GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The same argument applies if the UK is seen to get a good deal by leaving.  Which is why all the talk in the EU is about the need for a clean break, despite accepting there will be a significant economic cost to the EU.  

What I was getting at is, there seems to be a belief in some quarters (media and markets)  that the parliamentary vote means something it cannot.

They can only vote Aye or No, i.e  for or against, a deal that is different to WTO terms.

Also, they could vote Aye or No to a motion revoking A50.  But that is predicated on A50 being revocable, and it is not established that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't agree with or even understand the point you were making. By withdrawing membership benefits from any state that leaves, the EU is not pushing them down or punishing it is just letting them leave.

Your response implies that you think the EU should let us continue to have most of the benefits of membership after we have left. Why?     

Well for a start they give some of the benefits to nations that are not EU members and who don't contribute to the budget or allow freedom of movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, the gardener said:

Well for a start they give some of the benefits to nations that are not EU members and who don't contribute to the budget or allow freedom of movement.

Which nations and benefits are you referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't agree with or even understand the point you were making. By withdrawing membership benefits from any state that leaves, the EU is not pushing them down or punishing it is just letting them leave.

Your response implies that you think the EU should let us continue to have most of the benefits of membership after we have left. Why?     

Let me quote you again "Which is why all the talk in the EU is about the need for a clean break, despite accepting there will be a significant economic cost to the EU." You believe that there's a cost to the EU for having a clean break. Then why would the EU want a clean break? The sounds coming from the UK side seem to be that we'll accept one if we can't (in Remainers' words) "have our cake and eat it", which implies there's a downside for the EU in letting the UK keep things we like, yet you've given an argument that says the EU should be trying to persuade us to have exactly that.

So from the EU point of view why is there a need for a clean break if it'll have significant economic costs? What is the upside? It doesn't have to be an economic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kzb said:

I've got to say though, if it's decided t is revocable, it turns the whole thing into chaos.  Every man and his dog is going to slap in an A50 just to see what concessions they can get. Etc etc.

I don't think they will.  They will have an object lesson in the UK to show them that the answer is 'No'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

So from the EU point of view why is there a need for a clean break if it'll have significant economic costs? What is the upside? It doesn't have to be an economic one.

The upside is maintaining the integrity of the EU, and this matters not for its own sake, but because if the continent fractures politically again then we will very quickly find ourselves in a very dangerous position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the gardener said:

I'm sorry but I don't think it was made clear. I didn't know what I was voting for.

😁😉😊

Is it clear to you that Brexit will make the country poorer and weaker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The upside is maintaining the integrity of the EU, and this matters not for its own sake, but because if the continent fractures politically again then we will very quickly find ourselves in a very dangerous position.

If you want to avoid fractures then you need positive reasons for countries to stay. Being perceived as punishing a country for leaving (which it is if they would otherwise reject a deal that would benefit both parties best) drives wedges into the fractures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

If you want to avoid fractures then you need positive reasons for countries to stay. Being perceived as punishing a country for leaving (which it is if they would otherwise reject a deal that would benefit both parties best) drives wedges into the fractures.

Where does this idea that losing the benefits of membership equates to punishment come from.

The hard line Brexiteers such as Farage and Fox seem happy with a clean break, it's what they wanted all along. May's threat to tear up the "European style social contract" and become a lightly regulated tax haven will be music to their ears and encourage them to make sure that we do not reach an amicable agreement with the UK.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I don't think they will.  They will have an object lesson in the UK to show them that the answer is 'No'.

Well we don't yet know if we'll win any concessions or not.

The main point is that if A50 is revocable, it makes the whole thing pointless.  There is no point to any subsequent negotiations, because as you say the answer would always be No, to everything. 

There would be no incentive for anything else (unless the EU actively wanted to be rid of a country).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Where does this idea that losing the benefits of membership equates to punishment come from.

You tell me, you said yourself that voices inside the EU want a clean break (which clearly involves losing the benefits of membership) even if it has a cost to the EU. They don't want the UK to have things even if both would benefit from - it doesn't appear to be a case of the UK would gain but the EU would pay; that would be a good reason to reject the idea. They're either intending to punish or being obstinant, and neither of those paints the EU in a good light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You tell me, you said yourself that voices inside the EU want a clean break (which clearly involves losing the benefits of membership) even if it has a cost to the EU. They don't want the UK to have things even if both would benefit from - it doesn't appear to be a case of the UK would gain but the EU would pay; that would be a good reason to reject the idea. They're either intending to punish or being obstinant, and neither of those paints the EU in a good light.

It's no different to how the USA would react to Texas leaving them.  Yes, wish them well, but they would need to stand on their own two feet and not expect the USA to bend over backwards to help them keep all the benefits they accrued from being part of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You tell me, you said yourself that voices inside the EU want a clean break (which clearly involves losing the benefits of membership) even if it has a cost to the EU. They don't want the UK to have things even if both would benefit from - it doesn't appear to be a case of the UK would gain but the EU would pay; that would be a good reason to reject the idea. They're either intending to punish or being obstinant, and neither of those paints the EU in a good light.

Their point is that being in the EU has benefits, being outside of the EU means you don't have those benefits. Its the reason for the existence of the EU. If by being outside of the EU you would get the same benefits by being inside of it, why would anyone join, what would be the point of it. Those benefits only exist because of the presence of the EU and the rules that it places on its members. 

This isn't about punishing people outside of the EU, but a perfectly reasonable statement that you don't get the perks if you're not in the club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

It's no different to how the USA would react to Texas leaving them.  Yes, wish them well, but they would need to stand on their own two feet and not expect the USA to bend over backwards to help them keep all the benefits they accrued from being part of the USA.

If Texas wanted to keep some of those benefits and doing so was also a positive for the rest of the USA then let them keep them. It's not bending over backwards to help when you gain too. What's a good reason for not accepting that win-win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pieman Pieface said:

Their point is that being in the EU has benefits, being outside of the EU means you don't have those benefits. Its the reason for the existence of the EU. If by being outside of the EU you would get the same benefits by being inside of it, why would anyone join, what would be the point of it. Those benefits only exist because of the presence of the EU and the rules that it places on its members.

Why would anyone join, what is the point of it? That's the question isn't it, and one that the EU's defenders aren't doing a terribly good job of answering, because it seems to me that if a win-win situation is theoretically possible without being a member of the EU then it doesn't have a purpose. If all they can fall back on are "those are our rules", rather than why these things simply couldn't possibly work no matter how much you changed the rules, then there's no argument for having the EU.

For an oversimplified example - let's say group A has spare food but no shelter, group B has a big pile of bricks but no food, group A faces freezing and group B faces starving. Group A is saying "nope, can't trade with us unless you join our club, which has all sorts of other rules in place that you may not like." Perhaps Group A would prefer Group B being part of it, but even so both are still better off if they trade food and bricks, rather than saying "No membership, no trade." There's no downside to that trading no matter how much the diehards in Group A mumble about B wanting to have their cake and eat it by having access to their food without membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

If Texas wanted to keep some of those benefits and doing so was also a positive for the rest of the USA then let them keep them. It's not bending over backwards to help when you gain too. What's a good reason for not accepting that win-win?

You are defining a win-win in your own terms and hence failing to see the big picture.  For example, Russia would be very happy to see Texas, and then California, and then others break away because it would weaken the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Why would anyone join, what is the point of it? That's the question isn't it, and one that the EU's defenders aren't doing a terribly good job of answering, because it seems to me that if a win-win situation is theoretically possible without being a member of the EU then it doesn't have a purpose. If all they can fall back on are "those are our rules", rather than why these things simply couldn't possibly work no matter how much you changed the rules, then there's no argument for having the EU.

For an oversimplified example - let's say group A has spare food but no shelter, group B has a big pile of bricks but no food, group A faces freezing and group B faces starving. Group A is saying "nope, can't trade with us unless you join our club, which has all sorts of other rules in place that you may not like." Perhaps Group A would prefer Group B being part of it, but even so both are still better off if they trade food and bricks, rather than saying "No membership, no trade." There's no downside to that trading no matter how much the diehards in Group A mumble about B wanting to have their cake and eat it by having access to their food without membership.

What kind of bricks are we talking about.

Do they conform to BS EN 771-1? You realise that a brick isn't a brick unless it conforms to those standards? The house would fall down. While we're at it does the food comply with the relevant agricultural standards? Does the proposed place for food preparation conform to EU food hygiene standards?

I think that your heart is in the right place but I'm afraid the best thing is that you freeze to death and we starve. It's the EU way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

You are defining a win-win in your own terms and hence failing to see the big picture.  For example, Russia would be very happy to see Texas, and then California, and then others break away because it would weaken the USA.

Ah yes bring other parties into the question now. Evade, obfuscate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the gardener said:

Ah yes bring other parties into the question now. Evade, obfuscate.

It's neither evasion nor obfuscation but basic common sense.

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

You tell me, you said yourself that voices inside the EU want a clean break (which clearly involves losing the benefits of membership) even if it has a cost to the EU. They don't want the UK to have things even if both would benefit from - it doesn't appear to be a case of the UK would gain but the EU would pay; that would be a good reason to reject the idea. They're either intending to punish or being obstinant, and neither of those paints the EU in a good light.

What alternative do they have, let states leave one by one keeping the benefits of membership while stopping paying into the EU. Why would anyone stay if that option was available.

Yes there will negative effects on both sides but in time both us and the EU will adjust to the new reality. Whether or not you like the new reality will depend a lot on your vision for the future of your country.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

What alternative do they have, let states leave one by one keeping the benefits of membership while stopping paying into the EU. Why would anyone stay if that option was available.

If it brings economic benefits to the EU as well it should pay for itself, at least as far as the overheads are concerned. Yes, why would anyone stay in? That question should be making you question the purpose and viability of the EU, not whether some mutually beneficial terms should remain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

It's neither evasion nor obfuscation but basic common sense.

Yes, I'd agree that that's a reason to that particular example, at least for Texas not leaving in the first place (less so if it's going to leave anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

What alternative do they have, let states leave one by one keeping the benefits of membership while stopping paying into the EU. Why would anyone stay if that option was available.

Yes there will negative effects on both sides but in time both us and the EU will adjust to the new reality. Whether or not you like the new reality will depend a lot on your vision for the future of your country.

 

 

If the majority of individual states wanted out would you say the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, the gardener said:

If the majority of individual states wanted out would you say the same?

Of course.  The EU is not a prison and countries are free to leave, but if they leave they lose the benefits.

Your position is like Scotland gaining independence and then expecting the Barnett formula to apply.

Edited by thecrashingisles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Of course.  The EU is not a prison and countries are free to leave, but if they leave they lose the benefits.

Your position is like Scotland gaining independence and then expecting the Barnett formula to apply.

Its like cancelling your Netflix subscription and then getting angry when you can't watch Narcos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now