|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem with that is that the EU has had decades during which they "could have profited immensely from British pragmatism" but have not done a very good job of availing themselves of that opportunity.
Oh, in all those decades the Brits have never been pragmatic about what's good for Europe. They only have been pragmatic about what's good for Britain. And that has been a weak continent for centuries.
The truth is, I do not really feel like I lost anything but a lot of dead weight. And the only thing I'm sad about is that I can't see the rest of europe take this sudden opportunity and make the best out of it.
Ok I'm also a bit sad for those 48% who lost. Because those too will have to pay the cost for what may prove the dumbest decision in all of British history.
Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.
Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.
Oh no, not at all. A deliberate political decision, to make an exit as strenuous, hazardous and unpractical as possible.
Except it didn't work.
What happens now in fact is that if any EU country, no matter how small, doesn't like the exit treaty UK will get, it can torpedoe it at will. Hope UK didn't bother any of its neighbours recently... Else, it will be a long and painful process.
|
|
Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.
Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.
That's a fine example for what I am talking about. Because this has nothing to do with european bureaucracy at all, but with the unwillingness of the souvereign nations to give up a bit of their sovereignty to be more efficient when it comes to hard decisions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is a shame, really because Europe could have profited immensely from britsh pragmatism.The only problem with that is that the EU has had decades during which they "could have profited immensely from British pragmatism" but have not done a very good job of availing themselves of that opportunity.
I agree, it's rather sad when a restaurant shuts down. But when the restaurant's been there for twenty years and you've never bothered to go once, it's hard for me to feel much sympathy for your lost opportunity once it finally does.
The UK actually had a lot of influence on the EU and used it to promote free trade while blocking attempts at political or fiscal union
For example the UK successfully lobbied for the fast expansion of the EU to eastern Europe to amplify the free trade while making political union even more unlikely
We will trade UK for Québec, any day ! Waffles for everyone !Can I move out of Québec beforehand?
Can we magically make them geographically switch place?
Of course. Europe is nothing but magnanimous.
Especially if you make the effort to push Canada closer. Would be easier for the new tunnel under the Channel.
Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.
Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.
Oh no, not at all. A deliberate political decision, to make an exit as strenuous, hazardous and unpractical as possible.
Except it didn't work.
That's not clear yet. HMG is under no obligation actually to leave the EU as a result of the referendum. Cameron could stand up in the Commons tomorrow -- or whenever they next meet -- and say "Sorry, chaps, we finally got around to reading the treaties, and leaving is a REALLY BAD IDEA and I'm just not going to do it."
Of course, he'd almost instantly face a vote of no confidence, and I'm not sure God Himself knows what the outcome of a general election would be under these conditions, but it's no worse than some of the things that have happened in Spain and Italy recently.
There's a possibility that (someone thinks that) now that the UK has painted itself into a corner, the EU may suddenly decide to throw them a lifeline and offer a revised set of treaties that will enable HMG to save face and not demand an exit from the EU (because "conditions have changed since the referendum happened"). Again, this would probably involve the PM falling on his sword and a new general election, but it might preserve the EU.
As I read it, to some extent this has turned into a game of "chicken." The EU still has the power to save the UK from itself by offering the UK new terms for EU membership. And, of course, the UK has the power to save itself from itself by simply ignoring the referendum. I don't think, though, that any of the politicians (on either side) have the motivation (or the strength, or the good will) for it. Which means, as in far too many games of chicken, the result is likely to be a crash.
We will trade UK for Québec, any day ! Waffles for everyone !Can I move out of Québec beforehand?
Can we magically make them geographically switch place?
Of course. Europe is nothing but magnanimous.
Especially if you make the effort to push Canada closer. Would be easier for the new tunnel under the Channel.I meant Québec ending up where the UK are, and the UK ending up where Québec is. Hey, Québec would get its wishes, being out of Canada, and being closer to France and the rest of Europe.
UK getting Canada back is something else.
Oh, I see. You should get to work now, then. That will need a lot of mojo.
How will you cope with the scottish situation, as they seem to be inclined to stay ? Also, do you intend to cut northern Ireland out, or do we get to keep it ?
|
|
on the other side, there are plenty of reasons for such an unwillingness.
Maybe. But imagine the states of the U.S. had behaved the same way. The U.S.A. would most probably already be a thing of history and it would have never become the biggest power in the world today. (and in fact, a lot of the problems of the EU become more clear if you compare them to how it is handled between the U.S.).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a sad thing. Honestly, as an outside observer, the ugly reasons that were given for leaving makes me think that the EU should play hardball with England and Wales while Scotland should become independent and NI should rejoin Ireland.
All the worst politicians in Europe (Le Pen, Wilders) are cheering this and that should give an idea of how terrible this has been.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.
Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.
Oh no, not at all. A deliberate political decision, to make an exit as strenuous, hazardous and unpractical as possible.
Except it didn't work.
That's not clear yet. HMG is under no obligation actually to leave the EU as a result of the referendum. Cameron could stand up in the Commons tomorrow -- or whenever they next meet -- and say "Sorry, chaps, we finally got around to reading the treaties, and leaving is a REALLY BAD IDEA and I'm just not going to do it."
Of course, he'd almost instantly face a vote of no confidence, and I'm not sure God Himself knows what the outcome of a general election would be under these conditions, but it's no worse than some of the things that have happened in Spain and Italy recently.
There's a possibility that (someone thinks that) now that the UK has painted itself into a corner, the EU may suddenly decide to throw them a lifeline and offer a revised set of treaties that will enable HMG to save face and not demand an exit from the EU (because "conditions have changed since the referendum happened"). Again, this would probably involve the PM falling on his sword and a new general election, but it might preserve the EU.
As I read it, to some extent this has turned into a game of "chicken." The EU still has the power to save the UK from itself by offering the UK new terms for EU membership. And, of course, the UK has the power to save itself from itself by simply ignoring the referendum. I don't think, though, that any of the politicians (on either side) have the motivation (or the strength, or the good will) for it. Which means, as in far too many games of chicken, the result is likely...
I wish, but I really don't think so. EU had already given a lot of shinies to Cameron before the referendum, and it didn't suffice (including the right to withhold welfare for foreign workers in UK, wheras UK workers get it fully in all other countries).
Frankly, there is a time where enough is enough : bending over to offer even more advantageous terms to UK for its membership would be political suicide in most countries. UK has still the 2/3 rebate THatcher got in 84, which was meant to be a five-year thing... if contributing to the european budget only a third of what you should be with your GNP isn't doing the trick, nothing will.
Certainly the Germany led EU won't be able to do with GB what it did with Greece last year (it's basically open economic warfare there, with Greece being sold piece by piece to foreigners, most of them, German).Well, apart from the parentheses stuff being a blatant lie, we don't need to do the same to GB. They made themselves irrelevant by voting for the Brexit and no one needs to care about their opinions from now on.
The best they can get is to come in the same position like Suisse or Norway, meaning they have to pay for the right to partake in the european market without having any influence on european dicisions to come.
Which is a shame, really because Europe could have profited immensely from britsh pragmatism if the brits hadn't replaced it by populism instead.
You seem to think things won't change after this, but that's not the case. The current EU situation benefits Germany greatly. The Commission (and not the Parliament which is elected) always was very attentive towards Germany (and to a lesser extent France). Other countries in the EU resent that. Germany's weapon against them up till now has always been a sort of "do this or else" clause. What happened with Greece last year was basically Germany wanting to humiliate the Greek people and Tsipras giving up almost immediately. You seem to think that's a good thing for Germany. In the short term it may be, in the longer term it won't. WWI and WWII all steem from the same roots, Germany being too powerful/aggressive and other countries reacting (and note I'm not saying the central empires were the only ones to blame for WWI nor that the rise of the nationalsocialist party was just a fault of the german people but rather the effect of how obtuse France and GB were after the great war's end), the EU was a way to avoid Germany's power to end in another bloodbath and to make sure countries were able to solve their differences without resorting to warfare. Now to keep it's prominence Germany will be forced to make concessions or lose it all. But knowing the usual flair of some german politicians (take mr Shauble for one) the latter option may be exactly the one that will be chosen.
The USA can be a big power because they don't have to worry about their trillions dollards of debts, well, to a degree...
Neither does the EU, or for that matter, did Britain as part of the EU. When you borrow in your own currency, you can pick whatever rate you like to pay it back (it's called "devaluation"). This particular dog won't hunt.
I wish, but I really don't think so. EU had already given a lot of shinies to Cameron before the referendum, and it didn't suffice (including the right to withhold welfare for foreign workers in UK, wheras UK workers get it fully in all other countries).Frankly, there is a time where enough is enough : bending over to offer even more advantageous terms to UK for its membership would be political suicide in most countries. UK has still the 2/3 rebate THatcher got in 84, which was meant to be a five-year thing... if contributing to the european budget only a third of what you should be with your GNP isn't doing the trick, nothing will.
I'm not sure we're really disagreeing. What you said above is pretty close to what I said about the EU not having the motivation, strength, or good will to offer the UK the kind of lifeline that would enable this crisis to be averted at this point.
There's nothing legally that prevents offering the UK even more advantageous "shinies"; as you point out, it would merely be "political suicide" for the politicians to do so. There's also nothing legally that prevents Cameron from saying "Oops, just kidding, wasn't that a good joke?" other than the fact that in the ensuing general election, the Tories would place somewhere behind the Whigs in terms of popular vote -- and, of course, Cameron himself wouldn't be able to get a job in a kebab shop.
So one of the questions is simply "is anyone, on either side, statesman enough to commit suicide for the Greater Good?" (To which the answer is probably, but not certainly, no.)
|
|
Neither does the EU, or for that matter, did Britain as part of the EU. When you borrow in your own currency, you can pick whatever rate you like to pay it back (it's called "devaluation"). This particular dog won't hunt.
The USA can be a big power because they don't have to worry about their trillions dollards of debts, well, to a degree...
Yeah, the currency thing is a bit more complicated with respect to the euro. The big problem the European countries have is that they can't print money to pay their bills, like an ordinary sovereign nation can in the face of a default in the domestic currency. The ECB controls all of that and is basically forbidden to do it.
The "Money of the World" part, the USA would be one hell of a mess without it.
No. Just, no. Actually, being "the money of the world" causes more problems for the USA than it solves, because it means that the USA has less fiscal flexibility than it ordinarily would.
|
|
No. Just, no. Actually, being "the money of the world" causes more problems for the USA than it solves, because it means that the USA has less fiscal flexibility than it ordinarily would.
The "Money of the World" part, the USA would be one hell of a mess without it.
No, that's not correct. Everyone using your currency means you can borrow more cheaply. Which is worth a hell of a lot of money to the US Governnment.
No, that's not correct. Everyone using your currency means you can borrow more cheaply. Which is worth a hell of a lot of money to the US Governnment.No. Just, no. Actually, being "the money of the world" causes more problems for the USA than it solves, because it means that the USA has less fiscal flexibility than it ordinarily would.
The "Money of the World" part, the USA would be one hell of a mess without it.
Yes, that's one effect, and it's a positive effect. But it's dwarfed by the fact that if everyone uses the US dollar, devaluing the dollar has a lot less effect on the US's obligations that it ordinarily would. In particular, since oil is traded in US dollars, we can't devalue away oil supply issues.
And the liquidity effect on borrowing rates isn't really that great -- if it were, we'd be borrowing at negative rates like Germany is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure we're really disagreeing. What you said above is pretty close to what I said about the EU not having the motivation, strength, or good will to offer the UK the kind of lifeline that would enable this crisis to be averted at this point.
There's nothing legally that prevents offering the UK even more advantageous "shinies"; as you point out, it would merely be "political suicide" for the politicians to do so. There's also nothing legally that prevents Cameron from saying "Oops, just kidding, wasn't that a good joke?" other than the fact that in the ensuing general election, the Tories would place somewhere behind the Whigs in terms of popular vote -- and, of course, Cameron himself wouldn't be able to get a job in a kebab shop.
So one of the questions is simply "is anyone, on either side, statesman enough to commit suicide for the Greater Good?" (To which the answer is probably, but not certainly, no.)
We are not disagreeing, but you are missing the point. EU is supposed to be to the benefit of everybody, on an equal footing. UK already got a lot in way of rebates, opt-outs, etc. because of previous crises during which it was felt a convenient way to get its agreement on something. Maybe, there is a point where it isn't worth it anymore, and giving away more privileges isn't the solution.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to think things won't change after this, but that's not the case. ...
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with a lot of what the german government did and does, especially when it comes to Greece.
I see one problem though with you requiring us to compromise when that's what Germany actually did a lot over the last decades (and with good reason, I'll hasten to add).
Now we see nearly all other european countries turning away, when fugitives from regions whose misery we are at least partly responsible for knock at our doors. Now we see a country turn its back to the european idea for very selfish (and probably very wrong) reasons, because it wasn't willing to compromise. And more and more Germany is surrounded by countries where nationalist, xenophobic and europhobic forces gain more and more power (or already rule said countries) and thereby making compromises more and more impossible.
You really think it's on us to compromise? When all those past compromises suddenly mean nothing because the other countries decide it's time to draw the nationalist card again?
Sorry, but we are not the only one responsible for the continuing success of the european idea.
|
|
You seem to think things won't change after this, but that's not the case. ...Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with a lot of what the german government did and does, especially when it comes to Greece.
I see one problem though with you requiring us to compromise when that's what Germany actually did a lot over the last decades (and with good reason, I'll hasten to add).
Now we see nearly all other european countries turning away, when fugitives from regions whose misery we are at least partly responsible for knock at our doors. Now we see a country turn its back to the european idea for very selfish (and probably very wrong) reasons, because it wasn't willing to compromise. And more and more Germany is surrounded by countries where nationalist, xenophobic and europhobic forces gain more and more power (or already rule said countries) and thereby making compromises more and more impossible.
You really think it's on us to compromise? When all those past compromises suddenly mean nothing because the other countries decide it's time to draw the nationalist card again?
Sorry, but we are not the only one responsible for the continuing success of the european idea.
Not disagreeing per se here. I just want to point out that Germany is not immune to the same populistic nationalism that arises in all other countries too
It is a common consequence of economical crisis
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EU is supposed to be to the benefit of everybody, on an equal footing.
Yeah, there's a problem here. Basically, which is it? Is it for the benefit of everyone, or is it for everyone to be on an equal footing?
That particular question has been an issue for the EU literally since its foundation, when Germany got a fairly substantial waiver from some of the economic provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht since it was still in the process of digesting the DDR. There is a very good and convincing case that could be made -- that was made -- that the Germany economy at the time was something of a basket case. but also that the muddle wasn't really a long-term problem and that it made sense to overlook it for a few years.
Basically, it was to the benefit of everyone (including, say, France) to treat Germany differently.
The problem is that is also the issue behind a lot of the troubles like the Greek situation, or the rest of the Eurozone PIIGS. The kind of economic policies that countries like Spain and Italy needed, and arguably still need, are not the kind of economic policies that northern Europe (read, Germany), needed. (And today what Finland needs isn't what Germany needs). What everyone needs is a strong EU, but that seems to require individual economic treatment that "equal footing" doesn't provide.
So it's all very well to say, in principle, that the EU is supposed to treat everyone on equal footing, but most economists laugh when you say that (look up "optimal currency zone" for a more formal treatment of the howls of derisive laughter). And that's the problem.
Mind you, I'm not saying that giving the UK all the special privileges it could ask for would necessarily be the right course of action, either. But saying "we won't bend any more; it's the principle of the thing" is different from saying "we don't think giving you any more would improve the situation." The second is sensible policy-making.
What is the argument for leaving?
I am not being sarcastic.
Argument 1: "THE EMPIRE THAT NEVER SAW A SUNSET WILL NOT BE REIGNED BY NAZI-CONTROLLED CYBORGS FROM BRUSSELS"
Argument 2: "The Polish plumber who came to fix my kitchen sink was drunk and smoked on the job, EU GTFO."
And I am not being sarcastic ;-)
I have seen an street interview where someonesaid: "we must leave because imigrants are before me in the line at the doctors"
well, maybe now politics are willing to build a more reasonable, EU and reduce some of the b!@%*$+%
if not the next will leave...and the next
I've been to Gibraltar; it's just a tiny little spire of a place, with special monkeys and tourist facilities and some nice caves (that nonetheless don't hold a candle to Carlsbad Caverns); what am I missing that would make Spain consider it worth shearing the EU for?It's a superb strategic location.
Turn the question around. Why hasn't the UK given Gibraltar back to Spain? Because the UK aren't idiots.
Gibraltar controls the only entrance/exit of the mediterranian sea
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not disagreeing per se here. I just want to point out that Germany is not immune to the same populistic nationalism that arises in all other countries too
True, which makes the situation even worse. And ironically, our right-wingers started out as an Anti-Euro-party because they claimed germany was compromising too much.
I know the history of my country all to well. That's why I'm a big fan of the european idea and why I fear the day this idea fails. Because then we'll still be the most powerful european country, just without the need to compromise. Didn't end too well last time.
look at the most indebted countries in the world after the USA, and how bad they have it.
You mean, Japan, Ireland, Singapore, and Italy? The ones that are actually AHEAD of the USA in terms of per capita debt/personal income?
Or are we just looking at debt to GDP ratio, in which case the countries just ahead of the USA are the UK, Spain, Egypt, Canada, and Germany.
In neither case are we particularly seeing anything scary. Yeah, there are a few countries out there that are heavily indebted and in serious economic crisis, but in most cases the crisis was the cause of the debt instead of the other way around.
As I said earlier, this particular dog won't hunt.
Not disagreeing per se here. I just want to point out that Germany is not immune to the same populistic nationalism that arises in all other countries tooTrue, which makes the situation even worse. And ironically, our right-wingers started out as an Anti-Euro-party because they claimed germany was compromising too much.
I know the history of my country all to well. That's why I'm a big fan of the european idea and why I fear the day this idea fails. Because then we'll still be the most powerful european country, just without the need to compromise. Didn't end too well last time.
for every German governments since the 70s the mantra was " only whats good for europe can be good for Germnay" the current government departed from that idea
that bits us in our colective behind now
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a fine example for what I am talking about. Because this has nothing to do with european bureaucracy at all, but with the unwillingness of the souvereign nations to give up a bit of their sovereignty to be more efficient when it comes to hard decisions.Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.
Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.
Because central planning leads to more efficiency?
There are advantages to a more central government, but efficiency isn't among them.
|
|
That's a fine example for what I am talking about. Because this has nothing to do with european bureaucracy at all, but with the unwillingness of the souvereign nations to give up a bit of their sovereignty to be more efficient when it comes to hard decisions.Typical Eu bureaucracy there I'm afraid :(.I was shocked to hear that exiting the EU requires that any agreements between the exiting country and the EU be ratified by unanimous agreement of all the remaining EU members.
Yeah, this could take a couple of weeks.
Because central planning leads to more efficiency?
There are advantages to a more central government, but efficiency isn't among them.
Giving everyone a vote is terrific
Giving everyone a veto is terrifying| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that I do not know enough to really weigh in. However, I am concerned that certain powers in the EU will try to make an example out of Great Britain. That the lessons given at the end of WWI that lead to WWII will be ignored.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because central planning leads to more efficiency?
What has central planning to do with it? I'm talking about the disadvantage of having to unanimously agree for a political decision when it would be much more efficient to decide by majority vote.
Just imagine for a moment the Britains would have had to unanimously decide for or against Brexit. We'd wait for eternity...