- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
They just opened a store here last year.
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,863 comments
- 264,552 views
- 3,919
- Birmingham, UK
- DG Silva
Dreadful breakfast, no meat of any description let alone any well cooked bacon, no fried bread and no hash browns. 5/10
- 31,122
- Hilversum
- Dennisch
I feel like this is the only way to handle this cluster**** of political lies. It will happen, and a whole bunch of blind sheep will have their eyes opened when a lot of their British dollars go up in a cloud of vape smoke. On the other hand, highly unlikely but not impossible, if the British economy takes off, I can see other countries say SCREW YOU BRUSSEL, and the EU shrinks a couple of countries.
- 16,441
- United Kingdom
I think the EU is in for a tough time, one way or the other, but... we're already the second largest economy in the EU, we have are own currency, we're literally an island, we contributed the second most to the EU, and are in the minority as a net contributor... out of all the EU28, we've got the best chance of going it alone, and even then it's going to be tough to show a booming economy thanks to Brexit. No doubt anti-EU types will be hoping it does, but I believe the average voter will still be motivated by non-economic reasons (i.e. immigration) and those issues probably hinge less on us leaving.
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I reckon it will probably be a lose-lose situation that is more like a mixture of both of these outcomes you portray.
The UK will (in the short-to-medium term at least) almost certainly be worse off - perhaps for a generation. There will, as ever, be those who benefit hugely - but, I suspect that (many) more people will lose than will gain from Brexit. The saddest part is that kids and students who never knew the benefit of being in the EU will grow up not missing what they never had, but the nation as a whole will be poorer for it.
Unfortunately, my prognosis for the EU is not much better. Brexit will hurt, but it is small beer in the grand scheme of things. The UK is leaving the EU because the EU itself is on a fundamentally different course to what the UK sees as its core function. Other countries will almost certainly follow suit eventually as the reality of forging a federal superstate starts to clash with the principles of self-determination and decentralisation of power - frankly, the EU is moving in the wrong direction at the wrong time.
As such, the UK will never rejoin the EU unless and until the EU steps back from full integration - but it won’t... and, more worryingly, I don’t believe it can. EU member states have to ask themselves if they are 100% behind the project, and if they are not, then they face a tough choice - either suck it up or get out. I don’t want to be too pessimistic, but I don’t believe the EU can survive in its current form for much longer, and that full integration is required to keep it together - but this will come at a heavy cost for some states... too much for some.
-
The UK’s position in the EU was, frankly, pretty sweet - we had all sorts of concessions, benefits and exemptions - but perhaps this explains (partly) why the UK was the first to head for the exit as the case for full integration became more pressing.
Conversely, the departure of the UK leaves the full integration project without a key obstacle - the UK has undoubtedly acted as a brake on the federalist ambitions of many within the EU, and hence integrationists are likely to be privately delighted by the removal of a key opponent on full integration.
But that means that other key member states, like Germany, who are far more comfortable with limited (but not total) integration, will start to face increasing pressure as the full integration agenda moves ahead... my guess is that it will not be unopposed. The question is not if, but when and who will be the next state to set their own ‘red lines’ as to how much integration they are willing to accept.
From this perspective, I reckon the EU is still in a tremendous amount of danger, even if you disregard Brexit as a mere sideshow (which it is). Perversely, if the entire thing does indeed collapse, those who got out early might be the long term winners or, at the very least, will not be ruined by the eventual collapse of the Euro.
Are there any non-bias/objective reports on this European Superstate?
All I ever seem to be able to find is vague mentions and then fairly extreme right-wing, anti-eu nonsense.
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
There's not a great deal of literature on the exact topic of a European superstate that I have read, but there is plenty of commentary on the underlying issues with the Euro (like this article for instance) that help to make the case for why a form of European superstate is all but inevitable. For the record, I don't believe there will necessarily be a nation state called the United States of Europe or anything like that, but the point is that there needn't be such a thing if the EU already has the equivalent political and economic power of a sovereign state (at the expense of individual member states original sovereignty).
From what I can see, the whole ‘Euro Superstate’ seems like another lie that isn’t really based on much reality.
So the idea, we got out in the nick of time as Europe are going towards this ‘Superstate’ seems a little silly.
That said, I’d be curious about an EU superstate. In theory I don’t see why it would be a bad thing economically... but I’d like to read upon I, hence asking for some literature
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It's not so much a question of whether an EU superstate would work economically or not, but whether or not individual member states (and thus their electorates) have a say over what happens.
The article I linked to was written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist, who points to the problems caused by the introduction of a common currency prior to the existence of other shared institutions and policies, such as a common policy on taxation, debt sharing etc.
The important point is not that a common currency is a bad idea in principle - it isn't - but that it cannot work in the long term without these other things either already being in place (which they aren't) or following in the near future (which they must if the Euro is to survive). It is this latter point that raises some serious questions about democratic oversight of the whole process - if it 'must' happen, then what is the point in putting any of these 'must-do' things up for a vote or even debate?
The same argument goes for a whole host of other things, but the Euro is the underlying driving force behind the need for much closer union within the EU - to the point of the EU becoming a de facto sovereign state. That is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if it works to the benefit of all peoples of the EU - but problems will undoubtedly arise (and already have) when one member state doesn't agree with the way things are going because, in reality, they don't really have any choice but to go along with it - or to get out.
Yeah I'll read that article, though it wasn't quite what I was after.
Personally I'm not massively in favour on the Euro and part of my aversion to Brexit is because I feel that separating from Europe will put us in such a poor economical state, when we do rejoin, we'll be required to take on the Euro.
But yeah, this, is kinda what I was after... as this seems like nothing but hot-air and vague comments about 'the nations becoming closer'... but that could mean so many things. Your original post seems to position the idea of the Euro Superstate as a policy the EU are actively working towards as a clearly established goal, but I see no evidence for this.
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The UK will never rejoin the EU in its present (or likely future) form. Even Scotland, which voted 2:1 against leaving the EU in 2016, would not necessarily wish to rejoin the EU in the event of it becoming independent because Scottish membership of the EU will be fundamentally different to membership of the EU as part of the UK.
I think the point is that it doesn't need to be a policy or a clearly established goal if the end result is the same. The Euro in its present form makes a de facto European state a practical inevitability, hence whether it is 'policy' or a 'goal' is redundant.
(I'm still reading that article... in-between working)
I think the conflation of these is only pandering to anti-EU rhetoric.
We'll see I guess..
Yet, there is no indication that we're even on that path, let alone reached that destination... 'working closer together' and ensuring that Euro-nations have the foundations of a proper currency in place are a long way shy of the creation of a 'Euro Superstate' or 'USE'. Those nations that took on the Euro might not have a choice in these mechanics needed for the currency to work, but they had the choice about joining the Euro and these mechanisms are essential, so I don't think anyone can claim having these is 'unfair' or 'undemocratic'.
I think the conflation of these is only pandering to anti-EU rhetoric.
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is really the crux of the problem - the assumption is that Eurozone member states have already consented to 'do whatever it takes' to make the Euro work, when in actual fact they have not. Indeed, the EU's own literature points to this very fact (see p.28) - that the idea of 'doing whatever it takes' was only formally stated in 2010 in response to the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis; that (IMO at least) is pretty solid evidence that this concept was not an original feature of the Euro - in other words, members of the Eurozone categorically did not (and indeed have never) agree to all (or indeed any) specific measures that are now required in order to make the Euro work; but, their decision to take the Euro has now put Eurozone member states in the situation where they now have a choice - to agree to 'do whatever it takes' or to leave.
Yet, reading Joe's blog, it seems as though those mechanisms where essential and their exclusion was (for what ever reason), an error... I mean, if nations don't want these mechanisms in order to make sure the Euro is workable in the long term... what would be to stop them from opting out and leaving the Euro?
The goals (according to Joe, who I'm taking at 100% face value) of the Euro haven't been realised. So if these mechanisms allow for them to be realised, nations leaving would only be (in the eyes of the EU Euro states), a temporary measure?
(I know we're off topic but I do find this interesting)
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
For all the many reasons one can detect as cause for Brexit, one is the simplest of all. In the UK, the EU was "them", never "us"
As for the future of the EU … many perils lie ahead, but as long as France and Germany stick together in this, the EU will succeed. If, however, there's a fallout between those two, the EU might split, possibly giving way to two blocs of countries, because the days of "going it alone" are over.
As for the UK I have no idea on its future. I suppose it will try to be a middle ground between the USA and the EU and use that position to its advantage. It is however a narrow path and when things get harder (as they usually do from time to time) it will probably mean the need to gravitate towards one of them. As the smaller partner of whatever partnership it gets, but that's the cost of Independence.
As for the future of the EU … many perils lie ahead, but as long as France and Germany stick together in this, the EU will succeed. If, however, there's a fallout between those two, the EU might split, possibly giving way to two blocs of countries, because the days of "going it alone" are over.
As for the UK I have no idea on its future. I suppose it will try to be a middle ground between the USA and the EU and use that position to its advantage. It is however a narrow path and when things get harder (as they usually do from time to time) it will probably mean the need to gravitate towards one of them. As the smaller partner of whatever partnership it gets, but that's the cost of Independence.
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
My understanding is that the Euro is not a bad idea in principle, but that it has been done in the reverse order to the way it might have (and perhaps should have) been done. IMO this is the root cause of the problem now facing the EU - that consent for further integration cannot now be sought because the common currency already exists, thus consent for all further steps required to “safeguard the Euro” is assumed.
-
Guy Verhofstadt is addressing the European Parliament on the topic of why Brexit happened - very interesting words indeed.
He has basically just said what I said a few hours ago - in his view, Brexit started ’the moment the UK was given exceptions’... he also adds that the EU can only work ‘without rebates’, ’exemptions’, ’opt-outs’, ‘unanimity’ and ‘vetos’...
These last two are telling - currently, most EU law requires unanimity, thus all EU member states effectively have a veto over future EU laws. Verhofstadt wants rid of this because he knows that there’s no way the EU can proceed while member states have a veto - in other words, the EU cannot function properly while its member states retain sovereignty.
(He also made an off-colour remark about the UK installing “Chinese 5G masts” as evidence that the UK is no longer a sovereign state, and that all other EU member states regard the EU as a means of regaining sovereignty they have already lost!...)
Yeah, which is what the article linked said and I agree with, from what I can see. But from that position to the USE is a monumental leap and one in which there is no evidence for.
Which is why its disingenuous to bring it up as a potential benefit of Brexit (avoiding joining USE) and that the UK being a member of the EU was a key stumbling block removed for the EU...
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I disagree - it is far from a “monumental leap”. The logical consequence of the Euro is full political, fiscal, banking and monetary union - to my mind that is pretty damn close to full statehood.
Not disingenuous at all - quite the opposite in fact. It is disingenuous to claim that the EU’s drive towards full political union (ushered in by rushing into monetary union) was not a major factor in the UK’s decision to quit the EU.
You should listen to what Guy Verhofstadt has literally just said on the subject of the UK being a stumbling block - he’s basically just said the exact reason for the lack of progress in the EU is because of countries like the UK being given special treatment. Ergo, it pretty much goes without saying that the UK leaving will only assist the EU in progressing towards full union.
I don't think the major motivations for leaving the EU have been thoroughly understood.
Polls on the subject of trying to understand it tend to centre around; immigration, 'taking back control' and money going to the EU.
I don't think it's fair at all to paint the EU Superstate worry's as a major or meaningful contributor to Leave winning the referendum and would put far more 'blame' on the lies peddled (£350m to the NHS, immigration, all of Turkey's population invading... etc).
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Well, this much we can agree on.
I also don’t believe that the referendum was won on legitimate arguments - the threat of an EU superstate was probably not the major factor in the minds of those who voted to leave... but it is the major factor that defines the actual direction and likely future state of the EU, and that basically meant that the UK leaving was all but inevitable sooner or later, irrespective of the reasons for why people voted to leave in 2016.
The UK did have special privileges and would often be at odds with other EU nations... but I don't think the UK leaving = insta USE!
Also, Guy is an MEP, like Ann Widdecombe (is/was?)... so while he might have interesting things to say and might be right and or wrong. He isn't in control on the EU.
(sorry was hoping to join these two comments but you where too quick! )
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Indeed it isn’t - but the fact remains that the EU is currently moving decisively towards full integration, and that there are many in the EU (and not just in the UK) who don’t like what they are hearing.
I actually agree with Verhofstadt that the EU’s current trajectory makes the UK’s place in the EU untenable - for that is pretty much what he has just said. The UK could have stayed in the EU, but only if the EU were to start rowing back on further integration... but that is something that cannot happen because the Euro (amongst other things) makes further integration not merely desirable, but absolutely necessary.
Yes, and thank God for that.
Sorry @Touring Mars you're either too quick, or I'm too slow to reply!
I think you're jumping the gun, personally. Like our mate Joe said (and we both agree on), the first issue is making sure the mechanisms are set and in place and making sure the member states are involved with that. That as you've pointed out, wont be easy.
And while the UK might have eventually left in the face of a USE, as it is, we left due to a confusing mess of lies, xenophobia and misunderstanding of how the EU functions. Which I think is a pretty big difference, especially politically.
I think you're jumping the gun, personally. Like our mate Joe said (and we both agree on), the first issue is making sure the mechanisms are set and in place and making sure the member states are involved with that. That as you've pointed out, wont be easy.
And while the UK might have eventually left in the face of a USE, as it is, we left due to a confusing mess of lies, xenophobia and misunderstanding of how the EU functions. Which I think is a pretty big difference, especially politically.
Thankfully the EU is democratic, and as alluded to in the paragraph above. If member states strongly opposed the concept of a USE, they could vote against it, or, threaten to leave (something we've shown is possible even with our total cluster **** of a government!). I think USE will probably happen, but not for a long time because it wouldn't work at the moment.
- 28,429
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
- 3,308
- Kentucky
- Chrunch_Houston
Nigel Farage and the rest of the UK MEPs bid farewell to the EU.
Weird that he even remembered to turn up! I know he’s had problems finding that building/remembering he’s an MEP in the not so distant past...
