161–170 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> global destiny Does this mean what it sounds like it means?
People in the UK haven't quite gotten over that whole global empire thing. Every now and then they make documentaries about how they brought civilization to India or something.
I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived, and can bring about its own demise.
For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing in lots of different areas.
May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious: whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar strength, often much bigger.
And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not willing to dilute the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house: being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules. Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that.
Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences:
- the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will break it whenever it wishes
- there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on the table. Brexit it is.
- any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure.
May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for your future failures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real. Actually it was a bureaucratic plan all along, and badly managed. And you still can have great access to the same 320 million market even outside of it (like e.g. China or Japan have) -- with the extra benefit that you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary policy.
Any examples of monetary policies imposed by the ECB on the BoE? Given the different currency, I'm curious about it.
Similarly with fiscal policy, whilst the UK is supposed to "endeavour" to follow the Stability and Growth Pact rules on keeping deficits down, it can and does cheerfully ignore those rules without risk of penalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is there WAS a vote. A democratic vote. I'm looking at it from the outside and don't care either way - except that the way some very vocal ones of the so-called "remainers" dislike democracy and voting as soon as they don't get what they want disgusts me. Remember your attitude when some day - inevitably - it will be the other way around, you won a vote and the other side comes up with the same arguments.
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. Yes, there was a referendum – but it wasn't a good one. It was advisory only – i.e. not binding – there was a narrow margin, no minimum turnout or majority requirements, and no concrete plan which was being voted on, or even any set of proposals from government. Two of the four countries in the UK voted to remain in the EU. It think it's wholly reasonable to qu…
Border controls cannot be achieved without leaving the single market, so if we're honouring the democratic process this is the only possible path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, and not necessarily a direct control For example, not giving unemployment benefits for those that just had arrived (though it seems this applies to all kinds of immigration)
You don't have to hate brown people (as you said up there) to understand that a system that gives benefits to people who have never contributed to it is not sustainable in the long term. And citizens from A8 countries are barely brown, anyway. ;P I believe political correctness triggered Brexit, and will eventually kill the EU (not only because of immigration, though)
Of course
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree completely. An ambiguous referendum that gave no guidance. An unelected PM who has taken it upon herself to define the most egregious future path. The only ethical stance is to set out definite terms (which I guess she is now doing) and hold a general election (which I am 100% sure she will not).
> An unelected PM She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
While on the surface this is correct, Cameron subsequently ran as the face of the party in a general election before assuming office, thereby receiving a public mandate (albeit a weak one first time round due to the hung parliament).
May did not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it for real or isn't that just a politician trying to sell something (which it sounds remarkably like)? One of the reasons Brexit is happening (at least it's argued) is due to bureaucracy. Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
No way. Brexit was primarily caused by xenophobia in combination with lack of education about how the EU works. Most people don't even know how many unanimous votes of all member states were necessary to get to the contemporary EU in the first place. Had there been a simple test of 10 questions about how the EU works, drawn from 100 previously published questions, that needed to be answered in order to qualify as a v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not about the different VAT rates in different countries. The problem is the process for claiming VAT paid in another EU country. That process is so ridiculously complex that up to a certain amount even accountants have largely given up on it because it's not worth the bother.
indeed, I simply stopped selling services to the rest of the EU as it was not worth the effort in dealing with the new EU VAT regime, even though my small operation is below the threshold for VAT registration in my home country
I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern. We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her. I don't want th…
I couldn't agree more, and I wonder why you're being downvoted so hard. Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.
That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to satisfy that requirement which was voted for by the UK population in a referendum...
Now I'd agree that if you actually spelled out the reality of "hard brexit" people might be given pause and really they should have listened to "project fear" as it was dubbed by the brexit crew, but the fact remains that the brexit campaign was on border control and to deliver this the UK has to leave the single market
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't agree more, and I wonder why you're being downvoted so hard. Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.
How did you arrive at this conclusion other than pure conjecture? The in-out vote was a binary choice, as I remember?
Also, you and I both know very well a lot of people that voted had no clue what it meant to leave.
Or in some cases, what the EU even is, frighteningly.