Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[shurlock]

The assumption that everything would have been OK by remaining is naive to say the least. Remainers talk as if there is NO risk to remaining. There is risk attached to staying in. Granted in the short term, the risks associated with leaving are greater, but I for one do not wish for the UK to fail unlike some. Had we stayed in, I would still want the UK to prosper.

 

No option is perfect. Time will tell. But I’m not sure how pointing out challenges, issues and dodgy assumptions amounts to wanting the country to fail or wanting to be proved right. Quite the opposite.

 

By that dodgy logic, one could claim that Brexiters are less interested in success for success sake than the justification it gives them to show how the naysayers were wrong and to gloat over their victory.

[Johnny Bognor]

No option is perfect. Time will tell. But I’m not sure how pointing out challenges, issues and dodgy assumptions amounts to wanting the country to fail or wanting to be proved right. Quite the opposite.

 

Whilst there are obvious risks to Brexit, there are some obvious upsides and many Remainers (particularly on here) refuse to even recognise any of them. I recognise the merits of remaining and I personally balanced these to come to my conclusion. As it happens, I was in favour of Remain at the beginning of the referendum process, but changed my my mind during the campaign. I still recognise those merits, that doesn't change.

 

But I also know that remaining doesn't come without risk... a point that seems lost on most remainers. They see it as the perfectly safe option, which of course it isn't.

 

Now I'm not saying you do this, but some on here see Brexit as ALL bad and won't even accept ANY of the upsides. People banging on about the currency devaluation were very quiet on here a few years ago when the £:€ were at similar levels to now. But now, it is a major problem???

 

Methinks some Remainers won't blame it on the sunshine, they won't blame it on the moonlight, they'll just blame it on the Brexit. Which means the Boogie gets off lightly

[OldNick]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/no-deal-on-brexit-is-the-punishment-for-leaving-not-the-reward/ar-AAtj29b?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

[ashnats]

Whilst there are obvious risks to Brexit, there are some obvious upsides and many Remainers (particularly on here) refuse to even recognise any of them. I recognise the merits of remaining and I personally balanced these to come to my conclusion. As it happens, I was in favour of Remain at the beginning of the referendum process, but changed my my mind during the campaign. I still recognise those merits, that doesn't change.

 

But I also know that remaining doesn't come without risk... a point that seems lost on most remainers. They see it as the perfectly safe option, which of course it isn't.

 

Now I'm not saying you do this, but some on here see Brexit as ALL bad and won't even accept ANY of the upsides. People banging on about the currency devaluation were very quiet on here a few years ago when the £:€ were at similar levels to now. But now, it is a major problem???

 

Methinks some Remainers won't blame it on the sunshine, they won't blame it on the moonlight, they'll just blame it on the Brexit. Which means the Boogie gets off lightly

 

I've not read the whole thread, I'm sure this has been covered, but could you name, say two, obvious upsides to brexit? I've genuinely not heard of any, but most of my social circle are either from the EU or rely it on it for business, and the media haven't obviously publicised any benefits. I only hear the argument that it won't be as bad as some people say, but I've not actually heard anyone say it won't be bad before!

[buctootim]

Pretty much the entire argument in favour of a remain vote was on economic grounds, while large swathes of the argument in favour of a leave vote was on grounds unconnected (or perceived as unconnected) with the economy.

 

Thats only partly true. Economics was a big part of it - but the right to go and live in other European countries was also an issue for me. More than anything though the definitive factor was that I simply didnt believe what most leave campaigners were saying nor that they really understood the issues. Taking back control, cut waste, save money, keep Johnny Foreigner out are all seductive slogans but much more difficult to formulate a coherent policy on.

[Johnny Bognor]

I've not read the whole thread, I'm sure this has been covered, but could you name, say two, obvious upsides to brexit? I've genuinely not heard of any, but most of my social circle are either from the EU or rely it on it for business, and the media haven't obviously publicised any benefits. I only hear the argument that it won't be as bad as some people say, but I've not actually heard anyone say it won't be bad before!

 

You really can't think of any yourself? Not even two???

 

OK, here are a couple for you to ponder.

 

When it comes to food, we can return to world markets to buy cheap food in particular, outside the Common Agricultural Policy. We can take advantage of more efficient producers of cereals, butter, meat and all the rest, and take advantage of surpluses from across the planet (Much the same goes for everything else we import). With the cheaper grocery bills, it would help poorer people. More expensive food was one of worst consequences of joining the EEC in 1973. As it is, our food prices are kept artificially high by EU tariffs designed to keep French farmers in clover.

 

If we look at fishing, some of the most deprived and once prosperous parts of the country, now have of returning fishing grounds, fleets and the jobs that went with them. Grimsby, Fleetwood, Cornwall: these are the places that may well be much better off in a few years. It was always morally wrong to sacrifice coastal communities for the sake of the EU.

 

I could go on, but I will be here all day.... but please don't anyone for a minute pretend that there are no upsides whatsoever...

[buctootim]

You really can't think of any yourself? Not even two???

 

OK, here are a couple for you to ponder.

 

When it comes to food, we can return to world markets to buy cheap food in particular, outside the Common Agricultural Policy. We can take advantage of more efficient producers of cereals, butter, meat and all the rest, and take advantage of surpluses from across the planet (Much the same goes for everything else we import). With the cheaper grocery bills, it would help poorer people. More expensive food was one of worst consequences of joining the EEC in 1973. As it is, our food prices are kept artificially high by EU tariffs designed to keep French farmers in clover.

 

If we look at fishing, some of the most deprived and once prosperous parts of the country, now have of returning fishing grounds, fleets and the jobs that went with them. Grimsby, Fleetwood, Cornwall: these are the places that may well be much better off in a few years. It was always morally wrong to sacrifice coastal communities for the sake of the EU.

 

I could go on, but I will be here all day.... but please don't anyone for a minute pretend that there are no upsides whatsoever...

 

You could go on, but you'd still be flat wrong because you only read headlines and not stats.

 

1. You can import cheaper food for sure. However you then sacrifice food security, if you want to starve the UK all you need is 10 subs. In any event buying food on world markets mean prices are much more volatile - a fact hated by food producers, one of our major exports. The cost of hedging exceeds any short term savings - look into the black-scholes formula

2. The loss of deep sea fishing community jobs was almost entirely due to industrialisation - bigger more mechanised ships needing fewer crew. As for coastal communities inshore waters remain under British control. Im surprsied you still dont know that - you have been told enough times.

[badgerx16]

You really can't think of any yourself? Not even two???

 

OK, here are a couple for you to ponder.

 

When it comes to food, we can return to world markets to buy cheap food in particular, outside the Common Agricultural Policy. We can take advantage of more efficient producers of cereals, butter, meat and all the rest, and take advantage of surpluses from across the planet (Much the same goes for everything else we import). With the cheaper grocery bills, it would help poorer people. More expensive food was one of worst consequences of joining the EEC in 1973. As it is, our food prices are kept artificially high by EU tariffs designed to keep French farmers in clover.

 

If we look at fishing, some of the most deprived and once prosperous parts of the country, now have of returning fishing grounds, fleets and the jobs that went with them. Grimsby, Fleetwood, Cornwall: these are the places that may well be much better off in a few years. It was always morally wrong to sacrifice coastal communities for the sake of the EU.

 

I could go on, but I will be here all day.... but please don't anyone for a minute pretend that there are no upsides whatsoever...

There is no way that Fleetwood will ever get a fishing fleet back; the fish dock is now a marina with a discount retail outlet on one side and new housing being built on the other, the ferry terminal has been dismantled, and they have stopped dredging the river Wyre. Edited 12 October, 2017 by badgerx16

[ashnats]

You really can't think of any yourself? Not even two???

 

OK, here are a couple for you to ponder.

 

When it comes to food, we can return to world markets to buy cheap food in particular, outside the Common Agricultural Policy. We can take advantage of more efficient producers of cereals, butter, meat and all the rest, and take advantage of surpluses from across the planet (Much the same goes for everything else we import). With the cheaper grocery bills, it would help poorer people. More expensive food was one of worst consequences of joining the EEC in 1973. As it is, our food prices are kept artificially high by EU tariffs designed to keep French farmers in clover.

 

If we look at fishing, some of the most deprived and once prosperous parts of the country, now have of returning fishing grounds, fleets and the jobs that went with them. Grimsby, Fleetwood, Cornwall: these are the places that may well be much better off in a few years. It was always morally wrong to sacrifice coastal communities for the sake of the EU.

 

I could go on, but I will be here all day.... but please don't anyone for a minute pretend that there are no upsides whatsoever...

 

It was a genuine question. I would have been thinking a long time by myself before getting to fishing in grimsby! Thanks for the answer, I'll have a read around.

[scotty]

Thats only partly true. Economics was a big part of it - but the right to go and live in other European countries was also an issue for me. More than anything though the definitive factor was that I simply didnt believe what most leave campaigners were saying nor that they really understood the issues. Taking back control, cut waste, save money, keep Johnny Foreigner out are all seductive slogans but much more difficult to formulate a coherent policy on.

 

That wasn't really campaigned upon though, was it? Overwhelmingly, the message from the remain camp was the dire consequences for the economy were we to leave, and how much better off we'd all be if we stayed. There were even figures thrown at us, "every family would be £4000 a year worse off...." iirc. My point was that the leave vote was motivated by issues like immigration, border control and UK sovereignty. People voting on those grounds presumably considered a certain amount of economic damage to be acceptable as the economy was not their primary motivation for voting to leave. Perhaps if the remain campaign had focused more on the benefits you mention instead of the scare tactics employed, the vote may have been reversed; I doubt many leave voters genuinely believed that we would all get richer if we left the EU, so in a sense the remain campaign was preaching to the converted rather than trying to persuade those who favoured leaving that other benefits outweighed UK immigration levels etc.

 

fwiw, my opinion is that the whole referendum mess was flawed from start to finish. There was no need for it in the first place, but if there had have been, the question should have had more than the two stark options, leave or stay; imo if a middle-way question had been included along the lines of "remain in the EU, but retain our current relationship with it", we wouldn't be going through brexit now. My position was that I would have liked a remain vote, but with the narrowest possible margin, far narrower than the actual vote margin and ideally with less than 1% in it. That would have enabled us to stay in, but without the threat of a future UK government treating the vote as a licence to take us much farther into integration than we already are, most importantly as regards the euro. Blair would have had us in that like a shot just so he could sit at the big table with the french and germans, and who's to say another PM wouldn't have the same idea?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Thats only partly true. Economics was a big part of it - but the right to go and live in other European countries was also an issue for me .

 

Lol because nobody outside the EU has the right to live in European countries. No Australians, Canadians, Chinese, Indian, South Africans, Americans, Japanese , nope none.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

Lol because nobody outside the EU has the right to live in European countries. No Australians, Canadians, Chinese, Indian, South Africans, Americans, Japanese , nope none.

 

What a ****ing stupid comment Is this how weak the Brexit argument has become? - there are foreigners in Europe ergo it is just as easy for them to emigrate there as it is for other EU citizens.

Edited 12 October, 2017 by buctootim

[shurlock]

What a ****ing stupid comment Is this how weak the Brexit argument has become? - there are foreigners in Europe ergo it is just as easy for them as it for me.

 

It’s a variant of his beloved even-North-Korea-has-access-to-the-single-market argument.

[Johnny Bognor]

What a ****ing stupid comment Is this how weak the Brexit argument has become? - there are foreigners in Europe ergo it is just as easy for them as it for me.

 

Errr it is easy though. I part grew up in madrid and part in paris. Lived in paris for 5 years. It wasnt a problem before the EU. I went to the british school of paris in the early 80s, funnily enough, attended by the children of hundreds of families living and working in France.

 

I freely travelled throughout Europe when i was younger.. it was hardly more of an effort then than it is now.

 

I think remainers are over playing this card

[buctootim]

That wasn't really campaigned upon though, was it? Overwhelmingly, the message from the remain camp was the dire consequences for the economy were we to leave, and how much better off we'd all be if we stayed. There were even figures thrown at us, "every family would be £4000 a year worse off...." iirc. My point was that the leave vote was motivated by issues like immigration, border control and UK sovereignty. People voting on those grounds presumably considered a certain amount of economic damage to be acceptable as the economy was not their primary motivation for voting to leave. Perhaps if the remain campaign had focused more on the benefits you mention instead of the scare tactics employed, the vote may have been reversed; I doubt many leave voters genuinely believed that we would all get richer if we left the EU, so in a sense the remain campaign was preaching to the converted rather than trying to persuade those who favoured leaving that other benefits outweighed UK immigration levels etc.

 

fwiw, my opinion is that the whole referendum mess was flawed from start to finish. There was no need for it in the first place, but if there had have been, the question should have had more than the two stark options, leave or stay; imo if a middle-way question had been included along the lines of "remain in the EU, but retain our current relationship with it", we wouldn't be going through brexit now. My position was that I would have liked a remain vote, but with the narrowest possible margin, far narrower than the actual vote margin and ideally with less than 1% in it. That would have enabled us to stay in, but without the threat of a future UK government treating the vote as a licence to take us much farther into integration than we already are, most importantly as regards the euro. Blair would have had us in that like a shot just so he could sit at the big table with the french and germans, and who's to say another PM wouldn't have the same idea?

 

High levels of immigration and the consequent impact on unskilled wages, demand for / price of housing and the NHS were real issues. They concerned me. Ultimately though I voted remain because I thought if we left we'd lose all the EU benefits, disrupt the economy and gain nothing in return - because no government is going to stand up to industry demands and restrict the flow of cheap labour.

[buctootim]

Errr it is easy though. I part grew up in madrid and part in paris. Lived in paris for 5 years. It wasnt a problem before the EU. I went to the british school of paris in the early 80s, funnily enough, attended by the children of hundreds of families living and working in France.

 

I freely travelled throughout Europe when i was younger.. it was hardly more of an effort then than it is now.

 

I think remainers are over playing this card

 

You exemplify Brexiteers Johnny - you literally have no clue about the issues you have firm opinions on. Free movement was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome in 1957. When Britain joined the EEC in 1973 it was extended to us - people could move freely because we had joined. The sharper readers will note that 1973 was before the early 80s.

Edited 12 October, 2017 by buctootim

[van Hanegem]

Of course, I have concerns but there are other things that worry me more. I'm comfortable with complexity - I don't need scapegoats.

 

Yes Macron and Merkel have proposed deeper integration on budget and finance; but the reforms are starting from a very low base. Ultimately public expenditure rests with member states: thus the UK controls more than 98 per cent of its public expenditure whatever the ignorant bluster claim on here. Admittedly things are different for Eurozone countries but the prospect of deep fiscal union, a superstate with extensive tax and spend powers is no more real than the Brexiteet myth of a sunny uplands.

 

I opposed the Euro, in large part because of its inflexibility and lack of fiscal transfer as a stabilisation mechanism. The irony is that these are precisely the flaws that Macron and Merkel's proposals now hope to remedy. As things stand, the EU’s halfway house suits nobody -not a minority who want deeper integration as a political project and not a majority who don’t want to be on the hook for other countries problems in the future. Without fiscal risk-sharing, small and containable country shocks can rapidly become systemic which makes everyone worse off.

 

Don’t get me wrong. Fears that this will just mean more bills are left unpaid as the North props up the South are completely understandable (though the PIGS -Greece included- have shown tentative signs of recovery). The flip side, of course, is that poorer Eurozone countries, as members of the single market, have been required to open their markets to Dutch and German companies which are significantly more competitive. And those companies have benefited from having a currency that is weaker than a stand-alone currency would have been. Perhaps the problem is that these benefits have flowed to these companies and their shareholder rather than shared more widely. If that’s the case, then it’s a failing of national policy and redistribution as much as the EU's fault.

 

We’ve been here before. In the US, the South also had a history of poverty and underdevelopment and was dependent for decades on fiscal transfers from the federal government, causing resentment. However if economic theory says anything, it is that poorer regions and countries have greater room for economic growth and catch-up than those at the productivity frontier. Today the South is the largest generator of both GDP and GDP growth in the US and home to ten of the 15 fastest-growing large cities. Am not saying history will repeat itself. It could all end in messy failure, a risk I don’t discount as I’m generally gloomy about the outlook for the global economy. However, fixing the rules around the Euro, ideally in a gradual manner -along with a renewed commitment from the Southern Eurozone to structural reform (see Spain's efforts) would appear steps in the right direction.

 

I don't think the UK could stay clear of any mess. It is so bound up with Europe that any crisis on the continent would still lead to immense collateral damage. Likewise the sovereignty argument is overstated IMO. Even after the UK leaves the EU, it is very likely that industry will still follow EU rules, even if it’s under no legal obligation, simply in order reduce the need for border checks and other forms of compliance. The car industry has already signalled its intention to do this whatever the government does. This seems a particularly tortuous course of action just to avoid the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ. And while UK industry will still follow rules coming out of Brussels, it will no longer have any say in their formulation. So much for sovereignty.

 

I'm pragmatic sovereignty as I think too much power is concentrated in Westminster and an outmoded electoral system. That’s why in addition to electoral reform, I support both devolution of power to local authorities (downwards) and pooling sovereignty selectively at a supranational level with appropriate accountability (upward). Why the latter? Because the deepening of globalisation creates challenges -regulatory arbitrage, financial instability, tax evasion, protectionism, terrorism, cybercrime, environmental protection and energy security- that no state can resolve on its own. Supranational institutions also amplify the clout and choices of smaller nations, ensuring that the rules of globalisation aren’t simply written for the benefit of the US and China and very narrow economic interests but are conducted on the basis of reciprocity. The notion of taking back control, in this respect, is a hollow victory, if not a cruel oxymoron - something which the UK and the Brexit fundamentalists are going to learn the hard way.

 

Thanks for the reply Shurlock, it looks like we share the same thoughts on various subjects (like globalisation) though I do not believe that Merkel and Macron are going to fix the troubles around the Euro. Like financial pundits say: the key problem with the Euro is that the 'one-size- fits-all' structure is not suitable for the Eurozone countries because their economies are so much different when it comes to power, development, nature and cycles. In order to have some control over their economy (and to keep the unemployment rate as low as possible) countries need the ability to adjust the exchange rates and an interest rate policy of their own. Looking at Greece, Spain etc. it's clear how disastrous the introduction of the Euro has been for this countries and still is. In countries like the Netherlands and Germany there's also a problem because the purchasing power of the citizens has declined and they're suffering from the retarded interest policy of the ECB which has a backlash on the financial systems.

 

This financial mess (and the mass immigration) are fueling the aversion against the EU and helps populist and right wing extremists in many different European countries to gain more power. There are journalists and EU-politicians who believe that populists like Wilders and le Pen have been beaten so it's time to take the next step towards a federal Europe. Yet, Wilders'party became the second largest in the Netherlands (gaining 5 seats), the AfD in Germany got 12% of the votes while 47% of the Austrians voted for a right wing extremist from the FPÖ as president. With the coming general election in Austria it's expected that Sebastian Kurz will win, someone who praises Orban from Hungary and will probably form a government together with the FPÖ.

 

In my opinion Europe is going downhill and as the EU isn't able to fix problems like immigration, unemployment (nobody has a clue what to do about the ongoing robotisation/automation), poverty etc., it would be a good idea for the EU to slow down and let the member states have some more control over economies, immigration etc. It would buy the EU some time to restructure and to think over it's course.

[hutch]

It was a genuine question. I would have been thinking a long time by myself before getting to fishing in grimsby! Thanks for the answer, I'll have a read around.

Be sure to look at "Factortame" while you do, if you want to get to the bottom of the fishing issue, and at the same time get an indication of why the jurisdiction of the CJEU is such an important issue.

[Johnny Bognor]

You exemplify Brexiteers Johnny - you literally have no clue about the issues you have firm opinions on. Free movement was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome in 1957. When Britain joined the EEC in 1973 it was extended to us - people could move freely because we had joined. The sharper readers will note that 1973 was before the early 80s.

 

Yes, freedom of movement pre-dates the EU and until we know what arrangement we get, we don't know whether or not this will be the case. But even in the worst possible case scenario, there are plenty of non EU citizens that come to the EU to live and work. So it's not going to stop absolutely (Yes there maybe conditions attached and quotas).

 

But I still think that this is a red herring and I call bull**** as most of the people banging on about the right will never go and live and work abroad. They've had twenty odd years to do it and they're still here FFS.

[Johnny Bognor]

Thanks for the reply Shurlock, it looks like we share the same thoughts on various subjects (like globalisation) though I do not believe that Merkel and Macron are going to fix the troubles around the Euro. Like financial pundits say: the key problem with the Euro is that the 'one-size- fits-all' structure is not suitable for the Eurozone countries because their economies are so much different when it comes to power, development, nature and cycles. In order to have some control over their economy (and to keep the unemployment rate as low as possible) countries need the ability to adjust the exchange rates and an interest rate policy of their own. Looking at Greece, Spain etc. it's clear how disastrous the introduction of the Euro has been for this countries and still is. In countries like the Netherlands and Germany there's also a problem because the purchasing power of the citizens has declined and they're suffering from the retarded interest policy of the ECB which has a backlash on the financial systems.

 

This financial mess (and the mass immigration) are fueling the aversion against the EU and helps populist and right wing extremists in many different European countries to gain more power. There are journalists and EU-politicians who believe that populists like Wilders and le Pen have been beaten so it's time to take the next step towards a federal Europe. Yet, Wilders'party became the second largest in the Netherlands (gaining 5 seats), the AfD in Germany got 12% of the votes while 47% of the Austrians voted for a right wing extremist from the FPÖ as president. With the coming general election in Austria it's expected that Sebastian Kurz will win, someone who praises Orban from Hungary and will probably form a government together with the FPÖ.

 

In my opinion Europe is going downhill and as the EU isn't able to fix problems like immigration, unemployment (nobody has a clue what to do about the ongoing robotisation/automation), poverty etc., it would be a good idea for the EU to slow down and let the member states have some more control over economies, immigration etc. It would buy the EU some time to restructure and to think over it's course.

 

The architect of the Euro believes it will collapse eventually...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/otmar-issing-analysis-on-future-of-euro-ecb-house-of-cards-will-collapse-2016-10

 

The concept of the euro only really works with political union, which will never happen

 

... and there is no guarantee that the EU won't collapse at some point, hence the risk to remaining.

[shurlock]

The architect of the Euro believes it will collapse eventually...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/otmar-issing-analysis-on-future-of-euro-ecb-house-of-cards-will-collapse-2016-10

 

The concept of the euro only really works with political union, which will never happen

 

... and there is no guarantee that the EU won't collapse at some point, hence the risk to remaining.

 

You’re confusing political union and fiscal risk-sharing which are not the same thing. And the problems the commentator highlights -moral hazard and rising indebtedness- are not unique to the Eurozone but affect all advanced countries, not least ones with large financial sectors like the UK.

[shurlock]

If anyone wants to read a book on the political challenges facing the EU, I’d heartily recommend Ivan Krastev’s After Europe.

[Verbal]

So: The all-important Brexit bill is on hold because of multiple revolts; the country's finance minister, a moderate, is accused of the one thing that still attracts the death penalty; and the EU/UK talks are stalled largely because of needless 'red lines'.

 

At what point do you Brexit Jihadists start to question the most incompetent political party in living memory?

 

Tick tock.

[van Hanegem]

The architect of the Euro believes it will collapse eventually...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/otmar-issing-analysis-on-future-of-euro-ecb-house-of-cards-will-collapse-2016-10

 

The concept of the euro only really works with political union, which will never happen

 

... and there is no guarantee that the EU won't collapse at some point, hence the risk to remaining.

 

There are experts who say that there should have been a political union first before the introduction of the Euro and that sounds logical to a layman like me. The Euro does have some advantages like price transparancy and the convenience of having one currency in so many countries and it is said it also helps against speculation (remember George Soros speculating against the British Pound back in the '90s). Embedding the powerful German economy within the European whole is also a good thing. However, the main problem is the gap between the stronger northern and weaker southern countries and that's not going to be fixed by Merkel and Macron whose plans are more of the same we've already seen the last decade. There's a Dutch saying "you shouldn't pull on a dead horse" ("flogging a dead horse" in English?) and Merkel and Macron should be addressing the real problem.

[van Hanegem]

If anyone wants to read a book on the political challenges facing the EU, I’d heartily recommend Ivan Krastev’s After Europe.

 

"In this provocative book, renowned public intellectual Ivan Krastev reflects on the future of the European Union-and its potential lack of a future. With far-right nationalist parties on the rise across the continent and the United Kingdom planning for Brexit, the European Union is in disarray and plagued by doubts as never before. Krastev includes chapters devoted to Europe's major problems (especially the political destabilization sparked by the more than 1.3 million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia), the spread of right-wing populism (taking into account the election of Donald Trump in the United States), and the thorny issues facing member states on the eastern flank of the EU (including the threat posed by Vladimir Putin's Russia). He concludes by reflecting on the ominous political, economic, and geopolitical future that would await the continent if the Union itself begins to disintegrate."

 

This description echoes my views about Europe, does he offer any solutions or is it just doom and gloom?

[Johnny Bognor]

"In this provocative book, renowned public intellectual Ivan Krastev reflects on the future of the European Union-and its potential lack of a future. With far-right nationalist parties on the rise across the continent and the United Kingdom planning for Brexit, the European Union is in disarray and plagued by doubts as never before. Krastev includes chapters devoted to Europe's major problems (especially the political destabilization sparked by the more than 1.3 million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia), the spread of right-wing populism (taking into account the election of Donald Trump in the United States), and the thorny issues facing member states on the eastern flank of the EU (including the threat posed by Vladimir Putin's Russia). He concludes by reflecting on the ominous political, economic, and geopolitical future that would await the continent if the Union itself begins to disintegrate."

 

This description echoes my views about Europe, does he offer any solutions or is it just doom and gloom?

Indeed and highlights the fact that 'remain' is not a zero risk option as many remainers seem to intimate

 

You could argue that it is easier to come out now than it will be in 5, 10 or 20 years time or when it eventually collapses

Edited 13 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

You’re confusing political union and fiscal risk-sharing which are not the same thing.

Are they not inextricably linked? I mean, for it to work effectively Edited 13 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[Johnny Bognor]

So: The all-important Brexit bill is on hold because of multiple revolts; the country's finance minister, a moderate, is accused of the one thing that still attracts the death penalty; and the EU/UK talks are stalled largely because of needless 'red lines'.

 

At what point do you Brexit Jihadists start to question the most incompetent political party in living memory?

 

Tick tock.

I think most people recognise that this is the most useless tory government in history, at a time when we really do need strong and stable leadership.

 

Looking across mp's from all parties... is this really the best we can come up with out of a nation of over 60m+ people???

Edited 13 October, 2017 by Johnny Bognor

[van Hanegem]

Indeed and highlights the fact that 'remain' is not a zero risk option as many remainers seem to intimate

 

You could argue that it is easier to come out now than it will be in 5, 10 or 20 years time or when it eventually collapses

 

That could be true though the UK would also be affected by a European downfall when they are not a member of the EU. I can understand the sentiment against the EU among Brexiteers and I'm curious about what it will mean for the UK in the end but ultimately I believe it would have been better to stay in the EU. Now it's going to cost everyone (for example: a "hard" Brexit will cost the Netherlands 35 billion) while the UK and countries like the Netherlands, Finland etc. would have more influence on EU policies when they act together against the German/French axis.

[Millbrook Saint]

At the end of the day, all politicians of any persuasion thought remain would win. When it didn't we get stuck with 2 entrenched views, both refusing to accept the other view. I voted leave, not because I'm a rascist, not because I want all Poles to go home, but because I believe the UK are more than capable of making and applying our own laws. I'm happy to allow europeans to come live here and work, but we need to know who they are, we can't have some paedo from Romania just strolling off a boat and rocking up in a flat next to a school, we should be able to see who is and kick him out immediately. The same should apply to the likes of Gary Glitter going to live in Spain if they don't want him there.

 

When we have some terrorist living in our midsts who we want out, it should be our decision, not europes with their echr, we're quite capable of deciding fairly for ourselves what's right and wrong thankyou very much, our courts and laws were the blueprint to most around the world.

 

If this was just about a common market, where we could all trade nicely, then fine, but no, they got a bit of power, then slowly and surely they wanted more, grabbing more power from each member country, eroding our sovereignty at the same time, ingraining themselves into our laws, causing a such a tangled mess they hope it can never be untangled, turning us against each other, anyone who dares speak out against this labelled 'little Englander', 'uneducated rascist' where's the British spirit gone where the country works together, instead they've divided us, just waiting for the conquer part now.

 

Even through the negotiations you've seen it made clear by junker and his ilk that they have no intention of giving us any sort of deal. Think about it for a moment, they want to ruin the lives of every uk citizen just so they can prove a point to the rest of europe, I'll say it again, junker thinks that making life hard for 65 million people is ok if it proves a point, do we really want to be part of a society that thinks that's ok?

 

My opinion is that the following should happen, we can't turn back the result, we will be leaving the eu, if any member of the cabinet can't reconcile themselves with this, they should resign or be sacked immediately.

 

Any eu citizens working here now should be given a green card and offered full residency, any others wishing to live here to work should be vetted and accepted provided nothing untoward pops up in the background check. After 5 years full residency offered.

 

The eu should be given a deadline of the end of November to start trade negotiations or we walk away, no payment, nothing, When we go to WTO tariffs the government uses the money we would have paid as the settlement to subsidise this.

 

Agree trade deals with the rest of the world.

 

I know this is simplistic and people will scoff saying I just don't understand and you'd be right I can't understand why we should be punished for leaving the eu, I can't understand why the rest of the world are capable of having a deal with the eu, but it's too difficult for them to do one with us.

[Lord Duckhunter]

At the end of the day, all politicians of any persuasion thought remain would win. When it didn't we get stuck with 2 entrenched views, both refusing to accept the other view. I voted leave, not because I'm a rascist, not because I want all Poles to go home, but because I believe the UK are more than capable of making and applying our own laws. I'm happy to allow europeans to come live here and work, but we need to know who they are, we can't have some paedo from Romania just strolling off a boat and rocking up in a flat next to a school, we should be able to see who is and kick him out immediately. The same should apply to the likes of Gary Glitter going to live in Spain if they don't want him there.

 

When we have some terrorist living in our midsts who we want out, it should be our decision, not europes with their echr, we're quite capable of deciding fairly for ourselves what's right and wrong thankyou very much, our courts and laws were the blueprint to most around the world.

 

If this was just about a common market, where we could all trade nicely, then fine, but no, they got a bit of power, then slowly and surely they wanted more, grabbing more power from each member country, eroding our sovereignty at the same time, ingraining themselves into our laws, causing a such a tangled mess they hope it can never be untangled, turning us against each other, anyone who dares speak out against this labelled 'little Englander', 'uneducated rascist' where's the British spirit gone where the country works together, instead they've divided us, just waiting for the conquer part now.

 

Even through the negotiations you've seen it made clear by junker and his ilk that they have no intention of giving us any sort of deal. Think about it for a moment, they want to ruin the lives of every uk citizen just so they can prove a point to the rest of europe, I'll say it again, junker thinks that making life hard for 65 million people is ok if it proves a point, do we really want to be part of a society that thinks that's ok?

 

My opinion is that the following should happen, we can't turn back the result, we will be leaving the eu, if any member of the cabinet can't reconcile themselves with this, they should resign or be sacked immediately.

 

Any eu citizens working here now should be given a green card and offered full residency, any others wishing to live here to work should be vetted and accepted provided nothing untoward pops up in the background check. After 5 years full residency offered.

 

The eu should be given a deadline of the end of November to start trade negotiations or we walk away, no payment, nothing, When we go to WTO tariffs the government uses the money we would have paid as the settlement to subsidise this.

 

Agree trade deals with the rest of the world.

 

I know this is simplistic and people will scoff saying I just don't understand and you'd be right I can't understand why we should be punished for leaving the eu, I can't understand why the rest of the world are capable of having a deal with the eu, but it's too difficult for them to do one with us.

 

Spot on

 

They’re not just trying to punish us, they’re also putting ideology before the well being of their own citizens. You can debate whether no deal is worse for them or us, but people can not deny that no deal is worse than having a deal for them. If we’d never joined in the first place they’d be falling over themselves to get a free trade deal with us, in fact if they did one, they’d be holding it up as an example of how great the EU is. How countries have worked together to get a great trade deal with the UK. We wouldn’t have needed to accept free movement , ECJ rulings or to pay money in, any more than Canada does. We’d also be able to make deals with other nations.

 

They want to punish us because they don’t want others leaving. Think about that for a minute. It’s actually a damning indictment of the EU , the whole stinking edifice and an endorsement of the Brexiters world view. If leaving is so bad, if leaving will cause so much economic damage, if being in enlightens a nation & makes it prosper, why do they need to deliberately try & make that worse. They must know deep down that we will prosper, that we will become a better country to do business with, otherwise they wouldn’t need to frighten others from leaving.

 

Their biggest fear is Brexit being a success & others wanting some of the same. For them to have that fear they must accept the possibility that it will be.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

Spot on

 

They’re not just trying to punish us, they’re also putting ideology before the well being of their own citizens. You can debate whether no deal is worse for them or us, but people can not deny that no deal is worse than having a deal for them. If we’d never joined in the first place they’d be falling over themselves to get a free trade deal with us, in fact if they did one, they’d be holding it up as an example of how great the EU is. How countries have worked together to get a great trade deal with the UK. We wouldn’t have needed to accept free movement , ECJ rulings or to pay money in, any more than Canada does. We’d also be able to make deals with other nations.

 

They want to punish us because they don’t want others leaving. Think about that for a minute. It’s actually a damning indictment of the EU , the whole stinking edifice and an endorsement of the Brexiters world view. If leaving is so bad, if leaving will cause so much economic damage, if being in enlightens a nation & makes it prosper, why do they need to deliberately try & make that worse. They must know deep down that we will prosper, that we will become a better country to do business with, otherwise they wouldn’t need to frighten others from leaving.

 

Their biggest fear is Brexit being a success & others wanting some of the same. For them to have that fear they must accept the possibility that it will be.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Would you mind popping a ski mask on and recording this into a video camera? Because it really does read as utterly unhinged.

 

The difference between Brexit Jihadists and normal people is really quite simple. If Jihadists had dropped their cultish fanaticism and instead made a convincing case for how we'd all be economically better off by being outside the EU, then many more of us would be in favour of Brexit. Prosperity is the cornerstone of a decent welfare state - austerity (and recession) its enemy. So who wouldn't get behind that?

 

What we get instead is irrational wailing like this.

 

You should try applying it to other things. Ring up Sky, tell them you're cancelling your subscription, but you still want to keep all the channels - and you want them to thank you for refusing to pay.

 

All of us can point to flaws with the EU. Equally all of us can point to flaws with the British political system. But we don't throw a hissy fit and declare ourselves non-British, just because the UK's electoral system is in bad need of reform.

 

So calm down, banish those fantasies about beheading Juncker, and find a route back to rational thought.

 

Then we can talk.

[aintforever]

Would you mind popping a ski mask on and recording this into a video camera? Because it really does read as utterly unhinged.

 

The difference between Brexit Jihadists and normal people is really quite simple. If Jihadists had dropped their cultish fanaticism and instead made a convincing case for how we'd all be economically better off by being outside the EU, then many more of us would be in favour of Brexit. Prosperity is the cornerstone of a decent welfare state - austerity (and recession) its enemy. So who wouldn't get behind that?

 

What we get instead is irrational wailing like this.

 

You should try applying it to other things. Ring up Sky, tell them you're cancelling your subscription, but you still want to keep all the channels - and you want them to thank you for refusing to pay.

 

All of us can point to flaws with the EU. Equally all of us can point to flaws with the British political system. But we don't throw a hissy fit and declare ourselves non-British, just because the UK's electoral system is in bad need of reform.

 

So calm down, banish those fantasies about beheading Juncker, and find a route back to rational thought.

 

Then we can talk.

 

Do you genuinely believe that Junker and co want Britain to be a success after Brexit?

 

If we do OK outside the EU it won't be long before others follow - that is their worst nightmare.

[Guided Missile]

You should try applying it to other things. Ring up Sky, tell them you're cancelling your subscription, but you still want to keep all the channels - and you want them to thank you for refusing to pay.

I rang up Sky and said I wanted to cancel my subscription and leave in March 2019. They said no problem, but after I leave, I will have to keep paying the subscription for another two years, I won't be able to watch Sky Sports and during this time, they will have the right to tell me which channels on BBC I can watch....

[Verbal]

I rang up Sky and said I wanted to cancel my subscription and leave in March 2019. They said no problem, but after I leave, I will have to keep paying the subscription for another two years, I won't be able to watch Sky Sports and during this time, they will have the right to tell me which channels on BBC I can watch....

 

Did Sky tell you that? Or were you the one to tell Sky that you wanted two more years because you couldn't get the right side of your brain to agree with your left about what the **** it was you wanted in the first place?

[Guided Missile]

Did Sky tell you that? Or were you the one to tell Sky that you wanted two more years because you couldn't get the right side of your brain to agree with your left about what the **** it was you wanted in the first place?

You're far too clever for me...

[Lord Duckhunter]

had dropped their cultish fanaticism and instead made a convincing case for how we'd all be economically better off by being outside the EU, then many more of us would be in favour of Brexit.

 

You've got to laugh haven't you. The losing side telling the winning side they needed to make a more convincing case. There was only one side of the argument that needed to do more convincing, yours.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plastic]

Their biggest fear is Brexit being a success & others wanting some of the same. For them to have that fear they must accept the possibility that it will be.

 

My biggest fear is a return to a partitioned Ireland, and all the animosity and sectarianism associated with it.

It's an issue that's been highlighted, but I haven't seen any workable solutions.

Checkpoints will ignite nationalist sympathies, and we could find ourselves slipping back towards the 80's.

[Millbrook Saint]

My biggest fear is a return to a partitioned Ireland, and all the animosity and sectarianism associated with it.

It's an issue that's been highlighted, but I haven't seen any workable solutions.

Checkpoints will ignite nationalist sympathies, and we could find ourselves slipping back towards the 80's.

 

Agreed, something has to be decided, maybe they should have a referendum about staying in the eu....... oh

 

I guezs the choice would be a hard body into the eu in southern ireland, or one in northern ireland before coming to the mainland

[scotty]

Would you mind popping a ski mask on and recording this into a video camera? Because it really does read as utterly unhinged.

 

The difference between Brexit Jihadists and normal people is really quite simple. If Jihadists had dropped their cultish fanaticism and instead made a convincing case for how we'd all be economically better off by being outside the EU, then many more of us would be in favour of Brexit. Prosperity is the cornerstone of a decent welfare state - austerity (and recession) its enemy. So who wouldn't get behind that?

 

What we get instead is irrational wailing like this.

 

You should try applying it to other things. Ring up Sky, tell them you're cancelling your subscription, but you still want to keep all the channels - and you want them to thank you for refusing to pay.

 

All of us can point to flaws with the EU. Equally all of us can point to flaws with the British political system. But we don't throw a hissy fit and declare ourselves non-British, just because the UK's electoral system is in bad need of reform.

 

So calm down, banish those fantasies about beheading Juncker, and find a route back to rational thought.

 

Then we can talk.

 

I haven't read every post on this thread, but I'm betting that for the coveted title of "most patronising bullsh*t" award this has to rank in the top three.

[shurlock]

Spot on

 

They’re not just trying to punish us, they’re also putting ideology before the well being of their own citizens. You can debate whether no deal is worse for them or us, but people can not deny that no deal is worse than having a deal for them. If we’d never joined in the first place they’d be falling over themselves to get a free trade deal with us, in fact if they did one, they’d be holding it up as an example of how great the EU is. How countries have worked together to get a great trade deal with the UK. We wouldn’t have needed to accept free movement , ECJ rulings or to pay money in, any more than Canada does. We’d also be able to make deals with other nations.

 

They want to punish us because they don’t want others leaving. Think about that for a minute. It’s actually a damning indictment of the EU , the whole stinking edifice and an endorsement of the Brexiters world view. If leaving is so bad, if leaving will cause so much economic damage, if being in enlightens a nation & makes it prosper, why do they need to deliberately try & make that worse. They must know deep down that we will prosper, that we will become a better country to do business with, otherwise they wouldn’t need to frighten others from leaving.

 

Their biggest fear is Brexit being a success & others wanting some of the same. For them to have that fear they must accept the possibility that it will be.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Still banging on about the Canada FTA without having a clue what it does and doesn’t do.

[OldNick]

I believe that if the referendum was run now, after what we all see now, it would be a much different result.

 

All the cards seem to be in the EU negotiators hands, and they are screwing us big time. The Germans are going to steal our banking revenues, and other nations will pick at the rest of our bones. Corbyn cant believe his luck as he pretends he wants to stay in Europe, but really it is best for his plans if we are out, as he can then drive through the madness of nationalisation, something that he is unable to do if we stayed in.

The Be-leavers will find that just a basic trip to Europe for a holiday will become hassle again, the hauliers I speak to are dreading the customs clearing at the ports again, and the extra time that will take.

If we happen to get clear access of the market and able to opt out of the politics it will be a masterstroke and I will be grateful for the be-leavers but it seems to me, we have sacrificed decades of our nations hard work

[shurlock]

I believe that if the referendum was run now, after what we all see now, it would be a much different result.

 

All the cards seem to be in the EU negotiators hands, and they are screwing us big time. The Germans are going to steal our banking revenues, and other nations will pick at the rest of our bones. Corbyn cant believe his luck as he pretends he wants to stay in Europe, but really it is best for his plans if we are out, as he can then drive through the madness of nationalisation, something that he is unable to do if we stayed in.

The Be-leavers will find that just a basic trip to Europe for a holiday will become hassle again, the hauliers I speak to are dreading the customs clearing at the ports again, and the extra time that will take.

If we happen to get clear access of the market and able to opt out of the politics it will be a masterstroke and I will be grateful for the be-leavers but it seems to me, we have sacrificed decades of our nations hard work

 

The idea that state aid and other EU rules are a barrier to Corbyn’s agenda is bit of a myth.

 

http://renewal.org.uk/blog/eu-law-is-no-barrier-to-labours-economic-programme

[Millbrook Saint]

I believe that if the referendum was run now, after what we all see now, it would be a much different result.

 

All the cards seem to be in the EU negotiators hands, and they are screwing us big time. The Germans are going to steal our banking revenues, and other nations will pick at the rest of our bones. Corbyn cant believe his luck as he pretends he wants to stay in Europe, but really it is best for his plans if we are out, as he can then drive through the madness of nationalisation, something that he is unable to do if we stayed in.

The Be-leavers will find that just a basic trip to Europe for a holiday will become hassle again, the hauliers I speak to are dreading the customs clearing at the ports again, and the extra time that will take.

If we happen to get clear access of the market and able to opt out of the politics it will be a masterstroke and I will be grateful for the be-leavers but it seems to me, we have sacrificed decades of our nations hard work

 

The trouble is, why would the EU want to screw us as a nation, as I said before they're willing to let 65 million people suffer just so they can keep their little club together, why would we want anything to do with that, look what they did to Greece, ruined a whole nation, this isn't something you should be doing to people just because of your ideology, sounds very aggressive to me. If the EU were fair and reasonable, they'd do a trade deal and they'd work hard to keep things working with Britain, but no they want to destroy us as a country. Doesn't sound too different to me than the Germans at the beginning of the last century. Just think of what they're actually saying to us, and people are getting scared because of it, where has our confidence as a nation gone?

 

All the issues you state could easily be sorted if the EU were willing, what petty minded aggressive people they are to try and make us succumb to their will. Again, people just want to bend over and let us be dictated to. Why??

 

I think it's high time the EU stopped leading the negotiations and someone like the WTO stepped in to mediate, they call it a divorce but you wouldn't let the spurned husband control proceedings in court, why are they allowed to threaten us?

[shurlock]

The trouble is, why would the EU want to screw us as a nation, as I said before they're willing to let 65 million people suffer just so they can keep their little club together, why would we want anything to do with that, look what they did to Greece, ruined a whole nation, this isn't something you should be doing to people just because of your ideology, sounds very aggressive to me. If the EU were fair and reasonable, they'd do a trade deal and they'd work hard to keep things working with Britain, but no they want to destroy us as a country. Doesn't sound too different to me than the Germans at the beginning of the last century. Just think of what they're actually saying to us, and people are getting scared because of it, where has our confidence as a nation gone?

 

All the issues you state could easily be sorted if the EU were willing, what petty minded aggressive people they are to try and make us succumb to their will. Again, people just want to bend over and let us be dictated to. Why??

 

I think it's high time the EU stopped leading the negotiations and someone like the WTO stepped in to mediate, they call it a divorce but you wouldn't let the spurned husband control proceedings in court, why are they allowed to threaten us?

 

You need to lay off the disaster porn pal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I believe that if the referendum was run now, after what we all see now, it would be a much different result.

 

 

 

You’re right.

 

It would probably be 56%/ 44% for leave now.

[Millbrook Saint]

You need to lay off the disaster porn pal.

 

Sorry, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Sorry, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean?

 

It’s his idea of a joke

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Verbal]

You’re right.

 

It would probably be 56%/ 44% for leave now.

 

You and other Jihadists should wait until you see tomorrow's lead story in the Telegraph's business section.

 

The message will sink in eventually...

[Millbrook Saint]

You and other Jihadists should wait until you see tomorrow's lead story in the Telegraph's business section.

 

The message will sink in eventually...

 

I'm getting the message loud and clear.

 

worry about uncontrolled movement of people across borders, your a racist and nazi.

 

want your country to be in control of its own destiny, your a nasty populist/nationlist

 

vote conservative, your right wing scum (I've voted both labour and conservative in the past)

 

read the daily mail, thick racist scum

 

want brexit, your a jihadist

 

Oh yeah I get the message, if you don't like something someone says or does, then associate them or their opinion to something abhorrent, make them ashamed to admit that that's what they think, a sure fire way for the self appointed righteous people to win any argument.

 

I'm sure you're a nice guy Verbal, but labelling people jihadsists just because they have a vision that's different to yours seems a little nasty to me. Sounds like it comes straight out of 1984, best watch what we say, the thought police are watching and listening.