Brexit 2020+

Keep scrolloing down, it gets really interesting at financial services.

So many docs to read:

EC.EUROPA.EU "https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-623-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF"

This one is for the Channel Tunnel, and insists that the whole link be under EU regs… with France being handed the responsibly for sorting that with “us”.

OK Dougie took his toys, but can anyone support his concerns of an EU ‘superstate’? I believe in trying one’s level best to try and gather indeoendent evidence which SUPPORTS one’s opponent’s arguments, ie try and win their argument rather than defeat it. This, I find, is a good way to see how well that argument stands ups. Best practise and all.

I’d like to see the ‘evidence’ that fuelled the scaremongering*. He didn’t just pluck it out of his gut? IIRC Dougie said that of all issues that the ‘superstate’ was the ‘crux’ of his gut-instinct before voting leave. So what fuelled that instinct?

*(other than the drip-drip of decades of baseless bullshit in the shape of anti-EU/Nationalistic tabloidism that happened long before before the tsunami of same leading up to referendum)

I’m nieve but I’ve learned a lot from this.

Apologies for wasting your time.

If the former statement is sincere then it's not been a waste of time.

can anyone support his concerns of an EU ‘superstate’?

I don't actually know what he / it means or why it was something to be concerned about. I asked for clarification but (I know, I was astonished too) didn't get an answer.

I think that, in addition to the lazy and baseless reporting of "them EU lot dictating to us/wanting an army" etc, lazy politicians using the EU as a scapegoat go hand in hand, and fuelled the "them and us" mentality.

Yes I am sincere you guys have taught me alot, and I have to admit I was heavily biased to vote leave by my father. My father said that to have a nation you need a currency and an army, we have the euro so ....

Edit I knew it wasnt plucked from thin air,

German chancellor Merkel said “we ought to work on the vision of one day establishing a proper European army” in her address to the European Parliament in November 2018

On my gut feeling

Its the whole ever closer thing, where does it end? I saw how Tony Blair teamed up with USA to take us into two wars which I was desperately against, yes I know NATO could do the same. I just imagined a time when we are so integrated with the EU that we now have a bloc which can field an army, we don't need more armies.

The EU has never stated what the end goal of union is, is it to maintain the status quo until the end or will it become one large federal state?

I also fear us being so entwined in the whole thing that if it does come down we end up even worse off.

You can laugh at my fears but are they relevant? Yes gut feelings are logically irrational but they exist and cant be ignored.

Interesting. Why do you frame the European Union as something with an ‘end goal‘?

Because everything comes to an end, every country and nation comes to an end and changes, and yes the EU has been stable for 40 years but thats a blink of an eye in human history. So what is the direction? Maintaining the status quo will lead to stagnation, so where does ever closer lead?

It ends where we want it to end, when we want it to end.

Brexit to avoid a slippery slope to...<something intangible but probably bad> makes about as much sense as burning down your house to avoid the possibility that the next owner might redecorate in a colour you don't like.

Or, staying in bed in the morning, because if you get up you might get dressed, and if you get dressed you might go out for a walk, and if you go out for a walk you might go into the local pub, and if you go into the local pub you might meet the local weed dealer, and if you you meet the local weed dealer.....and to save me some typing it might end with your nasty death as a heroin addict. Well, it could happen, right?

But no-one sane would use that possible outcome as a justification for staying in bed, would they? So why is the fear that the country might choose to do something undefined at some time in the future that you have some vague uneasy feeling about, a valid justification for ****ing up the country for decades right now?

Youre right, Ive admitted as much in my apology. However I don't need analogies im not a child. Malvern asked me a question.

You've raised the issue of currency and there have point, Dougie. I'm very happy with the Euro in my pocket but I'm unhappy with the way it's implemented. If you have a central bank for a zone then one of its roles should be to provide finance. To do that it must be able to print money and issue bonds which until an few days ago was taboo.

All the Euro countries have the same currency but in recent years interest rates across the zone have varied from -.5% to over 25%. The countries the most in difficulty end up paying the most for their money. Sunderland has the same interest rates as Surrey. I'd like to see Spain with the same interest rates as Germany.

The Dollar works because the Fed can print, raise and distribute money in the best interest of the USA as a whole, the Euro zone needs that too or the rich nations will get richer (the lenders) and the poor nations (the borrowers) will get poorer at a high rate than differences in productivity alone would lead to.

Signing up to the Euro countries knew that they would lose the ability to competitively devalue, what they didn't anticipate was paying punitive levels of interest.

The Euro zone needs a Fed and a Greenspan.

Thanks again for contributing to this thread dougiedogg.

My father said that to have a nation you need a currency and an army

Are you a rugby fan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Nations_Championship

The UK is more than one nation, but shares a currency.

My father wore RAF, NATO and UN cap badges. If he was alive and serving today, it’s very likely he would have worn an EU one. Deploying and training forces has been an international affair for decades. An EU force, with troops deployed within it from many European countries, isn’t a sign that those countries cease to matter, or be sovereign, it is just the inevitable result of the USA reducing their involvement in Europe, while we still have shared defence needs and obligations towards each either on this continent. Militarily, to stand alone is to be defeated. The 21st Century taught us that, if nothing else.

Well I just received my last EHIC card. Next year when I go on holiday I will need to buy separate health insurance. In the age of Covid-19 how much is that going to cost?

I seem to remember someone on this forum saying that living abroad was no problem - if you need medical care you can just pop back to Blighty. How is that working out in the world of pandemics? Talk about a "perfect storm"!!

living abroad was no problem – if you need medical care you can just pop back to Blighty.

Your ability to do so is limited

I went to the dentists on holiday in the UK (why do teeth always break on holiday?). I still have the brown piece of cardboard issued to me as a kid with my national insurance number on it so when it came to the question of payment I quoted the number, no joy - no UK address, not resident, not interested in my NI number. So I handed over my French EHIC card which was accepted with a smile.

German chancellor Merkel said “we ought to work on the vision of one day establishing a proper European army” in her address to the European Parliament in November 2018

This is actually true. Macron suggested something similar the year before. But what they're talking about is a common defence policy rather than an "army" and there is little appetite for it across the EU as a whole anyway. Politicians suggest things all the time, it's kinda their job, but there's light years' gulf between "an MEP suggested" and "the EU is planning."

And in any case, at the risk of repeating myself, "so what?" Why do you care? If the EU is planning on building an army (it isn't) you have had one of three options:

1) Stay in the EU, go "this is a good idea" and have a big army at your disposal.
2) Stay in the EU, go "this is a bad idea" and veto it.
3) Leave the EU and be powerless to prevent an organisation you're scared is turning into a state (which you still haven't explained despite me asking about six times now) from amassing a big army on your doorstep that could potentially be used against us.

On what planet is 3) the more favourable option here? If it were true (it isn't) it'd be one of the single most compelling reasons not to leave that I could think of.

Its the whole ever closer thing, where does it end?

"Slippery slope" is a well documented logical fallacy, google it.

So what is the direction?

Whatever the direction is, there's **** all we can do about it now is there.

What's the "direction" of our current government? Where does that end?

Oh I don't know why I'm bothering. You're just going to change the subject again.

If you value learning things then please answer my responses to your questions even if it's just agreement or disagreement otherwise I'm wasting my time and I'm not doing it any more.

And stop listening to your father and start thinking for yourself rather than regurgitating his politics. This is how cults work.

Here.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/security/20190612STO54310/eu-army-myth-what-is-europe-really-doing-to-boost-defence

meh Brexit is a cult thou, futile arguing with those who pray at its alter.

Better after the edit, Cougar. 😉 But quoting one line from your father isn't regurgitating his politics.

His father's definition is a bit short but there's some truth in it. I was aware France was losing some of its policy making independence in adopting the Euro but would have still voted for it given the chance (which I wasn't). Of the things that define a nation an army is definitely on the list, how else can a country defend its territorial interests without resorting to nukes at the first transgression?

But the idea of the EU as a nation currently fails on many levels and we're getting no closer.
Language, fiscal independence, administrative independence, legal independence (which is important within a nation as much as between nations), education, health, defence... .

France won't be handing over the keys to its nukes any time soon, or deploying them if Russia nibbles away at the Ukraine. However, a better cordinated European force drawing on units from any willing member state with a clear mission to defend European integrity would make Putin's ambitions harder to achieve. I'm in favour.

I quoted the Merkle thing from the same article cougar. Sometimes politicians do say what they really mean though. Also two different people can read things in an entirely different way based on bias.

On the choices, yes you are right number 1 is the most sensible I tried to explain that the EU has a currency but not an Army. To be honest an Army run by 28 nations would have a hard time working out where it's orders were coming from

I tried to explain that the EU motto is ever closer. I really don't know how to explain my EU as a state idea so you don't need to push on it.

To be honest an Army run by 28 nations would have a hard time working out where it’s orders were coming from

You get that personnel from national armies often work together though, under a single chain of command, yes? Not sure how simple we need to be in explaining this stuff.

Are you against all cooperation? Or only if done by EU countries? You know that NATO is 30 nations? The UN obviously more.

I don't understand why the idea of an EU army idea offers such terrors to the Brexit fans...They're often fond of looking back at Battle of Britain imagery, well, we had pilots from France, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia , in fact so many from Belgium and Poland, they had their own squadrons...All coming together to fight a common foe.

Pretty sure I mentioned NATO in one of my comments and I meant 28 national interests not 28 separate chains of command.

Kelvin I've come a long way in a short time, it would be nice if you tried to engage me in a slightly less condescending tone

Please, just answer the question so we can get what you are on about. Is it just the idea of personnel from many countries working under an EU remit that is your problem? What about NATO and UN? And can you see that the changing priorities of the USA make NATO and UN deployment pretty much a thing of the past, which is why focus on the EU doing more has become an issue. Give us an idea about what you understand about combined military training and deployment, and why the EU shouldn’t do it. Are you against the UK working with other countries militarily in general? Against other countries doing so generally? Or just against countries doing so under the EU auspice? Or just against the UK doing so under the EU auspice?

But quoting one line from your father isn’t regurgitating his politics.

Yeah, but I've seen this movie before. There's a couple of guys at work who are exactly the same. When you unpick it it's just the Daily Express argument in different pants, they've had the drip... drip... drip... all their life.

Anyway. Dougie, thank you for your candour.

Sometimes politicians do say what they really mean though.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.

But as I said before, you cannot hold up two sentences as representative of "the EU" and cherry-picking things that support your argument is another logical fallacy. We've left now, where's that £350m for the NHS we were carrotted?

To be honest an Army run by 28 nations would have a hard time working out where it’s orders were coming from

Again, as above, the real intent is collaboration not control. This is the "being told what to do by Brussels" fear again.

I really don’t know how to explain my EU as a state idea

If you can't explain what you mean then I / we cannot respond to that I'm afraid.

I tried to explain that the EU motto is ever closer.

Yes. Between people. For example, bringing the people of the UK closer to the people of Ireland. The people of France closer to the people of Germany, etc.

I’ll dig up some old explainers about what ‘ever closer’ is all about, especially as regarding removing misunderstandings and mistrust between the people of different countries, to avoid the wars of the past…

That this stuff is still so misunderstood is a reminder about how gaslit we have become about the EU.

Two dry but concise summaries:

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7230/

On currency,

https://www.ft.com/content/4fd04fd9-7209-4b7c-97a1-97466f226159

(Whatever your allegiances, the FT knows a bit about money.)

“We believe sterling is in the process of evolving into a currency that resembles the underlying reality of the British economy: small and shrinking with a growing dual deficit problem similar to more liquid [emerging market] currencies,”

Something something price worth paying EU Army something.

That's a depressing article - but not surprising.
It's consistent with various posts on the Coronanomics thread.
Will be interesting to see how other banking analysts react/respond.

@dougiedogg - I've been following this with interest and resisting the urge to get involved, and now I've folded. I have to ask: Why would a superstate be bad? Surely it has way more upside than down?

I'm baffled by nationalism and patriotism, truly. And I think a post nationality world enabled by technology would a) be a good thing and b) is almost within our grasp. I accept I may have a niche point of view, even if it is dearly held and I wish more would share it.

But my assumption is you feel belonging to a superstate would rob you of part of your identity? Is that it? It's a funny old world... My identity in-terms of how I think of myself would be something like: Cyclist, husband, work stuff, friends, European, family, reluctant Brit. So maybe change your mind on the superstate fears by leaning into the cycling more? (Only partially facetious)

That this stuff is still so misunderstood is a reminder about how gaslit we have become about the EU.

A million times this. How the hell did we end up in a situation where 'our' national reaction to any form of cooperation with the EU is one of scepticism/hostility?

Well played Mr Murdoch.

Reluctant- I understand your view on Nationalism, I thank that was part of my thinking, why be part of a small club when in reality we want to be part of the bigger all world club and as you say technology allows for that.

Anyway, on the EU army, yes NATO is becoming less relevant with Trumps comments but as the EU we still need to defend the eastern border. I'm not against cooperation as long as it is pointed in the right direction and an EU army would probably be relevant in the context of defence from the east.

Guys I'll say it again, thanks for all your comments, I've come full circle. To avoid being asked the same questions for which I have no logical answer and by ever increasing numbers of people, I will bow out of this thread.

Thanks for helping me learn to challenge deep held ideas.

For all of our sakes I hope Brexit can work out.

For all of our sakes I hope Brexit can work out.

I'm going to avoid being too aggressive here, but expressing 'hope' that something might come along to mitigate the worst effects of you burning our house down is a little bit hypocritical. Surely you should have had some idea of what to build in its place that is better than what was there before?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that it was an attempt at a conciliatory 'sign off', rather than fanning the flames so, whatever.

I thought that a nice post from Dougie. He is questioning his assumptions and learnt a bit about the remainer point of view

Well done keeping it civil @dougiedogg

I thought that a nice post from Dougie. He is questioning his assumptions and learnt a bit about the remainer point of view

You have 'grown as a person', haven't you?

😉😉😉

an amusing picture detailing all the complex relationships on the european continent. Note bottom left corner where we are
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50161393458_0f4de3022e_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50161393458_0f4de3022e_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/2jqAfFm ]Image1[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/25846484@N04/ ]TandemJeremy[/url], on Flickr

I accept I may have a niche point of view, even if it is dearly held and I wish more would share it.

You'll get no argument from me. I've posted it before, but my sense of heritage comes from culture and family rather than politics and statehood. This also deeply affects what the word 'nation' means to me. Being part of a larger political entity (the posited superstate) would have minimal effect on my identity in that context.

Short version? The sooner we get to a global Star Trek type scenario the better.

The sooner we get to a global Star Trek type scenario the better.

This. So entirely this.

Not all members of the E.U. Use the Euro.

Interesting reading Dougies “journey” I wonder where the ardent Leavers Jambalaya and the other one are now.

Short version? The sooner we get to a global Star Trek type scenario the better.

If you step away from current notions of 'nation', 'bloc', continent or whatever you start to come to the conclusion that with the world population what it is and projected to be vs finite resources, closer cooperation is the only logical answer.

That is if you have the greater good in mind.

What we have seen prior to about 2008 is a gradual, kicking and screaming, pulling of 'nations' towards that kind of thinking. Unfortunately we started to fall at the first hurdle. 2008 kicked off a movement towards insularity that has taken root in many places, that has led to more national-level chest thumping and more wasted years. And still the infinite growth vs finite resources time bomb ticks down.

I just wish, oh so very much, that our little national tantrum had been expressed in a way that wasn't irreversible. As I have said many times, even Cletus and Billy Bob down there in Alabama expressed their tantrum in a way that can be, comparatively, easily reversed. And yet, we still laugh at the US with Trump in charge....

Sign me up for Star Trek style federation too. Some of the 'anti-globalist' messaging has a pretty sinister undertone to it IMO. No coincidence that George Soros is a favoured target.

Does this mean we are Klingons here in Blighty?

Or as Barnier et al now probably think of us 'cling-ons' or 'tagnuts' or 'clinkers'.

I just wish, oh so very much, that our little national tantrum had been expressed in a way that wasn’t irreversible.

Very much this. Which is why it is depressing that, when it mattered most (too late now), so much energy went into persuading the voters of the UK that we had to Leave because of that referendum... that to reconsider doing so... or even to have a say in how we do so... was "undemocratic". The big push wasn't about how Brexit would improve our lives... but all about how it had to happen, to preserve democracy. I fear that we will never recover from the additional damage that reframing of what "democracy" is has done, in addition to the damage of Brexit itself.

Democracy means never saying sorry.

Never allow the public to cool off.

I fear that we will never recover from the additional damage that reframing of what “democracy” is has done, in addition to the damage of Brexit itself.

That is another excellent angle I hadn't considered much, the US tantrum was expressed through their normal democratic process and in a way that was reversible. Sure, their democracy is also taking hits as Trump goes rogue and uses all means possible as do those that block him. But I get the feeling that the sensible Americans actually just view Trump as a blip.

We held an opinion poll that somehow became binding and then bent 'our' notion of democracy to make it fit. And the results are not reversible. Either in direct terms or collateral damage. Yay us.

I can't help but feel that the US will go back to some sort of sense at the end of this year and we are going to be left looking even more ridiculous.

Fair play Dougie. A bit late, sadly, but better late than never.