This is Bound to End in Tears

[MrGongGong]

I don't understand how walking out of something - which is what Brexit is - could be interpreted as walking all over something. It seems like the strangest of distortions to me but I am open to hearing a decent explanation if one can be provided.

The UK has been collaborating with the rest of the EU on scientific, educational and cultural projects for years. We have close collaboration that means there is a constant flow of people between countries. In leaving the EU the UK is destroying these links. To pretend that they will go on as before is delusional and simply NOT true. Taking away our rights to travel and work is a huge backward step not just for music.

[oddoneout]

but at least the parliamentary discussions show a fair degree of thought,

Pity they didn't do it 18 months ago. I can't say I'm surprised that the EU is exasperated - it got its position papers sorted back in 2016 and has been waiting ever since for the UK to get its act together and decide what it actually wants(other than all the benefits of membership without paying for them).

[Lat-Literal]

The UK has been collaborating with the rest of the EU on scientific, educational and cultural projects for years. We have close collaboration that means there is a constant flow of people between countries. In leaving the EU the UK is destroying these links. To pretend that they will go on as before is delusional and simply NOT true. Taking away our rights to travel and work is a huge backward step not just for music.

Well, I know that this is your consistent position. As Ms Flint says, preferring to remain in the EU is an honourable position. It is a more honourable position than manoeuvring for that to happen in the name of doing other things. If Brexit is a walking over anything, it is probably walking over sections of Britain more than it is walking over sections of the EU although no doubt we can congratulate ourselves on having made some sort of contribution to the EU which is appreciated by some people in the EU. But on the basis of your consistency, can I take it that you would not support Scottish and Welsh independence on the grounds that it would be "walking all over" the United Kingdom, even if there was a majority in those countries for such independence? And also on the additional grounds that independence would "destroy links" and "take away the rights" of people in those countries who had enjoyed such links?

A clarification. My reference to Sinn Fein above was not graced with the subtlety reform in Sinn Fein deserves. I am aware that there are distinctions to be made between old Sinn Fein and new Sinn Fein. What I heard sounded more like old Sinn Fein. Having said as much, I was looking at an Irish politics forum a couple of months ago. It appeared that there wasn't a huge appetite for them south of the border. Irish contributors were rejoicing that they were only on 13% in opinion polls for the EU election. I now predict that the figure will be at least 20% because of a lack of discipline in the language of a range of politicians in various countries in the last fortnight. That, I think, is regrettable and it could easily have been avoided.

[Dave2002]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnKflDgNRbo

This video, which follows the one you linked to, shows another "fan" of the EU - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGt82RFfg3U - very interesting,
and even though I know Greece has, and has had, problems, I do think that Yanis Varoufakis has more credibility than many of the European leaders, and senior people within the EU.

I know a bit more about Greece and the Greek economy than the average person in the UK - and broadly speaking YV's views make sense to me.

[Dave2002]

Pity they didn't do it 18 months ago. I can't say I'm surprised that the EU is exasperated - it got its position papers sorted back in 2016 and has been waiting ever since for the UK to get its act together and decide what it actually wants(other than all the benefits of membership without paying for them).

Try watching the video in msg 274 - and give up the notion that the "EU" is acting rationally and reasonably. It is very possibly acting for the self interest of those at the top of the organisation.

[Lat-Literal]

This video, which follows the one you linked to, shows another "fan" of the EU - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGt82RFfg3U - very interesting,
and even though I know Greece has, and has had, problems, I do think that Yanis Varoufakis has more credibility than many of the European leaders, and senior people within the EU.

I know a bit more about Greece and the Greek economy than the average person in the UK - and broadly speaking YV's views make sense to me.

Thank you.

I am aware of him.

But much to think about here!

In that video, he specifically mentions taxpayers in Ireland and Portugal as well as Britain paying money to German banks via Greece with the Greek crisis being used by the elites as an excuse for filling their pockets. That is quite interesting. You only had to visit Dublin and Lisbon in the early 2000s to see the impacts of EU funding on infrastructure there. If he is right, it was inevitable that it would ultimately in one way or another be recouped. I'm not sure that Greek politicians were without blame for what occurred. There was from what I heard an overly generous way with taxes and benefits which then led to an especial vulnerability in Greece from 2007-8. But I am absolutely with him on the world's problems largely being caused by the banking structures and the political arrangements which support them. They have had a devastating impact on ordinary lives and, as he says, have led to the rise of far right protest movements. I also wholly agree with him on his assessment that the political structures are too entwined. Oddly enough, there is in the Creasy/Abrahams presentation of arguments for a Citizens Assembly a lot of somewhat pompous sounding references to Ancient Greece. They seem a bit bizarre when read in isolation but I am just wondering now whether there is a YV crossover thing somewhere in their minds. Certainly he has campaigned alongside Corbyn and Lucas in recent times and would like to see a Corbyn Government.

It appears that he has formed a party for reintroducing democracy which in a number of countries will take part in the next EU elections. In other words, he favours reform from within. He was for Britain remaining in the EU but now thinks that the clock should simply run down to 29 March when we should contemplate neither rejoining the EU or leaving it with no deal. How come? He reckons that the EU will use its emergency powers just before then to extend the 29 March date indefinitely. This, he says, will trigger a general election. I am not quite sure how but it seems feasible to me that Corbyn may well have this in his mind. And he also feels that Britain is in need not of a People's Vote or a Citizens Assembly but a People's Debate. A "Great Debate". Subjects for discussion would not just include EU membership but the need for proportional representation and future arrangements for Scotland and Wales.

Personally, I don't think many in Britain now believe that the EU can be reformed in the ways that he would like economically. They would see the liberal economic linkages as being too entrenched. In my humble opinion, Brexit doesn't take us away from those links any more than staying in the EU would do. As I indicated earlier, I see ERG and EU as two sides of the same coin and their spat, therefore, as somewhat bogus. I also see the current Labour party as merely pasting leftish policy onto ongoing international Davos type arrangements. Just as his views are shaped by his leftism, mine are shaped by my centrism, a centrism which doesn't provide at the political heights many Brexit friends. But Brexit should enable us to be reasonably separate from a Continental politics of the far right when it takes hold. That will, of course, do considerable damage before the west's economists finally react and out of grim necessity steer economics and politics back to moderation. We might check back in then. In the meantime, we should muddle along as best we can from the position of a safe divide.

Lord David Owen - The Truth About Leaving The EU : The Centre Left Perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5-2_Oo83a4

[MrGongGong]

Well, I know that this is your consistent position. As Ms Flint says, preferring to remain in the EU is an honourable position. It is a more honourable position than manoeuvring for that to happen in the name of doing other things. If Brexit is a walking over anything, it is probably walking over sections of Britain more than it is walking over sections of the EU although no doubt we can congratulate ourselves on having made some sort of contribution to the EU which is appreciated by some people in the EU. But on the basis of your consistency, can I take it that you would not support Scottish and Welsh independence on the grounds that it would be "walking all over" the United Kingdom, even if there was a majority in those countries for such independence? And also on the additional grounds that independence would "destroy links" and "take away the rights" of people in those countries who had enjoyed such links?
.

AFAIK Scottish independence wouldn't take away the rights of anyone in the other parts of the EU to travel and work there?
The UK is deeply embedded in the EU and it has produced huge mutual benefits which are being thrown away in the name of spurious and dubious calls for "independence" from the rest of the countries in it.
Some folks seem to think that their idea of "democracy" (a simple majority for ANYTHING) trumps all other arguments. I don't. I want people who know stuff, people who know more than me to make decisions on my behalf about things that affect us. Those who really DO know stuff don't think this is a good idea, I'd trust Prof Hawking over Keith Chegwin any day.

[Lat-Literal]

AFAIK Scottish independence wouldn't take away the rights of anyone in the other parts of the EU to travel and work there?
The UK is deeply embedded in the EU and it has produced huge mutual benefits which are being thrown away in the name of spurious and dubious calls for "independence" from the rest of the countries in it.
Some folks seem to think that their idea of "democracy" (a simple majority for ANYTHING) trumps all other arguments. I don't. I want people who know stuff, people who know more than me to make decisions on my behalf about things that affect us. Those who really DO know stuff don't think this is a good idea, I'd trust Prof Hawking over Keith Chegwin any day.

I am talking in terms of both Scottish and Welsh independence so as not to be nation specific.

Independence could alter travel and working arrangements in those countries following Brexit in that independent states would be out of the EU for a time and need to reapply. It is also inconceivable now that any requests for referendums could be granted purely on the basis of the broad policies of just one party in either of those countries. What would be needed beforehand is agreement on a deal which would have to include border arrangements because we can't go through the same thing again. We have experience of it now. And should those not be agreed, then a referendum could not be granted for internal security purposes as well as so as not to divert from the delivery of services which voters expect and require.

Specifically, the United Kingdom electorate would expect the Government to insist on certain ongoing legal protections to protect the rights of citizens who neither wanted independence or to be in the European Union. Those would have to be in statute, as agreed, ahead of any reasonable granting of the referendums themselves. For example, an internationally legally binding commitment for maintaining trade links with the rest of the United Kingdom as they are now, for a substantial transitional period, for contributions to this island's defence to be maintained for at least 25 years, for a replacing of sterling with the Euro so sterling is unimpeded and for a re-running of the referendums as a People's Vote 3-5 years down the line.

Additionally, in the event of independence, Scotland and Wales would, like many other countries, have to decide what they wished to do at the point when the far right took hold of many national Governments and the European Parliament itself. You know. Would they still be members when an EU of Front National and Alternative for Deutschland ceased to promote travel and work and decided to end Freedom of Movement or would they have a referendum? I accept that this could realistically be as much as 10-15 years down the line.

But anyhow I respect your opinion as always.

Sadly, both the people you mention have passed away whereas Lord Owen who, if my memory is right, was the youngest Foreign Secretary in the 20th Century is still very much alive.

[MrGongGong]

All very interesting
BUT the reality for US is that ending FOM and pan-EU collaboration is a bad thing for the cultural life of the UK.
All this "10-15 years down the line" stuff is well and good BUT doesn't really help at all.
Personally speaking i'm not keen on sleeping in a cardboard box so a load of ignorant people can have their blue passports and magical unicorns.
I'm off to a university today where we will continue the process of "wrapping up" some long term pan-EU collaborations, sad times indeed.

[Lat-Literal]

All very interesting
BUT the reality for US is that ending FOM and pan-EU collaboration is a bad thing for the cultural life of the UK.
All this "10-15 years down the line" stuff is well and good BUT doesn't really help at all.
Personally speaking i'm not keen on sleeping in a cardboard box so a load of ignorant people can have their blue passports and magical unicorns.
I'm off to a university today where we will continue the process of "wrapping up" some long term pan-EU collaborations, sad times indeed.

Which university?

And why when we are still in the EU?

It might help to take my mind away from the loathsome tweet this morning from the never elected Lord Adonis who speaks of the Government's "extreme dump Ireland policy". Never in a thousand years did I think politicians in 2019 would resort in a blase way to language that is not only misleading but also grossly irresponsible in terms of the safety of our citizens.

[french frank]

A thought that struck me is what difficulty we have in this country (or have had in recent years) with the idea of compromise - or even understanding the concept, politically. We are one of the few countries where having to work with others is not a necessity, as in coalitions, for instance. The 2010 coalition didn't work after the Lib Dems conceded on a key policy (tuition fees) but then were only offered a referendum on AV, not PR, which the same people as were behind the EU Leave campaigns rallied to persuade to country to reject anyway - with mainly spurious arguments.

Similarly, the anti-EU groups here cannot understand that this is not between two parties: UK v EU: it's between the UK and a coalition of 27 other countries who, for better or worse, consider membership of the EU valuable enough to make concessions if they have to. To anti-EU people, this is 'bullying'.

My jaw dropped at the end of last night's shambles when the politicians had voted NOT to ask for an extension to Art. 50 but then voted to 'renegotiate' what had been made clear by the 27 was not open for negotiation. This is the behaviour of children.

[Dave2002]

And why when we are still in the EU?

Because for several years now the UK has been frozen out of participation in EU projects. Contracts for new projects do not come to the UK and extensions of existing contracts are not renewed. We may still be in the EU, but we are no longer treated as a partner that the other countries want to have on board.

[Dave2002]

My jaw dropped at the end of last night's shambles when the politicians had voted NOT to ask for an extension to Art. 50 but then voted to 'renegotiate' what had been made clear by the 27 was not open for negotiation. This is the behaviour of children.

You are assuming that logical arguments will lead to an agreement. Sometimes that does not happen, and I have seen examples in which outrageous (IMO) behaviour did eventually lead to agreement, though on a much smaller scale than negotiations with the EU.

[french frank]

You are assuming that logical arguments will lead to an agreement. Sometimes that does not happen, and I have seen examples in which outrageous (IMO) behaviour did eventually lead to agreement, though on a much smaller scale than negotiations with the EU.

It may be that with members of the public that is the case. With representatives with real responsibilties one would have hoped that they would have weighed up the possibilities in an informed, 'logical' way. But then, I never behave outrageously so what would I understand?

[Dave2002]

I think your assumption “.. one would have hoped...” is where you are going wrong.

In the meantime I found this very interesting article about supply chains and business effectiveness - not directly EU/UK related but maybe relevant: A Tiny Screw Shows Why iPhones Won’t Be ‘Assembled in U.S.A.’ - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/iphones-apple-china-made.html