Current Affairs EU In or Out

[peteblue]

As a Belgian, there really isn't anything strange about the veto.

Belgium is a federal state. We have six governments and six parliaments (well in theory 7 parliaments; but in Flanders we've merged two).

The competence to ratify treaties depends on the content of the treaty. This is the result of multiple state reforms. For instance; a treaty concerning national defence: this is a competence of the federal government so this is easy. Or treaties concerning cultural affairs; this is also easy: regional (more specifically the community governments since it's a competence that points to personal competences).

With CETA it's not so easy. It's quite a broad treaty (broad content - competences lie with different parts of the state). This means mixed competence. The result being that you need the approval of multiple governments. So the Belgian federal government still has the competence to sign them; but to do this it needs the approval of the regions involved. If the procedure isn't followed; one can go to the constitutional court.

After the treaties have been signed. The parliaments have to ratify them. So afterwards the treaties have to go through every parliament involved.

You see it's easy.

I'm from the Flemish part. The Walloons (also known as the less rich part) have a point CETA stinks. It's btw not only the Walloons, the Brussels Capital region government also has issues with it.

Tusk is partially right when he says it's a result of internal differences in Belgium. The Walloon parties who make up the Walloon (mainly PS+CDH) government aren't in the Federal government (the only French speaking party is the MR). But in all fairness; the Walloons have a point. I don't like the fact that the treaty makes it possible for big companies to circumvent national legislation (concerning environmental rules ...). Oh and the provided extra declarations aren't binding. The proposed courts are kind of free to interpret them how they please. So they have been given nothing.

At the end of the day I think they will agree with the treaty though.

Also the EU will not disintegrate. Most British people don't have that sense of feeling European but around here it's quite present. Certainly in the founding countries. You look at it mostly from an economical point of view; but here it's a matter of principle.

I have to say though, I don't really see why lots of the Brexit people actively wish bad things to happen to other nations; nobody here wishes bad things to happen to the UK.

I agree btw with people saying when you vote Brexit you have to Brexit. The modalities of the referendum where rubbish, but at the end of the day when you do it like that you have to submit to the will of the people.

I totally agree with you, its part of how Belgium works and is quite correct. My point was more about that if the UK, France or Germany did the same then there would be hundreds of vetoes, good or bad. I'm glad you agree that the vote should be honoured. The UK wishes nothing but the best for the EU and it's nations, we just don't wish to be part of it anymore. Our nations have a lot of history and spilt blood together, we want you to succeed and we want the UK to do so too........

 

[Woolly Blue]

Article 50 is irrevocable once invoked, and it is clear that the consequences of leaving the EU are far greater than was anticipated prior to the referendum.

It would be irresponsible beyond belief to invoke article 50 without knowledge of our global trading relationships post Brexit.

Hence I think Parliament should act in the country's interests and not invoke article 50.

While I understand your reasoning it's that sort of thinking which contributes to the electorate losing faith in politics.

I voted to stay in, but the majority voted to leave. The "Remain" group had plenty of time to get their point across and failed miserably.

You may argue that the "Out" camp lied and exaggerated to get what they wanted, but again it was up to the Remain camp to counter those arguments.

The electorate made their decision and parliament should respect that. If they prevaricate and unnecessarily delay the process then they all deserve to be thrown out.

 

[peteblue]

While I understand your reasoning it's that sort of thinking which contributes to the electorate losing faith in politics.

I voted to stay in, but the majority voted to leave. The "Remain" group had plenty of time to get their point across and failed miserably.

You may argue that the "Out" camp lied and exaggerated to get what they wanted, but again it was up to the Remain camp to counter those arguments.

The electorate made their decision and parliament should respect that. If they prevaricate and unnecessarily delay the process then they all deserve to be thrown out.

Indeed. The MP's just like the rest of us had a vote, however they voted was up to them, but just like the rest of us they only had one vote.....

 

[Armel]

I totally agree with you, its part of how Belgium works and is quite correct. My point was more about that if the UK, France or Germany did the same then there would be hundreds of vetoes, good or bad. I'm glad you agree that the vote should be honoured. The UK wishes nothing but the best for the EU and it's nations, we just don't wish to be part of it anymore. Our nations have a lot of history and spilt blood together, we want you to succeed and we want the UK to do so too........

If I were you guys I would see it more as a kind of an opportunity. What's done is done. I read the English newspapers. Everything always was somehow the fault of the European Union. Now they don't have an excuse anymore, so that will be interesting. Nobody to blame but themselves. It wasn't a surprise people voted out, if you constantly read that everything is the fault of the E.U. Hopefully now your politicians will combat inequality and similar things. That goes both ways now btw; I read disrespectful characterizations of Brexiters in some newspapers. Very unlikely that most are racists and such. Also I refuse to believe that some people are that stupid that they were persuaded with the money to the NHS argument, impossible.

One of the biggest issues I don't understand. The idea of people who go to Britain for the benefits, it's quite easy to send them backing using the existing E.U treaties. We do it.

Have to admit though from a legal point of view the negotiations will be interesting to watch. I wouldn't want to do it; it's a minefield: WTO status, EU trade-agreement... They also made it extra difficult; Boris Johnson. That man is utterly disliked on this side of the channel, if you want to get a good deal it is always wise to send somebody less controversial. Not somebody who has insulted most countries in the world. I am betting on a "hard" Brexit. For Belgium (we do a lot of trade with Britain-right across the channel) the impact will be quite significant (0.5 % dip in GDP-they said in the news). I really can't see serious negotiations happening. The most realistic scenario, in my point of view, would be the E.U. negotiators just running down the two year clock. They can't give anything remotely similar to E.U. membership; so no single market. That's also what most papers and politicians here are predicting.

I feel for the people who will lose their job though. For instance : interested to see what they will do with all the British civil servants who work for the E.U. and surrounding agencies. Almost all don't qualify for another nationality. Loads that live here. The same applies to the ones in the U.K. off course. It's obvious that the European Medicines Agency will leave London. The same goes for the European Banking Authority. All those lives will be uprooted.

For the most part I think everything will be quite decent. Not as good as some of you envisioned, not as bad as some thought.

For the European Union we can do some stuff the Brits have always opposed (which is quite a lot tbh). The UK can do whatever it pleases, well as long as you don't breach international law and such. The funny thing is; the rules that annoyed the tabloids the most will stay in please seeing that you won't be able to sell your margarines, butters and such to the E.U. if you don't abide by them. The European Court of Justice has some very beautiful arrests btw about butter.

 

[hullefc]

You have deliberately adjusted the wording of that article and put across an untrue view....the complete article is here...

George Osborne confirmed this morning that Britain would provide around £7bn to support Ireland as part of the international rescue package requested last night.

His comments came as a British thinktank said UK taxpayers should not "cough up" £7bn to help bail out the Irish economy, and eurosceptic Conservative MPs also voiced their opposition.

To placate eurosceptic critics, the chancellor insisted that Britain would not be part of a permanent bailout mechanism for eurozone countries.

"What we have committed to do is to obviously be partners as shareholders in the IMF in an international rescue of the Irish economy," Osborne told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "But we have also made a commitment to consider a bilateral loan that reflects the fact we are not part of the euro… but Ireland is our very closest economic neighbour."

The Irish government dropped its resistance to a bailout yesterday, confirming it was seeking rescue funds. Talks are under way to work out details of the package – which could be worth €90bn (£77bn) – with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Ireland's finance minister, Brian Lenihan, insisted last night that the country's low 12.5% corporation tax rate, which he previously described as an "absolute red line," was "off the agenda now".

"Everyone realises that the Irish economy has to grow to get out of its difficulties," he said this morning.

There is concern that Portugal will be the next country to feel the heat. It is bracing itself for the biggest ever strike on Wednesday.

When asked whether Britain's contribution to the Irish bailout was worth around £7bn, Osborne said: "It's around that [figure], it's in the order of billions, not tens of billions."

He added: "The details of the entire package, not just the UK contribution but the eurozone and IMF contribution, is all being worked out as we speak and we should, by the end of the month, have the details on that."

The rate of interest and other terms on a UK bilateral loan would be similar to the conditions of the international package, Osborne said.

He defended the decision to support a member of the eurozone, saying: "'I told you so' is not much of an economic policy", adding: "It's in everyone's interest that we make the euro work." He also argued that Britain could afford to ride to Ireland's rescue now, having "moved out of the danger zone" thanks to drastic spending cuts designed to reduce Britain's own record deficit.

At the same time, Osborne reiterated that Britain should not have to provide further help to Ireland or any other eurozone countries that got into difficulties. He stressed that Britain's consideration of a bilateral loan for Ireland reflects the fact that "we don't want to be part of a permanent bailout mechanism for the euro".

The Adam Smith Institute strongly opposed the UK's commitment. Sam Bowman, head of research at the thinktank, said: "The proposed bailout for Ireland is a bad deal for the UK. It puts the interests of the European Union and the eurozone before the interests of Ireland and the British government should have no part in paying for it.

"Asking the British taxpayer to cough up £7bn shows just how audacious the European Union has become in its desperation to keep the eurozone project afloat. The UK successfully avoided entering the eurozone. Ireland was not so lucky, but it entered in full knowledge of the risks involved.

"Bailing out Ireland now would undo much of the benefits that Britain has yielded from keeping the pound and would make a mockery of the spending cuts announced by the coalition last month. In the end, Ireland will have to choose its own path out of this crisis. But the British taxpayer should not be held responsible for past mistakes by Irish politicians."

Eurosceptic Tories were also angered by Britain's participation in the bailout. The Conservative MP for Clacton, Douglas Carswell, told the BBC: "We shouldn't be paying to help keep Ireland in the euro. If we are going to pay to solve this crisis we should be helping to pay Ireland to quit the euro. Ireland's misery is only going to end when it has its own currency again. At a time of austerity, again we are paying vast sums to the European Union."


You may well have an agenda either against Brexit, Osborne, or the UK in general, but don't twist the words to suit the chip on your shoulder. If you have anything that shows that the UK demanded austerity from Ireland then show it, otherwise an apology wouldn't go amiss........

I have not 'adjusted the wording of the article', I have highlighted them, i.e the bold bit so it is easy for you to see. The words I put are the correct words and in the correct order and clearly have not been 'adjusted'. Maybe you should have read the wording of the article before you wrote a response as the wording hasn't been 'adjusted'. I look forward to you showing me how I have 'adjusted the wording of that article'. Apologise accepted in advantage. What I did do, was take some words out of an article to show that the UK government followed the same path as international lenders i.e demanded austerity.

Oh dear, 'chip on your shoulder'. Sometimes you really do need to read what you have written before you post. Your defensiveness against anything written that criticises the UK government makes it look like it is you that has a 'chip on their shoulders'.

 

[hullefc]

The fact that they got told by the EU over a treaty we will starve you till your public vote our war hence two referendum s seems a similar trust by the bully boys from the EU!

The EU bullies countries like Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain to do as it is told. Yes they do Joey and not one other country stood up in their defence including the UK government.

 

[The Esk]

The electorate made their decision and parliament should respect that. If they prevaricate and unnecessarily delay the process then they all deserve to be thrown out.

So what's the greater responsibility? Act in the nation's interests in not creating a situation where all of our existing trading relationships are thrown into doubt or execute a non-binding referendum which as described above significantly damages our future well-being?

There's a reason why we elect representatives to act in our and our nation's best interests, and at times of crisis, leadership is required not political pandering to the electorate.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

So what's the greater responsibility? Act in the nation's interests in not creating a situation where all of our existing trading relationships are thrown into doubt or execute a non-binding referendum which as described above significantly damages our future well-being?

There's a reason why we elect representatives to act in our and our nation's best interests, and at times of crisis, leadership is required not political pandering to the electorate.

i understand your concerns esk, but this lady aint for changing, to coin an old phrase, said so countless times already, and the brexit plan is in place.

 

[Woolly Blue]

So what's the greater responsibility? Act in the nation's interests in not creating a situation where all of our existing trading relationships are thrown into doubt or execute a non-binding referendum which as described above significantly damages our future well-being?

There's a reason why we elect representatives to act in our and our nation's best interests, and at times of crisis, leadership is required not political pandering to the electorate.

Not sure if you're popcorning now, but if not, then that's incredibly condescending and actually quite scary.

 

[The Esk]

Not sure if you're popcorning now, but if not, then that's incredibly condescending and actually quite scary.

Not popcorning at all, and I apologise if it's either scary or condescending, but I believe we are tetering on the edge of an economic calamity, and extra-ordinary measures are (IMO) called for.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Not popcorning at all, and I apologise if it's either scary or condescending, but I believe we are tetering on the edge of an economic calamity, and extra-ordinary measures are (IMO) called for.

I think pre-referendum, both sides of the argument exaggerated the effects of leaving. I very much doubt an economic calamity will occur because of Brexit.

It will doubtless have an effect. The EC will want to play hardball, but equally, they won't want to cut all ties with us.

To use it as an excuse to ignore a referendum result would be seen by many who voted ( either way ) as arrogance of the highest order and is pretty much the one thing that could result in a party like UKIP becoming truly mainstream.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[peteblue]

I have not 'adjusted the wording of the article', I have highlighted them, i.e the bold bit so it is easy for you to see. The words I put are the correct words and in the correct order and clearly have not been 'adjusted'. Maybe you should have read the wording of the article before you wrote a response as the wording hasn't been 'adjusted'. I look forward to you showing me how I have 'adjusted the wording of that article'. Apologise accepted in advantage. What I did do, was take some words out of an article to show that the UK government followed the same path as international lenders i.e demanded austerity.

Oh dear, 'chip on your shoulder'. Sometimes you really do need to read what you have written before you post. Your defensiveness against anything written that criticises the UK government makes it look like it is you that has a 'chip on their shoulders'.

I know exactly what you did and now so does everyone else. You added the words about austerity. Now show me anywhere or any document where the UK demanded austerity from Ireland. You have put you own interpretation upon the UK's rather generous loan to a close trading and friendly nation.......I will always have a go against the UK government when they deserve it, but in this case they acted in a way that I am sure was welcomed by Ireland and it should be recognised as so.....

 

[ToffeeTim]

Not popcorning at all, and I apologise if it's either scary or condescending, but I believe we are tetering on the edge of an economic calamity, and extra-ordinary measures are (IMO) called for.

You can't claim to support democracy and advocate ignoring a democratically taken decision.

And as for your scaremongering mate, I'd expect better. There is no economic calamity on the horizon. In fact business is proving, as expected, to be very resilient.

 

[peteblue]

If I were you guys I would see it more as a kind of an opportunity. What's done is done. I read the English newspapers. Everything always was somehow the fault of the European Union. Now they don't have an excuse anymore, so that will be interesting. Nobody to blame but themselves. It wasn't a surprise people voted out, if you constantly read that everything is the fault of the E.U. Hopefully now your politicians will combat inequality and similar things. That goes both ways now btw; I read disrespectful characterizations of Brexiters in some newspapers. Very unlikely that most are racists and such. Also I refuse to believe that some people are that stupid that they were persuaded with the money to the NHS argument, impossible.

One of the biggest issues I don't understand. The idea of people who go to Britain for the benefits, it's quite easy to send them backing using the existing E.U treaties. We do it.

Have to admit though from a legal point of view the negotiations will be interesting to watch. I wouldn't want to do it; it's a minefield: WTO status, EU trade-agreement... They also made it extra difficult; Boris Johnson. That man is utterly disliked on this side of the channel, if you want to get a good deal it is always wise to send somebody less controversial. Not somebody who has insulted most countries in the world. I am betting on a "hard" Brexit. For Belgium (we do a lot of trade with Britain-right across the channel) the impact will be quite significant (0.5 % dip in GDP-they said in the news). I really can't see serious negotiations happening. The most realistic scenario, in my point of view, would be the E.U. negotiators just running down the two year clock. They can't give anything remotely similar to E.U. membership; so no single market. That's also what most papers and politicians here are predicting.

I feel for the people who will lose their job though. For instance : interested to see what they will do with all the British civil servants who work for the E.U. and surrounding agencies. Almost all don't qualify for another nationality. Loads that live here. The same applies to the ones in the U.K. off course. It's obvious that the European Medicines Agency will leave London. The same goes for the European Banking Authority. All those lives will be uprooted.

For the most part I think everything will be quite decent. Not as good as some of you envisioned, not as bad as some thought.

For the European Union we can do some stuff the Brits have always opposed (which is quite a lot tbh). The UK can do whatever it pleases, well as long as you don't breach international law and such. The funny thing is; the rules that annoyed the tabloids the most will stay in please seeing that you won't be able to sell your margarines, butters and such to the E.U. if you don't abide by them. The European Court of Justice has some very beautiful arrests btw about butter.

I think it was Lord Hill who said that most of the EU people are under the illusion that we will reverse our decision and perhaps explains their intransigence and bombastic comments a little at the moment. It was similar when David Cameron tried to get something, anything, from the EU regarding immigration and benefits, they didn't believe the UK would leave so really just ignored him. Strange now that Germany have just voted to do exactly what Cameron wanted without any reference to the EU.

The downsides of not doing a deal will be bad for both sides. The UK will want to do a deal so if none is done it will probably be down to the EU 'punishing' us or some other nonsense and we and the rest of the World will see it that way. The UK will survive whatever happens and will prosper, but the EU may no longer have a close friend. I still think that cooler heads will come to the fore and pragmatism will ensure that a deal is done however.......

 

[peteblue]

So what's the greater responsibility? Act in the nation's interests in not creating a situation where all of our existing trading relationships are thrown into doubt or execute a non-binding referendum which as described above significantly damages our future well-being?

There's a reason why we elect representatives to act in our and our nation's best interests, and at times of crisis, leadership is required not political pandering to the electorate.

Indeed, perhaps the Army should take over.....that's probably the next step after democracy is abandoned......