EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

We already know that whilst we agree on a number of things our positions on the EU are poles apart, but even so how can you justify that statement? What evidence is there that the EU is divorced from it’s members?

In the vast majority of cases any actions carried out by the EU are undertaken to the benefit of each and every member state. That’s the main reason why it’s such a successful alliance.

There will be a small number of cases for every member state where EU decisions go against their best interests but they’ll be far outweighed by the number of EU actions that work in their favour. And if you’re to weigh up any negative EU decisions for any particular member state versus the positives of EU membership the latter will always outweigh the former, meaning that for every member state their overall national interest is to continue membership.

The reason why that’s the case is because the main purpose of the EU is to deliver economic prosperity to all its members and because each member is a developed first world economy (some obviously stronger than others but on an international scale far closer than apart), the best way to achieve that goal for every member is very similar.

In the small number of areas where there are differences between member states in achieving that goal, the overall benefits achieved from the EU’s ability to function as a single trading bloc heavily outweighs any disadvantages a member state may face. This is because the combined economic strength of the EU28 ensures that all it’s member states can deal on far more beneficial trading terms with the existing and rising economic powerhouses elsewhere on the planet than they’d ever be able to achieve on their own.

I know that you have severe concerns about the constitutional components of EU membership on the UK and they’re the major reasons why you wish to leave so let’s not cover the same ground on that front but I’m intrigued to hear your reasons why you believe that the EU as a whole is “divorced” from what it’s member states want to achieve and actively/unwillingly acting against their best interests considering all the above.

It’s a fair question - the issue of how the EU is divorced from the member states is possibly more of a constitutional one (so I’ll leave that since we’ve done it to death), however in terms of acting against its members’ interests (a non exhaustive list):

- recent imposing of quotas of “refugees” (ie economic migrants) onto member states who did not want them. The existence of the Schengen Agreement has made this worse. This has led to a huge problem of distribution throughout Europe, fuelling the rise of populism/far right parties;

- a seemingly intractable free movement policy which has caused a brain drain of young/highly skilled workers from eastern to Western Europe. Hardly desirable for the countries they have left. It has also caused significant imbalances in the labour market for the countries receiving them;

- a handling of Brexit which has shown the EU is incapable of acknowledging criticism and negotiating sensibly, even though a “hard” brexit will affect some of its member states very badly - this reaffirms how the EU’s main priority is protecting itself as a project;

- (the big one) the single currency. This clearly benefits Germany, as a major industrial exporter, but has denied Southern European countries control over their own monetary policy, and contributed to years of economic stagnation. These states could have benefited from lowering their interest rates and perhaps devaluing their currencies;

- common agricultural and fisheries policies which have caused profligate waste, environmental carnage, damage to localised producers in favour of major landowners in many cases;

- the enormous wastege of member states’ money to fund the vanity project of Brussels itself. £100m + per month moving MEPs from Brussels to France and back again. Why?!

In the end I agree with your point that the EU has functioned pretty well as a trading bloc. My question is why couldn’t it have remained as that without “ever closer union”, eu citizenship, the Euro, and all the other nonsense?

 

[Bromley boy]

I may have been a bit grumpier than usual earlier! I recognise you weren't being serious. Sorry for overreacting a bit.

For what it's worth it seems silly to me as well, but if he's enjoying himself while he's doing it, then good for him.

No worries.

Without a smilie that comment probably made me sound like even more of a rapid, frothing brexiteer than I usually do .

 

[mmh]

National interest or political expediency? Guess which is going to win every time.

Sadly I don't think it's as straightforward as that any more. Who would be gain the votes of the leavers feeling disenfranchised in the next general election? UKIP. They would rise from the dead. Probably not to an extent they'd have any chance of winning, but with enough of an impact to cause an enormous rumpus bigger than we've seen before.

Is that what you want?

 

[Senex]

Sadly I don't think it's as straightforward as that any more. Who would be gain the votes of the leavers feeling disenfranchised in the next general election? UKIP. They would rise from the dead. Probably not to an extent they'd have any chance of winning, but with enough of an impact to cause an enormous rumpus bigger than we've seen before.

Is that what you want?

And if May presses on, driven by her hard-right Brexiteers and subject to their veto, who will gain the votes of the remainers feeling disenfranchised in the next general election when they have seen neither major party shewing any interest in their point of view for the whole of the exit process? They do not have either the right-wing exit via UKIP or the left-wing exit by voting for Corbyn and his Stalinist/Marxists, and the LibDems are little more than a joke (and in any case are very significantly left of centre). If they simply do not vote in large numbers, which of the two parties would benefit? (Or just suppose they decide to put aside party loyalties for the next election and just vote to smash beyond repair the party they can rightly hold fully responsible for the catastrophe of Brexit .....)

 

[WelshBluebird]

- recent imposing of quotas of “refugees” (ie economic migrants) onto member states who did not want them. The existence of the Schengen Agreement has made this worse. This has led to a huge problem of distribution throughout Europe, fuelling the rise of populism/far right parties;

Not sure that argument makes sense tbh.
Either the EU does nothing, and so refugees (or whatever you want to call them) are unfairly distributed along the south east of the EU.
Or the EU imposes quotes and tries to fairly distribute it all.
Which do you think is fairer? (and if your answer is let the south east countries of the EU deal with the problem, then I wonder if you'd still feel the same if we were one of those countries!).

 

[Howardh]

- recent imposing of quotas of “refugees” (ie economic migrants) onto member states who did not want them. The existence of the Schengen Agreement has made this worse. This has led to a huge problem of distribution throughout Europe, fuelling the rise of populism/far right parties;

The problem with refugees is an enormous one. If EU countries and it's citizens don't like the EU's solution, what else can they do? People risk death and arrive on our (the EU's) shores, we don't want them...but what? "Send them home" I hear the cries. Fine, but where is "home" and what awaits for them there? But more poignently, they may not have a "home" in that they don't carry ID, passports, visas, nothing. What, if we ask "where have you come from" they reply "Baisingstoke"?
Huge problem, no easy answers, except I feel the richest countries - instead of spending trillions on the military and hardware should be making conditions better for those refugees at base, so they don't feel the need to risk their lives for a better life. Our call.

As an aside, if they are let in with zero documentation, and we have to gain Visas to cross to France, wouldn't that be absurd?? Ahem.

- a seemingly intractable free movement policy which has caused a brain drain of young/highly skilled workers from eastern to Western Europe. Hardly desirable for the countries they have left. It has also caused significant imbalances in the labour market for the countries receiving them;

True, but that's exactly what we have been doing for years - draining India and other Asian developing countries of their doctors, teachers and so on. And we're still begging them to come. The answer is to train our own...but that takes years and many, on qualification, drift away to countries that can give them better pay and conditions (who wants to be a doctor in the over-worked and inder-funded NHS or teach French to a load of 14-yr-olds in an inner-city comp?) and most of those, I suggest, are outside the EU. Do we build a wall to stop them - the Mogg Curtain perhaps?

Leaving the EU solves neither of the above problems.

 

[NSEFAN]

Not sure that argument makes sense tbh.
Either the EU does nothing, and so refugees (or whatever you want to call them) are unfairly distributed along the south east of the EU.
Or the EU imposes quotes and tries to fairly distribute it all.
Which do you think is fairer? (and if your answer is let the south east countries of the EU deal with the problem, then I wonder if you'd still feel the same if we were one of those countries!).

I suppose there's the third option of going full Hungarian, by imposing a strict border and deporting anyone who gets in illegally back to wherever the border nations see fit.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I suppose there's the third option of going full Hungarian, by imposing a strict border and deporting anyone who gets in illegally back to wherever the border nations see fit.

And then you have the problems of where to since most will not have official documentation, of is that actually the right thing to do (since many of the issues these people are fleeing are caused, directly or indirectly by us) and of the fact that is still putting all the work unfairly on those countries (where in my view the issue is such a large one that the responsibility should be shared).

 

[NSEFAN]

And then you have the problems of where to since most will not have official documentation, of is that actually the right thing to do (since many of the issues these people are fleeing are caused, directly or indirectly by us) and of the fact that is still putting all the work unfairly on those countries (where in my view the issue is such a large one that the responsibility should be shared).

If illegal immigration is such an issue then I'm sure there are those who'd be happy for our EU payments to go towards building detention centres to keep said immigrants, and also propping up a wide-scale hard border between schengen and non-schengen areas.

 

[AM9]

I suppose there's the third option of going full Hungarian, by imposing a strict border and deporting anyone who gets in illegally back to wherever the border nations see fit.

The suggestion of 'going full Hungarian' isn't viable even if the nasty party turned it on full strength. Hungary is a land-locked country, so the country from which somebody enters is quite easy to determine. We've trumpeted loudly for decades how being an island makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to get here. Well that watery barrier also makes it difficult, if not impossible to determine where entry is from. Of course there are those who would just push their boat back out again beyond the 3/12/whatever mile limit to make it somebody else's problem. The only alternative would be to create a fully defended shoreline. Here's a picture of how it could look:

Maybe some of the hard core retired leave voters would be only too pleased to man the lines of defence against alien invaders.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not sure that argument makes sense tbh.
Either the EU does nothing, and so refugees (or whatever you want to call them) are unfairly distributed along the south east of the EU.
Or the EU imposes quotes and tries to fairly distribute it all.
Which do you think is fairer? (and if your answer is let the south east countries of the EU deal with the problem, then I wonder if you'd still feel the same if we were one of those countries!).

Given that they are only coming because of Merkel’s ridiculous “open border” approach, I’d say it shouldn’t be the U.K.’s problem to deal with. As for the Southern European states, that’s a matter for their own border security services.

Merkel’s ill advised strategy has cost untold lives by encouraging people to attempt dangerous crossings in the hopes they would be picked up. An Australian approach should have been adopted with the rescue ships patrolling the Med simply returning the rafts and dinghies to their point of origin (points which are well known and should be monitored), not delivering them straight to EU shores, thereby supporting people smuggling.

The EU is supposed to be primarily a trading bloc so I’m not sure why it’s involving itself in these matters.

 

[Bromley boy]

The suggestion of 'going full Hungarian' isn't viable even if the nasty party turned it on full strength. Hungary is a land-locked country, so the country from which somebody enters is quite easy to determine. We've trumpeted loudly for decades how being an island makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to get here. Well that watery barrier also makes it difficult, if not impossible to determine where entry is from. Of course there are those who would just push their boat back out again beyond the 3/12/whatever mile limit to make it somebody else's problem. The only alternative would be to create a fully defended shoreline. Here's a picture of how it could look:

Maybe some of the hard core retired leave voters would be only too pleased to man the lines of defence against alien invaders.

No need for barbed wire.

A few gunboats patrolling the channel should suffice .

 

[mmh]

And if May presses on, driven by her hard-right Brexiteers

Brexit isn't a left-vs-right, tory-vs-labour issue. It might be going better if people could get away from trying to polarise it around parties.

They do not have either the right-wing exit via UKIP or the left-wing exit by voting for Corbyn and his Stalinist/Marxists, and the LibDems are little more than a joke (and in any case are very significantly left of centre).

You seem to be suggesting remainers will be disenfranchised because they all have some strange undefined political leaning. The LibDems are the anti-Brexit party, why not vote for them?

(Or just suppose they decide to put aside party loyalties for the next election and just vote to smash beyond repair the party they can rightly hold fully responsible for the catastrophe of Brexit .....)

Remain obsessed people have put aside party loyalties for the past two years. If you genuinely think it's the most important reason to decide who to vote for on, don't vote for a party with it in their manifesto.

 

[SteveP29]

Brexit isn't a left-vs-right, tory-vs-labour issue. It might be going better if people could get away from trying to polarise it around parties.

Then the government should have invited Brexit to be a cross party issue and allow Labour and the Lib Dems roles within the process.
That they have steamed on ahead without consideration of this just confirms that it IS a Tory v Labour issue

 

[NSEFAN]

Then the government should have invited Brexit to be a cross party issue and allow Labour and the Lib Dems roles within the process.
That they have steamed on ahead without consideration of this just confirms that it IS a Tory v Labour issue

The Conservatives can't even resolve the issue within their own party. Theresa May is seemingly desperate to keep a lid on it all. Meanwhile Labour has the same problem, with fighting between traditional Labour vs Blairites under the guise of an antisemitism row. In some ways it would be best if both parties tear themselves apart so that we can instead have an actual coalition government; at least this would have a better chance of getting the different groups to play nicely with each other at a time when we really need them to.

 

[najaB]

That they have steamed on ahead without consideration of this just confirms that it IS a Tory v Labour issue

Politically, it's not even a Labour v Conservative issue - it's a Rees-Moggs v May issue.

Meanwhile we all get <expletive deleted>!!!

 

[Senex]

Then the government should have invited Brexit to be a cross party issue and allow Labour and the Lib Dems roles within the process.
That they have steamed on ahead without consideration of this just confirms that it IS a Tory v Labour issue

It's a Tory v. Labour issue because that's the way the Tories have chosen to play it. May's view is that her party is delivering the Brexit the British people voted for, and she has chosen not to seek the views of or consult with any of the other parties. She hasn't even undertaken serious consultation in Scotland and Northern Ireland where the majority vote was against Brexit and one might have expected steps to be taken to try to persuade people go go along at least modestly contentedly with the state-wide majority, i.e. with the English view (though we can understand why she would not wish to talk to most parties in MI). But that's the way the British system works. And it's a system that relies on an Opposition having a different view and being capable of challenging the Government's view, which we don't have at present.
Where this system breaks down completely is where both the major parties are split within themselves, because that is something the system is not set up to deal with. The only way through that would be to put aside party politics for the duration of a particular major item like Brexit and allow the divisions in all the parties to play themselves out on the floor of the Commons. May could have made the offer, and Corbyn could have accepted — but both of them are so wedded to the practices of the past that she prefers to run Brexit as a one-party policy and Corbyn prefers to have nothing to do with something being run that way, as one migh expect. The political system just isn't working on this issue from anyone's perspective, whether you are an arch-Brexiteer or an arch-Remainer. As for progress towards Brexit healing the divide opened up by the referendum, well that divide just seems to be growing ever wider.

 

[Senex]

What are we to make of a British foreign secretary who's just been doing the rounds in Europe trying to persuade individual states to weaken their support for the common-EU negotiating position in dealing with the member that wants out then calling on the EU to support Trump in further sanctions against Russia? What right does Hunt now have to urge the EU to do anything or to urge policies that might have a long-term impact on the EU he's desperate to leave in a few months' time?

 

[najaB]

...calling on the EU to support Trump the US Congress in further sanctions against Russia?

Fixed that for you.

 

[Howardh]

What are we to make of a British foreign secretary who's just been doing the rounds in Europe trying to persuade individual states to weaken their support for the common-EU negotiating position in dealing with the member that wants out then calling on the EU to support Trump in further sanctions against Russia? What right does Hunt now have to urge the EU to do anything or to urge policies that might have a long-term impact on the EU he's desperate to leave in a few months' time?

Perhaps we're not leaving after all!! *Looks at how ready the UK is for it's biggest software update since the war*

 

[nlogax]

What right does Hunt now have to urge the EU to do anything or to urge policies that might have a long-term impact on the EU he's desperate to leave in a few months' time?

Weird position to be in, right? Wearing your 'hey, fellow EU members, please do (a thing) to support us' cap while wearing your 'we're leaving the EU' t-shirt. It's the finest of tightropes to walk and I wouldn't envy anyone doing it - even Jeremy Hunt.

 

[Bromley boy]

And it's a system that relies on an Opposition having a different view and being capable of challenging the Government's view, which we don't have at present.

Something else we can agree on - even on the Brexit thread!

 

[YorkshireBear]

The no deal technical notices don't seem particularly enlightening, while they reveal some details they still use the word may and might a lot!

 

[A0wen]

Then the government should have invited Brexit to be a cross party issue and allow Labour and the Lib Dems roles within the process.
That they have steamed on ahead without consideration of this just confirms that it IS a Tory v Labour issue

Which if the opposition parties (and you can include the SNP in that) were minded to act in an even vaguely collaborative way, you might, just might have seen that happen.

But the problem is the "left" want to preserve the "social policies" which the EU has been pushing - now I'm of the view that a Free Trade Area doesn't need the social policies and that's been part of the EU's "empire building" which I resent the most.

 

[A0wen]

It's a Tory v. Labour issue because that's the way the Tories have chosen to play it. May's view is that her party is delivering the Brexit the British people voted for, and she has chosen not to seek the views of or consult with any of the other parties. She hasn't even undertaken serious consultation in Scotland and Northern Ireland where the majority vote was against Brexit and one might have expected steps to be taken to try to persuade people go go along at least modestly contentedly with the state-wide majority, i.e. with the English view (though we can understand why she would not wish to talk to most parties in MI). But that's the way the British system works. And it's a system that relies on an Opposition having a different view and being capable of challenging the Government's view, which we don't have at present.
Where this system breaks down completely is where both the major parties are split within themselves, because that is something the system is not set up to deal with. The only way through that would be to put aside party politics for the duration of a particular major item like Brexit and allow the divisions in all the parties to play themselves out on the floor of the Commons. May could have made the offer, and Corbyn could have accepted — but both of them are so wedded to the practices of the past that she prefers to run Brexit as a one-party policy and Corbyn prefers to have nothing to do with something being run that way, as one migh expect. The political system just isn't working on this issue from anyone's perspective, whether you are an arch-Brexiteer or an arch-Remainer. As for progress towards Brexit healing the divide opened up by the referendum, well that divide just seems to be growing ever wider.

Not entirely true - the Corbynite left which are currently running the Labour party take the view that any collaboration with a Conservative government is completely unacceptable. It's a big part of the reason why, I strongly suspect, the Lib Dems would be unable to enter a coalition with the Labour party at present, because the Corbynite activists would be seeking to damage them at every turn.

 

[Mag_seven]

The no deal technical notices don't seem particularly enlightening, while they reveal some details they still use the word may and might a lot!

We could have still done with those DURING the referendum campaign though!

 

[nlogax]

We could have still done with those DURING the referendum campaign though!

It's almost feels like this entire process has been conducted bass-ackwards. Oh, wait, it has.

 

[Clip]

Then the government should have invited Brexit to be a cross party issue and allow Labour and the Lib Dems roles within the process.
That they have steamed on ahead without consideration of this just confirms that it IS a Tory v Labour issue

They couldn't though because the Lib Dems are dead set against brexit and want us to pull out of it and Labours half and half with it all with even their leader being coy about wanting out when we all know he does to protect British workers jobs anyway

 

[pemma]

Does the 'transaction period' protect us from potential Schengen visa charges and retain EHIC until the end of 2020?

 

[najaB]

Does the 'transaction period' protect us from potential Schengen visa charges and retain EHIC until the end of 2020?

Who knows?