Brexit discussion

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Osem

There are certain things we can veto and others we can't and the other members can all too often get their way when the UK happens to differ. That's fine for them but not for us when we don't want to be part of the Euro for example.

The history of our membership is irrelevant now - we are where we are. Yes the EEC could have been a wonderful thing but somehow it morphed into the EU and evidently the UK didn't/couldn't prevent that. The EU will not budge on its core ambitions and we can't veto or argue any of that reality away. That's why we must get out and stay out to better serve the UK's own interests.

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia, here's what we (or any nation) can veto;

membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.); change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.

taxation;

the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);

harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;
certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);

the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;

the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;

the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;
citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);

certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

Otherwise, qualified majority voting applies which needs at least 16 countries AND 65% of the population to say yes. Germany has 16.5% of the population and 8.4% of the influence.

The UK did sign the Maastricht Treaty by the way. I am sure many people here voted for the Conservative party in 1992 and therefore voted for the party that has instrumental in the transformation of the EEC to EU. John Major was PM if I remember rightly. Nearly lost his majority because of it.

[Osem]

Well aware of the Masstricht treaty and I've made the point that the situation we find ourselves in was arrived at with the help of certain of our own leaders. Neither side of the political divide has had the monopoly on mistakes and/or misleading the electorate when it comes to the EEC and EU.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...warns-iceland/

Britain has little or no say over decisions made in a European Union increasingly dominated by German interests, Iceland’s prime minister has said.

A leader of non-EU member state, Iceland’s Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson warned larger member states like the UK wield “diminishing power” in institutions still under the sway of the Franco-German alliance.

“When it comes to the big stuff the decisions are made by two, and increasingly one country” Mr Gunnlaugsson told The Telegraph.

“Others are called to meetings to approve of what has been decided, if not in the afternoon then during the middle of the night.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1024714.html

The resistance to rising wages led to German growth, self-confidence and, as a result, power. When Angela Merkel travels to Brussels, she does so as the leader of by far the strongest economy in the euro zone. Policies she doesn't agree with don't get passed. Power as such isn't a bad thing when those that have it use it wisely. But do they?

That's the reality.

[Gavin78]

Which brings me to the point at the minute that I have been saying. Germany mainly has influance over the EU among a few others.

The UK is now leaving the EU and you are telling me that Germany or france for that matter have not had any input on how the other nations deal with the UK. They sit back and wait for the likes of Germany to tell them what to do.

If that isn't influance then what is? Who actually wants the "cake and eat it?" The other countries are scared they want to see how it all plays out with the UK before they attempt anything.

Wasn't the UK exempt from payments to countries like Greece put was told to pay up anyway?

[Mr K]

The level of paranoia amongst Brexiters about 'johnny foreigner' is comical. Our interests are mutual. Together as countries, we are (were) stronger. Alone, as we're starting to find out, we have little negotiating power.

Originally Posted by Mr K

The level of paranoia amongst Brexiters about 'johnny foreigner' is comical. Our interests are mutual. Together as countries, we are (were) stronger. Alone, as we're starting to find out, we have little negotiating power.

That's a laugh. The EU don't negotiate, they dictate as per Juncker's EU ambitions. Thank goodness we're leaving.

[Osem]

Yeah and it's not like there's any increasing racism and right wing extremism evident in Germany, Austria, France, Hungary, Greece, Holland, Poland, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Osem

Yeah and it's not like there's any increasing racism and right wing extremism evident in Germany, Austria, France, Hungary, Greece, Holland, Poland, etc. etc.

There is also increasing right-wing extremism in America. We've seen it in Norway and the UK to lesser extents. There seems to be a far-right resurgence everywhere which I would put down to the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, a feeling of insecurity over increasing globalisation and in some cases cultural insecurity. I also think people who were always Nazish feel more confident expressing it. The internet has allowed these people to organise better and so on.

The EU feeds into the globalisation thing but I don't think the EU is the main driver, or even a large driver, of this far-right surge.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Damien

There is also increasing right-wing extremism in America. We've seen it in Norway and the UK to lesser extents. There seems to be a far-right resurgence everywhere which I would put down to the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, a feeling of insecurity over increasing globalisation and in some cases cultural insecurity. I also think people who were always Nazish feel more confident expressing it. The internet has allowed these people to organise better and so on.

The EU feeds into the globalisation thing but I don't think the EU is the main driver, or even a large driver, of this far-right surge.

It doesn't matter what the main drivers are, the fact is that the EU is moving far more to the right mainly driven by migration issues so let's not buy into all the usual lefty guff that Jonny Foreigner haters only live in the UK.

And back in the world of trade deals:

After the news that Germany is seeking a “comprehensive trade accord” with Britain post-Brexit, now Sweden is drawing up plans for the next stage of talks. The Swedish government has asked its National Board of Trade to report on what they want from a trade deal by the end of January.

https://order-order.com/2017/10/19/s...t-trade-plans/

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The OECD has received more money from the UK than from the EC. The UK is a primary tier funder.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

He who pays the piper...

I shudder to think what the OECD report would have looked like if the UK hadn't bunged them all that money then.

Originally Posted by Osem

And back in the world of trade deals:



https://order-order.com/2017/10/19/s...t-trade-plans/

As with the Germany case nations are starting to get ready for whenever we move to trade talks. I'm not sure it tells us much other than the EU have the strange idea of being prepared. Something which we should have been before issuing article 50.

[1andrew1]

Good thought piece from Laura Kuenssberg on the fundamental issue that the UK faces with its Brexit position.

Fourth, the EU is still concerned that the UK government is yet to present a clear picture of what it really wants the long-term relationship to be. And it's still the case, sources tell me, that the full cabinet is yet to have a proper discussion that tries to find that answer.
Sounds extraordinary but given how divided the party is, arguably the lack of discussion is what keeps things even vaguely calm. With guns drawn in the Tory party there is no temptation for Theresa May to fire a shot.
And there's nothing in the next couple of days, or even the next couple of months, that's likely to change that or to answer that much more fundamental question.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41674721

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

As with the Germany case nations are starting to get ready for whenever we move to trade talks. I'm not sure it tells us much other than the EU have the strange idea of being prepared. Something which we should have been before issuing article 50.

If all you've got to clutch at is straws then that's what I would be doing in Guido Fawkes's position. Every country in the world which trades with us should be undertaking these types of preparations.

Ahh, here's Andrew to never fail with his usual 'clutching' at straws, line.

Nobody has. Except for that OECD or ANVCJSJ or AJAJDSJ or DJSJAJ report.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The level of paranoia amongst Brexiters about 'johnny foreigner' is comical. Our interests are mutual. Together as countries, we are (were) stronger. Alone, as we're starting to find out, we have little negotiating power.

Exactly. Rocket science it ain't. Who gets the best deal? The local corner shop or Tesco?

[jonbxx]

So in the last couple of pages, 'The EU don't negotiate, they dictate as per Juncker's EU ambitions' and Germany tells all other countries what to do. Which is it? Who is your enemy here - the EU or Germany? Probably important to know this when negotiating exit and trade deals...

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Liam Halligan

The good news? Using the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) instead is entirely acceptable. It would be a strategic error to think otherwise.

Trading under the global body’s rules is often presented as “disastrous”. That is both alarmist and wrong.

A “bold and ambitious” agreement, keeping trade with the EU largely free of tariffs, is obviously the UK’s preference. The PM made this clear in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017. If we don’t secure an agreement by March 2019, we will then charge reciprocal WTO tariffs, averaging two to three per cent.

This in no way stops UK trade with the EU, as some gloom-mongers claim. All nations have access to the single market provided regulatory standards are met and the generally low tariffs are paid.

The US and China conduct hundreds of billions of dollars of EU trade annually without a free trade agreement.

We can do the same. We already meet EU standards for products and services. And we already sell the majority of our exports beyond the EU, largely under WTO rules.

Liam Halligan's piece

IMHO a much more balanced view.