Brexit.

[Argent Stonecutter]

Thread.

 

[Porsupah Ree]

Thankfully March 29 is late in the season in 2019.

Next up: a Bill is introduced defining Christmas to be on March 28th.

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

. We need European cooperation to counter the shift in the global power balance.

I really don't think it is a shift, but more a voluntary absence of wielded and visible power by the USA. The power is still there, they just prefer nowadays a more isolationist stance than in the years before

You just really have to look at the outcome of the trade war between the USA and China so far to understand who is more powerful, so I really doubt we are going to see a fundamental shift in the next few years, because it is not in the American interests.

 

[Luisa Land]

while at present between EU and the anglos-saxon world (UK, USA) there are some difficulties with treaties (existing and planned ones)
the EU seems to look successfully for partners in other corners of the world



"The European Union and Japan will launch the world’s largest free trade zone early next year after their economic partnership cleared a final hurdle on Wednesday. "
.........

• .........

Both Brussels and Tokyo want it in place before Britain leaves the EU at the end of March.

Japan, whose many car makers serve the EU market from British bases, had wanted it to then apply to a Brexit transition period until the end of 2020, although that period is uncertain due to political turmoil in Britain.

........

The EU has also looked elsewhere after TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) negotiations with the United States stalled in 2016. It concluded an updated trade deal with Mexico earlier this year.

“Everyone knows there is a tariff man on the other side of the Atlantic. Our answer is clear. We are not tariff men, but the people of fair trade,” said Bernd Lange, who heads the European Parliament’s trade committee."



"Critics say the EU-Japan agreement will give too much power to multinationals and could undermine environmental and labor standards. "
But I guess these are not the concerns why Trump and the british government have so much difficulties with trade treaties in the present days.



EU-Japan free trade deal cleared for early 2019 start | Reuters

 

[Kara Spengler]

Thread.

Blockchain is the 2018 buzzword/magic elixir of the year. Just like in 1980 you could say you were doing something with a computer and people would assume it MUST be correct.

Back around then I did a HS term paper that was pretty terrible. I got one of the top grades on it because .... drumroll ... I used an early word processor. This was from a teacher who HATED computers too.

 

[Tigger]

There are valid concerns regarding the democratic deficits of the EU institutions (and there are also valid attempts to work on these issues). Two decades back or so, I might have entertained ideas to disband and reorganize the EU, too. Nowadays - we don't have time for that. We are facing global crises of unknown dimensions. We desperately need international cooperation to fight climate change and to prepare for it's consequences. We need cooperation to fight the rise of populism and fascist movements. We need international cooperation to deal with the inevitable mass migration to come. We need European cooperation to counter the shift in the global power balance. All these things can not be answered on a national level (and btw, the majority of nation states weren't founded by basis-democratic people's votes, either). Calling for disintegration and re-nationalization -now- is terribly short-sighted and dangerous. We need to work with what we have, even though it's anything but perfect. Just like with the UN, there is no practicable alternative right now. And we don't have the time to build one.

Agree with pretty much everything you said but, that bit, the bit I quoted, 100x that bit. People often seem shocked when I admit the EU is far from perfect. But the alternatives are even further from perfect. 28 individual bickering states will achieve nothing on the big issues that need global action.

 

[Khamon]

I apologize for OTing this thread with talk of US governmental structure.
Please defer future comments to Open Letter to the Senate.
The quotes and replies are well appreciated.
Have a good day.
end of line

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

I had always thought that the EU originated from the European Coal and Steel Community, designed as a supranational organisation to prevent France and Germany ever again going to war over the resources of the Saar Basin.

You do mean the steel industry there. The Saar Basin was one of the two big areas where steel was being produced, the far bigger though the Ruhr Area. Today both of their glory days have been long gone, like for the rust belt in the USA.

Anyway, when the ECSC was founded in 1952, the Saar Basin was still French. The Saarbasin was French two times during the 20th century, first time after WWI until 1935 in a referendum the people there decided in a referendum to become German again, the second time after WWII and they decided in 1955 to become German again, which happened somewhat later.

But you've just got to take an European map, and to think bigger than the Saar Basin; this is a political map of Europe in 1949:

The defining movement of the 19th century have been nation states; Germany came pretty late to this party, France and the UK have been nations long before 1871. Due to Napoleon I. Germany was most of the time in the 19th century fractioned into gazillons of little principalities and alike with a few expections like the very militaristic state of Prussia, until Bismarck started the unification without Austria.

Germany is in the heartland of Western Europe, and has today 9 neighbors; most of Germany is a nice, wide plain. When Germany became a nation, and industrialized, in the 20th century Germany started two world wars - and lost both of them. The history of Europe is being driven by the status quo of Germany - when it's too weak, the rest of Europe suffers economy wise, when it gets too powerful or builds an snappy army its neighbors are looking again at least a bit skeptical on this what the heck is going on because of the history. On the other hand in order to stop the spread of communism to the west, they also wanted a prosperous Germany; but such a thing just might become warhungry again, that was one major fear, because it started two world wars within 25 years only. So the not unjustified fear was that history might repeat itself a third time, and this was something to avoid.

So the idea was to integrate all of Western Germany into a bigger framework with its most important neighbors, which back then were still considered as heirloom enemies like France or the UK, to make sure that there is one Western block against communism in the east, and also ensure that the Germans don't want to play war again too soon. This is why the NATO, but also the ESCS came into existence; the Saar Basin was only a small part of the reasoning, embedding Western Germany as a whole into the west was by far means the more important task they wanted to achieve, to ensure peace, but also to ensure that Western Germany does not decide some day on its own to become part of the back then communist GDR, or a neutral country like Austria.

In fact during the 1950s the USSR offered the unification to Western Germany, but insisted on a neutral status of total Germany; something which Adenauer refused.

 

[Arkady Arkright]

Sorry if this has already been quoted, but here you go :- How to play Connect Four with Theresa May

 

[Tigger]

Well I've been reading a bit about May's latest attempt to change the deal after the end of the negotiations and it's as bad as I feared:

Our UK friends need to say what they want, rather than asking what we want. We would like in a few weeks for our UK friends to set out their expectations because this debate is sometimes nebulous and imprecise and I would like clarifications.

EU leaders scrap plans to help Theresa May pass Brexit deal after disastrous meeting

Accounts of the meeting suggest the prime minister’s speech, in which she called for help to get the agreement “over the line”, was repeatedly interrupted by Angela Merkel asking her what she actually wanted from them.

Senior UK government officials admitted that the prime minister did not bring any documented proposals with her to the meeting.

The approach puzzled EU diplomats, who for days before the conference had said they needed to see what proposals Ms May had come up with before they could respond to her request for aid.
...
Ms May is said to have asked for a legally binding 2021 deadline to end the backstop, but it was pointed out by leaders that this would contradict the fundamental principles of the agreement. When asked if the UK could propose a way around this, the prime minister was said to have no answer.

In short May spouted platitudes and sound bites, didn't know what she wanted, had no plans, demanded that the EU solve the problem that she'd created and ended up with the EU deleting some of the language specifically added to try and help her sell the deal to MPs.

 

[Govi]

Observing May's Brexit career, the phrase "malicious compliance" keeps coming to mind. As a Remainer, she knows that there is no good Brexit but because she is a loyal Tory and wanted to be (wants to remain as) Prime Minister in the service of her nation, she has to deliver the best Brexit possible, even though all the Brexits seem to sort themselves into categories of bad, worse, or worst.

.​

 

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

[...] even though all the Brexits seem to sort themselves into categories of bad, worse, or worst.

The EU simply wants to make an example of the UK in order to discourage the other member nations from even attempting to leave the EU as well. That's why Brussels makes the Brexit deals as bad for the UK as possible.

In my opinion, they should just let the UK leave the EU, under the UK's own conditions.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The EU simply wants to make an example of the UK in order to discourage the other member nations from even attempting to leave the EU as well. That's why Brussels makes the Brexit deals as bad for the UK as possible.

In my opinion, they should just let the UK leave the EU, under the UK's own conditions.

Sorry, eigth, but this is the sort of thing we've been hearing for the last three years from people like Boris Johnson, David Davis and the other right-wing Conservative Brexiteers and is, quite simply, complete and utter balls.

The EU is a treaty organisation which binds its members to common rules. Some of these work to the advantage of any particular state, and some of them any particular state is going to find irksome. The pro-Brexit side in the referendum debate essentially claimed that the UK would be able to leave the EU and still retain all the benefits of membership while not adhering to any of the responsibilities. So we would, we were told, be able to have full access to the European Single Market without allowing similar access by EU27 businesses to the UK, and without allowing citizens of other EU countries to live and work here as they wished.

Obviously that was never going to fly -- "having your cake and eating it," as Johnson characterised his own policy.

The problems we're having at the moment are a direct result of that attitude -- Theresa May painted herself into a corner by drawing her famous "red lines," and we're now seeing the consequences of that.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

The EU position comes down to (1) EU benefits are for EU members and (2) the UK must honor a bilateral treaty with the RoI that implemented the Good Friday agreement.

The problem is on the UK end of things. May's government wants to keep some of the benefits of membership while stopping freedom of movement and compliance with regulations. Allowing that would encourage other member states to seek a "better deal" as well and undermine the reason for the EU to exist.

The Irish border problem is the result of just not thinking through the implications of Brexit and then trying to BS their way out of the problem and/or kick the can down the road. The Good Friday agreement was possible in large part because both the UK and the RoI are in the EU and therefore have common trade and travel rules. Take that away and the agreement is unworkable because you have to have some kind of border somewhere. This is not a problem that the EU created to stymie Brexit. The problem is a treaty between the UK and an EU member that the UK can't get out of just because they are leaving the EU.

The backstop is there because the UK has not put any solution to the problem on the table and because there is no solution that honors the agreement and can pass Parliament. The grownups know this. May is either intentionally oblivious or blindingly stupid to think a solution will magically appear after Brexit.

tl:dr It is not in the interest of the EU to punish the UK. but the UK is doing a smashing job on it's own.

 

[Kara Spengler]

In my opinion, they should just let the UK leave the EU, under the UK's own conditions.

What the? If I go to a party and decide to leave the only condition I have the authority to set is 'I am leaving' (possibly 'and taking my beer' unless that was your implicit cost of entry). I can not unilaterally say 'I am leaving and taking your stereo with me'.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Excellent article here by Christina Patterson, which pretty much sums up how I feel right now about Brexit: We are the eggs being broken for this rotten Brexit omelette | Christina Patterson

 

[Porsupah Ree]

Will of the People™

 

[eighthdwarf Checchinato]

I still think that the UK made the right decision with Brexit. And I also have no problem with a Brexit without that backdrop, at all. What's wrong with borders and tariffs between countries, anyway?

Allowing that would encourage other member states to seek a "better deal" as well and undermine the reason for the EU to exist.

So what?
The EU has absolutely no reason to exist, other than to serve multinational Big Business by making it much easier for them to employ sub-companies from countries with cheaper wages, by removing border controls and tariffs and stuff that would marginally minimize the already absurd profits of Big Business and banks, by removing the (for normal people really minimal) costs of exchanging money, and so on.

To be honest, I see absolutely nothing of any worth that the EU has ever done for the people of its member states. The EU has no valid reason to exist, never had, and except for this pseudo-parliament full of business marionettes in Brussels, there is no democratic value in it either. Each and any "better deal" than a currently standing EU membership is worth pushing for.
In my opinion, the EU may fall apart entirely rather sooner than later, giving its then-former member states the chance to form a new construct if desired - let's say a "United States of Europe" or some similar BS - but then by the will of the vast majority of all their inhabitants only.
Although I'd rather see all the current EU members become independent of that Pseudo-Parliament there again, and return to their own former currencies, to their own businesses etc, without having anyone from a foreign country telling them what to do and which laws and regulations to make.


If I had a say, Germany would leave the EU - immediately and unilaterally, without any nonsensical compromises in favor for this Pan-European bureaucratic and power-hungry abomination - and return to the DM as soon as possible (oh, and it would leave the NATO as well, and throwing all NATO units out of Germany, while being at it).

 

[Essence Lumin]

What the? If I go to a party and decide to leave the only condition I have the authority to set is 'I am leaving' (possibly 'and taking my beer' unless that was your implicit cost of entry). I can not unilaterally say 'I am leaving and taking your stereo with me'.

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to

 

[Sid]

To be honest, I see absolutely nothing of any worth that the EU has ever done for the people of its member states.

If you close your eyes and keep them tightly shut, you won't see anything. That's true.

Did you see what I did there? I gave no argument at all. I just put something in the room.
Exactly what you are doing so far.