European Politics

The fact that you think these things are unrelated to the UK's presence in the EU free trade zone is very sad.


That kinda works in reverse as well ... the EU would take a hit as well if the UK bolts .. which tends to make me think that even if they leave the governing body of the EU (which is not really a bad idea), both sides have it in their interest to keep their trade ties and will work something out .. unless of course the overly emotional get their way.
 
The fact that you think these things are unrelated to the UK's presence in the EU free trade zone is very sad.

The EU is obliged to make a trade deal with us if we are to leave, given that we have a very large trade deficit with the EU it would be mutually beneficial for this to be effectively a free trade deal.

It is quite possible to trade freely with another nation without being embroiled in political union with them, the EU itself has free trade deals set up with a number of countries most of whom are far smaller economically than the UK.

The point I was making is that the UK has enough global clout of its own to be able to warrant negotiating a free trade deal with the EU upon an exit.


How can you expect to maintain good relations with other European countries, after you give them the middle finger? "Europe, sort out your problems, we don't want any of it, only good things."

It's not giving the finger to European countries, if a majority of the electorate do not want to be part of a political union with the other EU countries then we will leave, it doesn't mean that we dislike them or do not want to trade and co-operate with them on some level.

Would this not be preferable and indeed less insulting to the other EU nations when compared with Cameron constantly trying to carve the UK out some 'special member' status where we remain part of the club but do not play by the same rules as everyone else?
 
The EU is obliged to make a trade deal with us if we are to leave, given that we have a very large trade deficit with the EU it would be mutually beneficial for this to be effectively a free trade deal.
A free trade deal with the EU and a non-EU UK isn't codified anywhere. It would hurt the EU if the UK leaves. But the EU is preparing free trade deals with Canada and the USA. That would more than make up for the UK's departure - and indeed, would help preclude the UK from the benefits of the same treaty. The Financial Times (not a liberal, EU-loving organization) has reported that "In a poll of more than 100 economists for the Financial Times at the start of 2016, more than three-quarters thought Brexit would adversely affect the UK’s medium-term economic prospects, nine times more than the 8 per cent who thought Britain’s economy would benefit." (Source) This is not the diagnosis of people who believe that an EU departure would be beneficial.

It's not giving the finger to European countries, if a majority of the electorate do not want to be part of a political union with the other EU countries then we will leave, it doesn't mean that we dislike them or do not want to trade and co-operate with them on some level.

Continental Europeans take the EU very seriously. You're ignoring human nature if you think they aren't going to be affected or insulted by a Brexit. I think that Cameron is definitely insulting with his "special status" bullshit, but I've long taken the opinion that the UK should be all-in on the EU like France and Germany. The UK complains that they don't get the same level of respect in the EU than the other major nations get, but they hover on the border. I say, shit or get off the pot. If the UK chooses to leave, sure. I think that's the wrong choice for the UK, but if that's what Brits want, go for it. But I also think the "special status" nonsense is just that.

It's time for Europe to become one country, constituent of a series of states, surrendering some aspects of sovereignty to the whole, recognizing it is possible to be both British AND European; German AND European; Polish AND European.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTC
Continental Europeans take the EU very seriously. You're ignoring human nature if you think they aren't going to be affected or insulted by a Brexit. I think that Cameron is definitely insulting with his "special status" bullshit, but I've long taken the opinion that the UK should be all-in on the EU like France and Germany. The UK complains that they don't get the same level of respect in the EU than the other major nations get, but they hover on the border. I say, shit or get off the pot. If the UK chooses to leave, sure. I think that's the wrong choice for the UK, but if that's what Brits want, go for it. But I also think the "special status" nonsense is just that.

It's time for Europe to become one country, constituent of a series of states, surrendering some aspects of sovereignty to the whole, recognizing it is possible to be both British AND European; German AND European; Polish AND European.

I respect this point of view and I agree that the continental European nations may well be this way inclined, but if the people of the UK decide that they prefer independence to becoming a constituent part of a larger EU state then surely the most preferable outcome for all involved is the UK trading with the EU from outside rather than being one nation swimming against the tide of federalisation and preventing the other nations from merging fully.
 
I respect this point of view and I agree that the continental European nations may well be this way inclined, but if the people of the UK decide that they prefer independence to becoming a constituent part of a larger EU state then surely the most preferable outcome for all involved is the UK trading with the EU from outside rather than being one nation swimming against the tide of federalisation and preventing the other nations from merging fully.
And what if the people of the UK vote to stay in the EU?
 
The way things are going right now, I'd rather see the UK out of the EU. The way Cameron blackmailed the rest of the EU to remain in by getting a privileged membership is doing much more harm than the UK leaving, because it is sending the wrong signals. Next thing we know, the Polish or Hungarian governments are going to broker similar deals, and then we are reaching the slippery slope on which member states are going to put their own national interests over the spirit of the European community. The message coming across this way is that demanding to receive all the benefits and share none of the responsibility is a valid stance for an EU member state, and that is simply not how it works.
On the other hand, I also don't see why the UK should be forced to stay in. If British voters decide they no longer want to be members of the EU, then by all means, let them go. This is an option that should be available to all nations in the EU, as uncomfortable as it may be. In the current time of crisis, this may be the only effective tool to spawn a discussion on where the European project is heading.
 
I guess my question is more, what would it take to bring the UK as a full partner into the EU?

This is where I think Cameron's negotiations are really quite pointless, he has managed to supposedly opt us out of 'ever-closer union' meaning that even if we vote to stay in then we will effectively still be on the periphery in a state of pseudo-membership ie. we will not be a part of the Euro and we will not be part of the increasing federalisation of the EU - it seems more sensible to me to either Leave outright or sign up properly or else we risk being part of the union but without allies meaning we would have less influence over our own continued membership despite these 'negotiations'.
 
Boris Johnson is elected Mayor of London, so an influential politician, but something of a stand-alone politician with a fondness for being outspoken rather than a central Conservative leadership figure. A chunk of the Conservative party is Eurosceptic by nature and has a lot of the Eurosceptic vote. Cameron (and I'm not actually a fan of his, by the way) is half way between making concessions both to them and to those within the business community who are lobbying to stay in the EU.

'Yes men' is slightly unfair. I've never voted for a party or politician that is in favour of leaving the EU. I do get involved in this debate, but it's nigh impossible to change the minds of people who have already made up their mind, and did so a long time ago. I've no doubt there are people with well-considered, informed opinions who are in the 'leave' camp, however, there's also an undercurrent of reactionary, defensive or emotional opposition to EU membership. The reasons for opposition are varied. In some cases, it's an anti-establishment stance.

What RTC describes as people not being interested - I would say it's more a case of people who don't feel remotely qualified to know the full economic/political pros and cons of either option.

5th most well-funded military,
Fifth biggest military spender last year (although British soldiers are still poorly paid). I find it odd that more critics don't question this aspect of public spending, if they're going to criticise public spending at all. It's going to be £33 billion this year.

I guess my question is more, what would it take to bring the UK as a full partner into the EU?
Probably something impossible like being in overall control.
 
I do get involved in this debate, but it's nigh impossible to change the minds of people who have already made up their mind, and did so a long time ago.

This is definitely true, this referendum is all about each side trying to win over enough of the 35 - 40% of wavering and undecided voters which unfortunately means that both sides will resort to scaremongering throughout the campaign.
 
I guess, I just see the EU as becoming a superpower in the near future. Without the UK it is the 2nd largest economy, the 2nd largest military based on spending, and it has access to nuclear weapons (France). The UK would be getting smaller and smaller compared to a more integrated EU. I feel bad for the loss of their experience and ability at the helm of something that has the potential to be so very big.
 
I'm not sure I agree with this outlook. Three major players in the EU are in a state of crisis. Spain may have overcome its economic problems, but if the Catalonian independence movement gains momentum, it might mean the disintegration of the country. Italy is on the verge of collapsing if it does not undertake radical steps. France might fall to the Front National, which could tear the country apart.
On the other side, several countries that are well off are turning their back on the EU, like Poland, Hungary and Finland. Populist, anti-EU movements are gaining ground everywhere, including Germany. Many smaller countries may retain their pro-EU stance but resent the leadership role Germany plays. Quite honestly, I don't have much hope for the EU's future. As I said above, the only thing that could save it is a more democratic approach in which the decision is not dependent on governments and political parties, but on the people themselves.
 
I agree with most of that, Perun. Europe has a lot of issues just now; it's hard to have any great hope...

From a personal perspective, if the UK votes to leave then it may well trigger another Scottish referendum. I'm not sure if Scotland could cope with another Independence Referendum so soon. I was quite surprised at myself (looking back), but I actually found the Independence Referendum quite emotionally draining. That aside, the UK leaving the EU would be a fucking car crash. I think it would be bad for the UK & Europe.
 
I'm not sure I agree with this outlook. Three major players in the EU are in a state of crisis. Spain may have overcome its economic problems, but if the Catalonian independence movement gains momentum, it might mean the disintegration of the country. Italy is on the verge of collapsing if it does not undertake radical steps. France might fall to the Front National, which could tear the country apart.
On the other side, several countries that are well off are turning their back on the EU, like Poland, Hungary and Finland. Populist, anti-EU movements are gaining ground everywhere, including Germany. Many smaller countries may retain their pro-EU stance but resent the leadership role Germany plays. Quite honestly, I don't have much hope for the EU's future. As I said above, the only thing that could save it is a more democratic approach in which the decision is not dependent on governments and political parties, but on the people themselves.


I tend to agree with that, but I also wonder if the EU has gone too far too fast. Economic trade zones and trade agreements with the rest of the world make sense, a common currency for some countries makes sense (though they extended this too far), a military alliance and different countries having different specialties makes sense, cooperation in intelligence and police for widespread issues makes sense. Things beyond that that intervene with national governments/laws/and yes, immigration quotas will have issues particularly if it is seen as a few countries dictating that policy to the rest add to that the effect on internal economic policies when you have blocs within the EU at vastly different stages of economic development.

I think what the UK is proposing/asking for is something along the lines of some countries having full membership and others (namely them, but possibly others) being associate members, which seems like a reasonable approach.
 
I also wonder if the EU has gone too far too fast.

That may be the case, with the benefit of hindsight. But if you look at this from a historical perspective, EU expansion was the only tool deemed applicable to integrate all those post-Socialist countries into a new order. And it's worked for many countries. Estonia, Slovakia or Slovenia aren't the problem. The problem lies with the big countries, old and new.

and yes, immigration quotas will have issues particularly if it is seen as a few countries dictating that policy to the rest add to that the effect on internal economic policies when you have blocs within the EU at vastly different stages of economic development.

But that's exactly the problem: Nobody is dictating immigration quotas, and that's why a handful of EU countries (Sweden, Germany, Croatia) carry all the burden while others refuse to do anything. Of course Poland can point their fingers at Germany and say we're overwhelmed. Yes, we are, because Poland won't do shit to help us. The EU has 508 million people, you can integrate one or two million refugees in there without any noticeable change, even when taking socioeconomic and political differences into account. Not to mention that immigration quotas would not be dictated by Germany or France, but by the European Union. The idea is to work out a way that all countries receive an even share of responsibility so that none would take an undue burden. The problem is that a large number of countries refused to cooperate from the very start. That's how this became a crisis in the first place.
 
Poland won't do shit to help us.
Dude, the people coming in are brown. Duh.

From a personal perspective, if the UK votes to leave then it may well trigger another Scottish referendum. I'm not sure if Scotland could cope with another Independence Referendum so soon. I was quite surprised at myself (looking back), but I actually found the Independence Referendum quite emotionally draining. That aside, the UK leaving the EU would be a fucking car crash. I think it would be bad for the UK & Europe.
I definitely think the UKIP people, who seemed very keen to keep Scotland in their union, are doing something that was pretty much a top issue in Scotland. The Scots very much seem quite keen to have EU membership, based on the polling during the referendum. Add in the fact that the economy for Scotland isn't what it was in 2014, I think that you're right in that it would be quite the event and could cause another referendum, but also that Scotland very well might be in a worse place to leave now.
 
That may be the case, with the benefit of hindsight. But if you look at this from a historical perspective, EU expansion was the only tool deemed applicable to integrate all those post-Socialist countries into a new order. And it's worked for many countries. Estonia, Slovakia or Slovenia aren't the problem. The problem lies with the big countries, old and new.
I was not really thinking in terms of adding countries in the EU (or even in the Euro) as much as the EU growing in scope beyond trade and much as trying to be a single political Europe (which clearly it is not ... as evidenced by the immigration debate .. among other things and wonder if it would have been better off being a looser federation sticking with trade and military/police alliances ... basically a much slower growth of the EEC versus the EU


But that's exactly the problem: Nobody is dictating immigration quotas, and that's why a handful of EU countries (Sweden, Germany, Croatia) carry all the burden while others refuse to do anything. Of course Poland can point their fingers at Germany and say we're overwhelmed. Yes, we are, because Poland won't do shit to help us. The EU has 508 million people, you can integrate one or two million refugees in there without any noticeable change, even when taking socioeconomic and political differences into account. Not to mention that immigration quotas would not be dictated by Germany or France, but by the European Union. The idea is to work out a way that all countries receive an even share of responsibility so that none would take an undue burden. The problem is that a large number of countries refused to cooperate from the very start. That's how this became a crisis in the first place.

Yeah, no argument there, but this goes to my first point that the EU has probably moved too fast[/QUOTE]
 
Back
Top