't furiously compete to hold onto its massive dominance in the financial services sector, or that on a more prosaic level French ski schools will employ anyone but French ski instructors, and so on. We are a competitive race. Suppress competition, level the playing field too insistently, and you will quickly get something that looks like communist collectivism.

I agree, and have often said, that for the EU, or more specifically the Eurozone project, to ever work properly, there has to be a deep degree of fiscal and political union. This isn't going to happen. The current cheerleader for this, Emmanuel Macron, has pretty much expended his first year's goodwill, and he has hit the buffers. Germany will not agree to the transfer union, and it will not trade in any more of its sovereignty (of which it retains, in its constitution, more than we do within the EU). The eastern countries are in open rebellion against Brussels' attempts at cultural imposition, Greece is looking at the next 60 years in cripplingly expensive hock to Germany, and Italy is teetering forever on the brink of a banking meltdown, and has installed an anti Euro/EU government. Ireland won't look pretty when the UK, its biggest market, leaves the EU without a deal, and Brussels whips away the tax advantages that it offers to corporations, and so on.

Trade involves people and businesses dealing with each other in the complex world of competitive and comparative advantage and disadvantage. It is incumbent upon government and regulatory authorities to regulate and control the markets to a degree that doesn't get too much in the way of them (capitalism, I think we can all agree, requires at least a degree of fettering if it to work to societal advantage) and governments can instigate joint regulatory bodies, by treaty and common agreement, to control technical and social standards across continents, or even globally. All of the really important regulatory and standards bodies are supra-national organisations that are devoted to precisely these ends - ISO, WTO and the various standards authorities which fall within the UN.

Nobody would dispute that treaty involves some degree of sovereign outsourcing to supranational organisations such as these, or to intergovernmental bodies, but the amount of political sovereignty that countries cede is modest compared with the ambitions of the EU. Australia and New Zealand don't make each other's laws, the EU doesn't make Chile's laws, even the ASEAN nations work on the basis of cooperation and association rather than overt political centralisation.

The EU is a utopian political project devised to address the problems of the early and mid-20th century, and it is one that no longer carries the consent of the people of the European nations. It is not adapted, and will not adapt, to the needs of the mid-21st century, and in its present form it is a busted flush. It needs to be radically transformed, or broken and replaced. Whether Brexit will serve towards those ends is anyone's guess. If the vision and the statesmanship were there, it could be a massive opportunity. Sadly, it isn't.
 
But this is an argument based on principles, EV. You agree, I think, that a degree of political union is necessary, and probably desirable. So we mainly diverge on where necessity and desirability ends.

Are you able to give an example of where the project has gone too far, and where the UK has been unable to negotiate an opt-out? Just one example will serve to illustrate your point, please (and preferably in just a couple of short paragraphs, I'm not looking for a dissertation, just an illustrative example).
 
I refer you back to the second sentence of the second paragraph in the post (#1803) to which you are responding.



This is all a perfect example of the kind of cognitive dissonance that I keep calling out. Fine, woolly, utopian crypto-socialist theory which entirely fails to take into account the nature of humanity - our natural striving for individuality, our essential tribalism and competitiveness, our attachment to customs and cultural distinctions and histories that have been a thousand years in the making, our pride and sense of self and of belonging - and of the actual, harsh reality. The EU project, for all that has done to lift the formerly oppressed eastern and southern European countries out of the darkness of post-communism and dictatorship, is now, precisely by the constant and progressive imposition of economic and political union, and of its top-down attempts at cultural imperialism, a divisive, even destructive force. And you can't look me in the eye (metaphorically, obviously) and tell me that Germany hasn't played the Euro project to its own massive advantage, and to the very ugly disadvantage of the clubmed countries and even France, that the eastern countries don't compete for the car factories, that London doesn't furiously compete to hold onto its massive dominance in the financial services sector, or that on a more prosaic level French ski schools will employ anyone but French ski instructors, and so on. We are a competitive race. Suppress competition, level the playing field too insistently, and you will quickly get something that looks like communist collectivism.

I agree, and have often said, that for the EU, or more specifically the Eurozone project, to ever work properly, there has to be a deep degree of fiscal and political union. This isn't going to happen. The current cheerleader for this, Emmanuel Macron, has pretty much expended his first year's goodwill, and he has hit the buffers. Germany will not agree to the transfer union, and it will not trade in any more of its sovereignty (of which it retains, in its constitution, more than we do within the EU). The eastern countries are in open rebellion against Brussels' attempts at cultural imposition, Greece is looking at the next 60 years in cripplingly expensive hock to Germany, and Italy is teetering forever on the brink of a banking meltdown, and has installed an anti Euro/EU government. Ireland won't look pretty when the UK, its biggest market, leaves the EU without a deal, and Brussels whips away the tax advantages that it offers to corporations, and so on.

Trade involves people and businesses dealing with each other in the complex world of competitive and comparative advantage and disadvantage. It is incumbent upon government and regulatory authorities to regulate and control the markets to a degree that doesn't get too much in the way of them (capitalism, I think we can all agree, requires at least a degree of fettering if it to work to societal advantage) and governments can instigate joint regulatory bodies, by treaty and common agreement, to control technical and social standards across continents, or even globally. All of the really important regulatory and standards bodies are supra-national organisations that are devoted to precisely these ends - ISO, WTO and the various standards authorities which fall within the UN.

Nobody would dispute that treaty involves some degree of sovereign outsourcing to supranational organisations such as these, or to intergovernmental bodies, but the amount of political sovereignty that countries cede is modest compared with the ambitions of the EU. Australia and New Zealand don't make each other's laws, the EU doesn't make Chile's laws, even the ASEAN nations work on the basis of cooperation and association rather than overt political centralisation.

The EU is a utopian political project devised to address the problems of the early and mid-20th century, and it is one that no longer carries the consent of the people of the European nations. It is not adapted, and will not adapt, to the needs of the mid-21st century, and in its present form it is a busted flush. It needs to be radically transformed, or broken and replaced. Whether Brexit will serve towards those ends is anyone's guess. If the vision and the statesmanship were there, it could be a massive opportunity. Sadly, it isn't.
Your chloro-chickens await you.
 
ET breeze-block soundtracks:
Dam Busters March
Nimrod from Enigma Variations
I Vow to Thee my Country
Land of Hope & Glory
My Wife Won't Let Me (whoops, wrong sentiment, right period)
 
There's nothing wrong with chlorine treated food, correctly regulated and within reason. Adding it to the drinking water supply is the greatest improvement in public health since, er, ever. 30 years ago as a youth I was chlorine treating carrots for coleslaw, shortly after that the same with lettuce for sandwiches, so it goes on. Nothing has changed, caterers still use it as a matter of routine on vegetables. It's when it's uncontrolled that it's a problem, I once was served a salad that had so much chlorine in it that the red cabbage had gone blue. I sent it back with the advice to the chef that he might want to water his bleach down a bit before he tipped it on the salad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top