Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Time will tell, don't forget David Frost has been here for a long time, he was one of the architects of the EU "enlargement" into Eastern Europe, one of the root causes of (British) public dissatisfaction with the EU imho.

    You'll understand his arguments are taken with a large dose of salt.

    The UK has been a long-standing, strong supporter of EU enlargement under successive Governments. The Government reconfirmed this position in its 2010 Coalition Agreement and is an advocate of the future accession of all the western Balkans countries and Turkey, subject to their meeting the accession requirements.
    https://assets.publishing.service.go...gement_acc.pdf

    A few more...

    Thatcher :

    ‘We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, people who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities’.2
    Major :

    But we now have a historic opportunity: to bind them into a Single Market and the democratic embrace of western Europe. That is why enlargement of the European Union remains a vital objective’.3
    So you see your elected government was for decades, a determining factor in expansionist EU policy, often represented by the very same people you send over to complain now.

    Please, forgive us our scepticism
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 18 Feb 20, 07:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    what was never understood here in "Brussels" was the stream of irrational arguments that were deemed necessary to justify that choice and convince voters of the preference of one or the other…

    <snip>

    And we're still not entirely convinced of the finality of your choice either, we suspect we'll see a long line of "Brexit negotiators" arrive here in years to come

    I've got to say that proves David Frost's point almost perfectly!

    "I think one of the reasons why people here failed to see Brexit coming <snip> they were unable to take British euroscepticism seriously, but saw it as some kind of irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    I'm not quite sure what you find so 'well worth' in it. Except that it verifies many beliefs on the UK leadership.
    Which merely, though unsurprising, just reflects badly on your own level of intelligence.

    "My aim tonight is to try to explain a bit better why people like me think as we do – how we see the world and why we think Britain is better off out of the European Union."


    the EU has no such deals with Australia, so why keep peddling the same old lies? Also he repeats the same old nonsense that the UK would want CETA style deal - it does not. The UK wants more than that since CETA does not really provide anything beyond WTO's GATS state with regards to services - and that simply put does not cut it.
    Very poor comprehension of what David Frost actually said. Try again.

    "We are clear that we want the Canada-Free Trade Agreement-type relationship which the EU has so often said is on offer – even if the EU itself now seems to be experiencing some doubts about that, unfortunately.

    If those doubts persist, we are ready to trade on Australia-style terms if we can’t agree a Canada type FTA. We understand the trade-offs involved – people sometimes say we don’t but we do"

    Later

    "we approach the upcoming negotiations in a pretty confident fashion. We aren’t frightened by suggestions there is going to be friction, there are going to be greater barriers. We know that and have factored this in and we look further forward – to the gains of the future.

    Finally, that is also why we are not prepared to compromise on some fundamentals of our negotiating position."

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    ,
    they were unable to take British euroscepticism seriously, but saw it as some kind of irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world.
    It was a *choice*, like having red or white wine with your diner, nothing else,

    what was never understood here in "Brussels" was the stream of irrational arguments that were deemed necessary to justify that choice and convince voters of the preference of one or the other…

    You can compare the arguments made for Brexit with the arguments against Scottish independence for example, often by the very same people

    Says it all.

    There's no more reason for a Scot to be "ruled" from London, than there's a reason for a Brit to be "ruled" from Brussels, imho, it's a matter of preference and practicality.

    And we're still not entirely convinced of the finality of your choice either, we suspect we'll see a long line of "Brexit negotiators" arrive here in years to come
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 18 Feb 20, 06:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Full text of the speech by the UK's chief negotiator https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/0...eu-trade-deal/

    Well worth reading in fuil.

    "So in a country like Britain where institutions just evolved and where governance is pretty deep-rooted in historical precedent, it was always going to feel a bit unnatural to a lot of people to be governed by an organisation whose institutions seemed created by design not than by evolution, and which vested authority outside the country elsewhere. I think that is why the slogan of the Leave campaign in 2016 ‘Take Back Control’ became such a powerful slogan and had such resonance .

    Now if I am honest, much of this still does not seem to me to be understood here in Brussels and in large parts of the EU. I think one of the reasons why people here failed to see Brexit coming and often still see it as some kind of horrific, unforeseeable natural disaster is that – like the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs – is at root, they were unable to take British euroscepticism seriously, but saw it as some kind of irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."
    I'm not quite sure what you find so 'well worth' in it. Except that it verifies many beliefs on the UK leadership. Like that when they get advice or reports which go contrary to their unfounded opinions of baseless beliefs they just choose to disregard them. Or how would you like - "I would question some of the specifics of all those studies", to which his main rebuttal was "in my view" or just his opinions... Or maybe "Finally, all of these studies... ...am simply not convinced", yet he fails to provide any convincing reasons why he would not be convinced apart from that he is a believer into something contrary. That is common trait when discussing religion or similar matters of faith but rarely of economy or politics.

    Making such a speech and filling far too many places in it with "I am confident...", "It’s a personal view..." only means that he does not have any evidence to support his beliefs. So why should any one listen to what he has to say let alone believe him? There are no 'Australia type deal' - the EU has no such deals with Australia, so why keep peddling the same old lies? Also he repeats the same old nonsense that the UK would want CETA style deal - it does not. The UK wants more than that since CETA does not really provide anything beyond WTO's GATS state with regards to services - and that simply put does not cut it.

    One crucial aspect he is also missing is that fact that comes obvious of you learn about the gravity model of trade. That makes it very clear why you can not simply expect similar terms with more distant country to those with next door neighbor. Not sensibly at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Full text of the speech by the UK's chief negotiator https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/0...eu-trade-deal/

    Well worth reading in fuil.

    "So in a country like Britain where institutions just evolved and where governance is pretty deep-rooted in historical precedent, it was always going to feel a bit unnatural to a lot of people to be governed by an organisation whose institutions seemed created by design not than by evolution, and which vested authority outside the country elsewhere. I think that is why the slogan of the Leave campaign in 2016 ‘Take Back Control’ became such a powerful slogan and had such resonance .

    Now if I am honest, much of this still does not seem to me to be understood here in Brussels and in large parts of the EU. I think one of the reasons why people here failed to see Brexit coming and often still see it as some kind of horrific, unforeseeable natural disaster is that – like the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs – is at root, they were unable to take British euroscepticism seriously, but saw it as some kind of irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    Annual UK net contribution was just below 9 Bn. The EU (sans the UK) has population of around 450 million. So... lets do the math here... its 20 per year per EU citizen assuming the expenditure levels stay as they are.
    Expenditure levels not staying as they are will be one of the major discussion points

    "Budget discussions in Brussels are always rancorous affairs. But this one is of a different order: everyone will have to pay more. No one wants to. EU capitals are bristling for a fight when they come to Brussels on Thursday for day one. Ominously for the diplomatic corps, an end date for the summit has not been fixed, but four days of talking are on the cards.
    There are two main rivals in the budget battle. On one side are those who proudly describe themselves as “the Frugals” – the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark (although there are some concerns within the camp that the new Austrian coalition government, being a bit Green now, has been lost to them, and that the Swedes are going soft). As the biggest net payers, the Frugals have been insisting on a budget of no more than 1% of the EU’s gross national income. The European commission’s initial proposal was for 1.1% – around €1.25tn over the seven years."

    A Happy Union?

    "Then there are the “Friends of Cohesion”. “The Friends of Corruption, you mean?” spat one EU diplomat from a Frugal state.
    The 15 under the FoC flag are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Estonia, Croatia, Malta, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Portugal and Greece.
    The Frugals say that the commission’s €90bn in cuts to agriculture and cohesion funding are not enough. The FoC say they are being unfairly targeted and that the richer countries should cough up some more, setting up a battle between east and west.
    The debate is all the more toxic as the commission has proposed that cohesion funds should also, in the future, be conditional on member states respecting the rule of law. It is a red rag to the bulls in the nationalist governments of Hungary and Poland, who are already in a battle with Brussels over their judicial reforms, among other issues.
    Then there is France and Germany. Berlin’s main concern is that they don’t come out of it looking worse than the French. In Paris, the government just worries about how much cash is going to go to its farmers, said one senior EU official."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ks-post-brexit

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    We're just afraid you will use the bridge to come back

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post

    It's not an Euro view on how your money should be spent,
    Oh, just your personal view that "Even investing that money on Poland getting a new high speed railway or Romania getting some fancy new bridges is money better spent" than the UK spending its own money on a bridge between two of its nations that would prove a modern engineering wonder of the world.

    The way you and the other Nordics seem to take a prurient interest in what the UK does made me think it was a Euro thing …

    Leave a comment:


  • E.D. Morel
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post

    The intra-EU fighting over the budget will be anything but small though
    I don't think so.
    The UK leaving the EU is a huge deal for the UK but less so for the EU as a whole.

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post

    It's not an Euro view on how your money should be spent, it's an Euro view of how ridiculous your political game has become. Such as the belief that all foreigners, people and nations alike, just want to milk you for money. The fact that you can't see, or don't want to see this, is on you. It's not that I want you to spend money on Poland, it's that Boris tells you that this is what I want, and you believe it because you are...?

    Anyways, they'll either increase payments from certain countries or cut funding elsewhere. Like less bridges for Poland. This is no armageddon. Meanwhile, you should be more interested in asking where does that money you don't have to pay go now. Somehow I doubt it's gonna end up in your pocket...
    IN OTHER WORDS...

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    The intra-EU fighting over the budget will be anything but small though
    Annual UK net contribution was just below 9 Bn. The EU (sans the UK) has population of around 450 million. So... lets do the math here... its 20 per year per EU citizen assuming the expenditure levels stay as they are. Which makes it around 0.07 € per day per person... I think we can manage that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post

    Well the NI-Scotland bridge probably won't get built, though HS2, perhaps unfortunately, will. But thanks for reminding me of the Euro view that British money should be spent in Europe instead of the UK
    It's not an Euro view on how your money should be spent, it's an Euro view of how ridiculous your political game has become. Such as the belief that all foreigners, people and nations alike, just want to milk you for money. The fact that you can't see, or don't want to see this, is on you. It's not that I want you to spend money on Poland, it's that Boris tells you that this is what I want, and you believe it because you are...?

    Anyways, they'll either increase payments from certain countries or cut funding elsewhere. Like less bridges for Poland. This is no armageddon. Meanwhile, you should be more interested in asking where does that money you don't have to pay go now. Somehow I doubt it's gonna end up in your pocket...
    Last edited by Karri; 17 Feb 20, 12:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post

    Nobody likes spending money (evn socialists only like spending other people's money) but don't overstate the size of the EU budget. It's small by any reasonable relative comparison.
    The intra-EU fighting over the budget will be anything but small though

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post

    I'm sure infrastructure is a good investment, but that doesn't mean a bridge from Scotland to N. Ireland over a munitions and nuclear waste graveyard is a good investment. Even investing that money on Poland getting a new high speed railway or Romania getting some fancy new bridges is money better spent.
    Well the NI-Scotland bridge probably won't get built, though HS2, perhaps unfortunately, will. But thanks for reminding me of the Euro view that British money should be spent in Europe instead of the UK

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X