....even though nobody has the first clue what that something else is. Or how to handle ROI/NI.
Balls indeed.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
....even though nobody has the first clue what that something else is. Or how to handle ROI/NI.
Balls indeed.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
BIG balls mate.....
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
I posed the question to Bruce earlier:
Will we continue to trade with the EU?
Will we continue to trade with the rest of the world?
Will Parliament continue to function?
Will the British judiciary continue to function?
Will there still be travel between Britain and the EU?
Wiill there still be travel between Britain and the rest of the world?
And the answer is, of course, 'Yes'. That is what the 'something else' is about.
As for the ROI/NI matter, I may be wrong, and this is only my opinion, but I believe it would be resolved satisfactorily IF the EU did not continually try to stir the brown stuff in the field between Britain and the ROI. The top officials in the EU appear to me to be hell-bent on making things as difficult as possible for Britain in the run-up to the leaving date, when, I believe, they should be seeking a smooth transition for all concerned.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
er - we didn't get nukes until 1952, the French didn't until 1960, and the US is not a European state.
If you want to argue the toss about the military history of Europe, the critical difference with the post-1945 period compared to everything that went before was that none of the European states were powerful enough to think about subjecting the others - we were largely spent after the effort to win WW2, the French had been humiliated, West Germany was literally in ruins and the rest did not amount to anything in military terms.
In short it isn't surprising that it didn't kick off - none of the reasons why it usually kicked off in Europe before 1939 were present.
You don't know the answer is yes to any of those questions and furthermore it certainly doesn't seem like your leadership even had the first thought about what the next steps would be. Taking drastic action without a plan seems risky rather than ballsy.
To your latter point. Do you blame the EU for making things as difficult as possible?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
1952 was just 7 years after the end of the previous war, Europe was shattered and Germany occupied, of course there could be no further war at that time. The advent of nuclear weapons, available during WW2, stopped any rogue power from attempting what Germany did. The EU played absolutely no part in this process......
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
Of course it did, in fact the EU is the result of the process.
The fact that no-one could threaten anyone else on the Western half of the continent because of the state everyone was in, as well as the fact that they all had an enemy to the east to band together against, meant that they were able to construct what became the EU.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
1. Do you seriously think the answer to those 6 points is 'No' to all? Really? Let's not trade anywhere. Parliament and the judiciary will no longer function. No one will travel anywhere. You are joking!!! Come on...
2. My leadership? Do me a feckin' favour! I've voted Labour ALL my life!
3. You say there are no plans. Are the British Government going to publicly disclose ALL of what it wants to do in the forthcoming months. Negotiations are conducted on what is termed in the outside world 'commercial-in confidence'. That means that matters will be discussed, but no public disclosure will be made until things are finalised. That is standard business practise.
4. In a word 'Yes'. From what I have seen and heard since June 2016, that is definitely my opinion. Their top officials (Tusk, Juncker, Verhofstadt[sp]) have all come across like a bear with a sore backside. Absolutely miffed that we have had the temerity to say 'We're outta here'.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
It didn't kick off between 1815 and 1870...
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
On a large scale, no.... and why didn't it? Because none of the states were strong enough to threaten the others, and because the states had got into the habit of talking to each other.
Old Blue 2
Player Valuation: £40m
Napoleon was gone, and there was no longer a maritime threat to Britain. There was also no longer a threat to Prussia. Militarism on the European continent was slow to develop, but with the nascent German state developing, it kicked off again in 1870 with the Franco-Prussian war.
1. The answer is 'probably' to all. But nobody knows of the ramifications short or long term.
2. Well it's certainly not my leadership. I have the orange embarrassment to deal with.
3. I will say it again. It seems reckless to take a drastic, nationwide affecting action without a clearly laid out plan for the future. Pete calls it balls...I call it reckless.
4. Not sure why you would expect Europe to play nice when it was the UK that threw their toys out of the pram. I would play extra hardball with negotiations if I were the EU, whether it be with regards to Ireland or trade. I mean even without the UK the EU will remain the world's second largest economy (by some distance), meanwhile the UK has fallen farther behind Germany, and will soon be overtaken by France and India on the world economic stage.
With respect, those are such simplistic questions that I'm not sure as to their point. Indeed, if I were cynical I'd say that such simplistic reasoning are possibly why we're in this situation in the first place. Of course there will be some trade with the EU. Markets and supply chains that have been built up over decades will not evaporate over night and I don't think a single person would be so daft to have suggested they would.
The question has always been do we want operations with the rest of Europe to be as smooth and frictionless as possible, or do we want to put up barriers? I can travel to Russia should I wish, but the visa process is both expensive and time consuming. Likewise with trade. It will continue, but if we erect customs controls at our border or discontinue working with the EU on the standards and regulations that underpin our trade then it will be made much harder.
The thing is, every single attempt to analyse the questions you raise in any degree of depth have been poo poohed by you and others in this thread for the pure reason that you don't like the outcome they suggest. You then say that it's impossible to predict the future, we should get behind the country and boldly venture into the dark.
Last edited:
Regarding the border on the island of Ireland the UK government and the likes of Rees Mogg, Johnson, Duncan Smith and Gove, haven't a clue what is in the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1989. The Irish PM has stated clearly that there can't be any physical infrastructure on the island of Ireland, the 'border' will be exactly as it is now. Which will mean the north of the island of Ireland staying in the customs union and the single market, the fall back option. It is not the EU that are making things 'difficult', but those that don't understand what is in an international agreement signed by the UK and Irish governments, lodged with the UN and backed by the US and the EU. When George Mitchell came over the other month it was to tell May that the Good Friday Agreement is sacrosanct.
The political paralysis affecting the Tories, over not just the EU but other things, is open civil war in the Tory party. Each vying with each other to stamp their vision on what 'leaving the EU' really means. But all the 'big players' the CBI, Institute of Directors, the Engineering federation, the motor industry, the Bank of England and the City of London don't want to leave the customs union and the single market. The EU on their part have made it clear that the EU will not allow anything that gets in the way of the customs union and the single market and its workings. That would include a democratically elected Corbyn government if it starts to nationalisation the railways, energy, water and any other industries, which goes against the single market.
Corbyn reignites Labour debate over EU rules on state aid and ... from 2017.
Jeremy Corbyn rejects EU Brexit plan on state intervention – POLITICO
That is why the EU are trying to tie May to a binding agreement, in an to attempt to stop future UK governments from nationalising industries.
Charlie Sweet
Player Valuation: £35m
Ignoring the military analysis for a second I'm intrigued on your take on the Irish border issue. The UK voted to Leave so fundamentally you surely agree that the onus is on the UK to offer the first line of potential solutions (to the various issues caused by Brexit). Agree? But they haven't done that in many areas - particularly Ireland.
The two publicly stated positions of "No border infrastructure of any kind on the island of Ireland" and "we are leaving the Customs Union/taking back control" just cannot be reconciled by anyone not off their head on drugs. Talk of "technological solutions" are plain insulting without the back-up detail.
So I don't see how you've come to blame "the top officials in the EU apper to me to be hell-bent on making things as difficult as possible"? To me the obvious solution is a form of border checks down the Irish Sea but Theresa May is in the grip of both the DUP and the moronic wing of the Tory party to have the balls to lay it out.
- Status