demagogue on 28/6/2016 at 00:19
I read something about the EU being in a bind. On the one hand they have to punish the UK harshly for leaving to keep other member states from being tempted to withdraw (realizing any punishments may be reciprocal, e.g., allow tariffs or NTBs on UK goods and the UK puts reciprocal ones up in return and everybody is worse off, just paying more for pointless red tape), but on the other they evidently need to enact serious reforms in the wake of this to keep members in, too, and effectively 'reward' the UK for leaving and open itself to brinkmanship politics. Sucks to be them right now.
The article I saw somewhere on the new relationship was mosly about the likelihood of the UK keeping the EEA part, like Norway. That's, eg, what the finance sector needs to do work from London. But the catch is the UK would probably have to concede freedom of movement to get that, and it'd be hard to get political will to concede just that one part after a referendum. But then apparently EEA access doesn't work without freedom of movement. So that was the ostensible dilemma there.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2016 at 00:52
Quote Posted by SD
Gryz should shut up until the British economy has recovered to pre-Brexit levels.
FFS it's been FOUR DAYS. A short term market crash as capital flees uncertainty is normal and is not a harbinger of economic doom by any means.
Meanwhile, enjoy. As soon as the intra-day volatility drops I'm opening a long GBP/EUD trading position. Let's see who is laughing come 2018.
Quote:
I read something about the EU being in a bind. On the one hand they have to punish the UK harshly for leaving to keep other member states from being tempted to withdraw (realizing any punishments may be reciprocal, e.g., allow tariffs or NTBs on UK goods and the UK puts reciprocal ones up in return and everybody is worse off, just paying more for pointless red tape), but on the other they evidently need to enact serious reforms in the wake of this to keep members in, too, and effectively 'reward' the UK for leaving and open itself to brinkmanship politics. Sucks to be them right now.
You're making the EU sound more and more like an abusive Pimp. "Why, he doesn't WANT to, but he simply has to beat the poor girl or else the others will realize they can leave without consequences!"
Meanwhile...something I've long suspected but haven't said on here (since I don't have any publicly available sources to back it up) is now proven correct: (
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3662827/Has-Britain-avoided-European-superstate-France-Germany-draw-plans-morph-EU-countries-one-control-members-armies-economies.html)
That the entire point of the EU was to end European nation-states. Look up the person who was the intellectual "father" of the EU, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, and see what he had to say. From his OWN BOOK (about as far away from "conspiracy theory" as you can get when they're publishing it with their name on it).
Quote:
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. …
Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.
id/Coudenhove-Kalergi 1925, pp. 20, 23, 50
SD on 28/6/2016 at 01:49
You make it sound like ending nation states is a bad thing.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2016 at 02:12
Quote Posted by SD
You make it sound like ending nation states is a bad thing.
It sounds like a great idea in the abstract. In practice, look at how it ends up every time somebody tries.
In this instance the new "superstate" wouldn't be run by you or I. It would be run by people like Donald Trump or Dick Cheney.
Tony_Tarantula on 28/6/2016 at 02:18
Quote Posted by demagogue
So here's a half-smartarse half-serious question. What's the end game here? Not in terms of the next few years, but what's supposed to be the destiny of the UK that everybody's working towards now (or I guess maybe just England)?
If I had my way, the endgame would be that Western countries mind their own fucking business, get along, and devote their energy to scientific advancements that improve mankind.
Funny thing: the exact thing that you're mocking as impractical and crazy has been the model that Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Canada have followed. By all accounts it's worked out pretty well for those countries.
Vivian on 28/6/2016 at 07:17
aaaaaargh tony
Starker on 28/6/2016 at 07:45
[video=youtube;5eBT6OSr1TI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI[/video]
Judith on 28/6/2016 at 08:40
Quote Posted by demagogue
I read something about the EU being in a bind. On the one hand they have to punish the UK harshly for leaving to keep other member states from being tempted to withdraw
That's like the situation with Greece. It sent a strong message, i.e. no, you can't it just go bankrupt and get the help easy way, because a few other countries would do that as well.
Starker on 28/6/2016 at 09:23
On the other hand, EU can't really take a hardline position either. It is in the best interest of the Eurozone (and the UK) to come to an agreement as fast as possible to settle the chaos and uncertainty. Already (
http://www.politico.eu/pro/5-takeaways-on-a-possible-italian-bank-bailout/) Italy is looking to skirt EU rules and bail out its banks in the confusion. Not to mention that far right movements and terror organisations are likely to be looking to exploit the confusion for maximum effect.
caffeinatedzombeh on 28/6/2016 at 09:40
Quote Posted by demagogue
The article I saw somewhere on the new relationship was mosly about the likelihood of the UK keeping the EEA part, like Norway. That's, eg, what the finance sector needs to do work from London. But the catch is the UK would probably have to concede freedom of movement to get that, and it'd be hard to get political will to concede just that one part after a referendum. But then apparently EEA access doesn't work without freedom of movement. So that was the ostensible dilemma there.
I would be very surprised if the proposed exit deal doesn't say something along the lines of the UK continuing with all current EU programmes except CAP, fisheries etc until the end of the current multiannual funding period, join EFTA and start from the same sort of trading position in exchange for the same sort of free movement.
Almost everyone would be happy with that sort of position as somewhere to start from.
