Brexit isn't possible

[Estro Felino]

Moving the goalposts I see. Your statement was about the EU being some "franco-german dictatorship".
That's what I called just air. Now, you're moving to a "what if" question instead...

Idiots like Le Pen being elected president won't be good for ANYTHING. The EU, France itself, the world.
Just like an idiot like Trump being elected was bad for the US, Nato, the world.

If you are going to try and judge the merrits of a united europe by asking what-if questions like "what if the worst possible people get elected".... What do you want me to tell you?
Yes, if bs idiots get elected, it won't be good for anything - including the EU.

Do you even realize that the Souverainist mouvement is growing in many countries?
Verhofstadt's dream of a Federal Europe will vanish.

 

[Augustus]

You mean, the border between northern ireland and the EU? The place where no hard borders are allowed according to the good friday treaty?

North Sea "border"

Yes, the brexiteer mantra.
Not a single one of them has ever shown with hard numbers, statistics and evidence how that is true though.

Every study attempting to demonstrate such, ends up showing the opposite: that the UK will be worse off out then in.

Long term economic forecasts (not specifically Brexit forecasts) are about as reliable as horoscopes and there is plenty of data to back this up.

Anyway, my point was about the long term future of the EU, not the short term future of the UK.

You will never hear me say that the EU is perfect and/or doesn't have issues.

I just don't think that throwing the baby out along with the water is the solution.
The EU has more advantages then disadvantages and it is worth the effort to work on it and improve what is wrong with it, instead of blowing the whole thing up.

The benefits largely derive from the economic community, and don't require the political and bureaucratic bloat and ideological fancies that have characterised the project though.

But the EU has always been as much (if not more) an ideological project than a practical one. If it were primarily about improving the economic situation of the average European then it would be fine, but the dream has always been a liberal European empire (ever closer union). That's why they keep on doing stupid things that will end up destroying the EU and risking the stability of Europe (the Euro, cooking the books to let Greece into the Euro, forcing Greece to stay in the Euro, rushing full membership to Eastern European countries, numerous 'one size fits all' centralising policies, etc.).

Many people are simply in love with an idea of Europe as a beacon of progressive globalism that embodies a Whiggish view of history/the Idea of Progress where the ultimate destination for human society is Western liberal democracy and globalised harmony.

Perhaps in the 80s and early 90s such a view wasn't entirely irrational (Fukuyama's End of History for example), but the fact that no lessons have been learned since then shows wilful ignorance more than naivety.

The rise of the far right in Europe (yet really in the UK though funnily enough) is driven, in part, by the EU. The EUs response to everything is "more Europe" while dismissing those who object as ignorant, bigoted racists, who else could oppose the enlightened vision of the EU technocrats after all?

Pro-EU echo chambers constantly reassure each other that they are going to be on the 'right side of history', but to be certain about that requires a lot more ideological blindness and wilful ignorance than believing the UK can do fine in the long term post-Brexit future.

 

[Augustus]

I'm guessing it will be if and when bombs start exploding again.

Or perhaps when NI gets a booming economy due to the massive competitive advantage it would acquire it helps improve the situation. It really would be a great deal for them to be both 'in' the EU and the UK, even you have to admit that surely.

Anyway, what happens in the long term is pretty much irrelevant to the point which is that it is no real political obstacle re the British electorate because people don't really care about regions of the UK they don't live in.

How much do you think NY voters would care about some localised border checks that resulted from the creation of a special economic zone in Texas? How many people would it cause to actually change their vote?

 

[Rival]

To me, the E.U. resembles more the Soviet Union than, say, the U.S. I think those who wholly support the E.U. see it as more U.S. like, and those of us who don't see it as C.C.C.P. like.

From a mile off, with 20/20 hindsight, anyone could see that the Soviet Union was doomed. It was ruled by a foreign power no-one really liked, (in the E.U.'s case that would be practically Germany), they gathered countries under one economic system, tried to exclude others and/or make it hard to trade with others who weren't part of their Soviet Sphere of Influence/Satellite States, and pushing not only the economic but the political/social ideology as well. This is a huge part of what led to the Soviet Union's decline. Very few regular people wanted much if anything to do with this ideology that had been fostered upon them, but the economic benefits (had the system done what it was supposed to do) could have been, and actually often were, very beneficial (schools, hospitals etc.), but at the end of the day, it was a fractured, glued-together union run by a team of people who couldn't see past their ideological noses to recognise the problems that actually needed to be fixed. Had they done that there would probably still be a Soviet Union.

But there isn't. Just like in 20 or 30 years time, there'll probably be no E.U.

I know that sounds stupid, but saying to someone in the 60s 'In 30 years time there'll be no C.C.C.P' would have sounded just as absurd.

But what do you know?

 

[Augustus]

Do you even realize that the Souverainist mouvement is growing in many countries?
Verhofstadt's dream of a Federal Europe will vanish.

An interesting article: Long read: The European Union is a liberal empire, and it is about to fall

(@TagliatelliMonster may be of interest to you also)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you even realize that the Souverainist mouvement is growing in many countries?
Verhofstadt's dream of a Federal Europe will vanish.

What I realise is that populism is on the rise in many countries and that this populism all bluster, pessimism, dividing, xenophobic, borderline racist, etc etc etc.

What I also realise, is that these populists are employing extremely unethical online campaigning methods.
These people aren't a problem for europe per say. They are a problem for everything, democracy in general being the most important one. Not just abroad, but also internally.

Like Trumpy, blowing up treaty after treaty.

I don't see these people as a threat to Europe per say. I see them as a threat to democracy everywhere, first and foremost in their very own countries.

These issues are NOT about Europe, nore are they even European issues. They are rather issues resulting from xenophobic campaigning on social media - people out to disrupt global proceedings. Trump's election is the result of exactly this problem. That didn't have anything to do with Europe either.

Anti-european nonsense is part of their mantra, sure.
Just like anti-nato, anti-solidarity, anti-plenty of other things.

I call them the "anti people". They are extremely good at yapping about all the things they are "against". What they bring is a negative message in that sense.

We have parties like that in Belgium as well, that tend to do disturbingly well at times.
We all know VERY well all the things they are "against". They are also very good at labeling things as "problems". But offering constructive (and legal) solutions to these problems or things they are "against"... nope... that's not part of their program.

That's actually something we see in the xenophobic hardline brexiteers as well, btw.... During the unethical online campaign, they also were VERY good at listing all the things they were "against". They also went a step further and flat out LIED about how they could leave and what that would mean. And now here we are, 3 years down the line at a complete impasse... and they are incapable of delivering that which they promised - because their promise was based only on lies and a string of things they were "against".

So all in all, your comments about Le Pen and other xenophobic racist idiots are quite irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[LuisDantas]

What I realise is that populism is on the rise in many countries and that this populism all bluster, pessimism, dividing, xenophobic, borderline racist, etc etc etc.

That is indeed the crux of the matter.

Nationalism is bound to die. It is a beast that can not survive. But its death throes are very destructive indeed, because they are fed by uninformed, irrational expectations of so many people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

North Sea "border"

So northern ireland would be excluded from a trade deal between the UK and the US?

This is what the northern ireland only backstop was.... which was the proposal given by the EU a few weeks after the referendum, which was subsequently shut down by the UK with the words that "no prime minister could ever allow such a thing".

Long term economic forecasts (not specifically Brexit forecasts) are about as reliable as horoscopes and there is plenty of data to back this up.

Anyway, my point was about the long term future of the EU, not the short term future of the UK.

So you say that long term economic forecasts are not reliable? So that means that your argument/point about the EU isn't reliable either, since by your own acknowledgement, whatever data you could use to base that on, would be unreliable?



I skipped the rest of your post. I initially wrote a reply, but I feel it's derailing into yet another debate about pro or con the EU and this thread isn't about that.

It's about hardline brexiteers and how they thought Brexit would work, considering the conflicting issues concerning border requirements on the one hand and good friday on the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or perhaps when NI gets a booming economy due to the massive competitive advantage it would acquire it helps improve the situation. It really would be a great deal for them to be both 'in' the EU and the UK, even you have to admit that surely.

Sure, if it wasn't for The Troubles, there would be no issue.
But the reality is that the good friday agreement is there for a reason and the people in Ireland (on both sides of the border) care about it very very much.

Anyway, what happens in the long term is pretty much irrelevant to the point which is that it is no real political obstacle re the British electorate because people don't really care about regions of the UK they don't live in.

The Good Friday treaty is "no real political obstacle"???

Perhaps the UK electorate outside of Ireland "doesn't care" about that, but I assure you that all other parties involved (both irelands, the EU,... even the US) care very much.

How much do you think NY voters would care about some localised border checks that resulted from the creation of a special economic zone in Texas? How many people would it cause to actually change their vote?

Right, that's the same....

Can I ask, how old are you?
Do you remember last century?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me, the E.U. resembles more the Soviet Union than, say, the U.S. I think those who wholly support the E.U. see it as more U.S. like, and those of us who don't see it as C.C.C.P. like.

From a mile off, with 20/20 hindsight, anyone could see that the Soviet Union was doomed. It was ruled by a foreign power no-one really liked, (in the E.U.'s case that would be practically Germany), they gathered countries under one economic system, tried to exclude others and/or make it hard to trade with others who weren't part of their Soviet Sphere of Influence/Satellite States, and pushing not only the economic but the political/social ideology as well. This is a huge part of what led to the Soviet Union's decline. Very few regular people wanted much if anything to do with this ideology that had been fostered upon them, but the economic benefits (had the system done what it was supposed to do) could have been, and actually often were, very beneficial (schools, hospitals etc.), but at the end of the day, it was a fractured, glued-together union run by a team of people who couldn't see past their ideological noses to recognise the problems that actually needed to be fixed. Had they done that there would probably still be a Soviet Union.

But there isn't. Just like in 20 or 30 years time, there'll probably be no E.U.

I know that sounds stupid, but saying to someone in the 60s 'In 30 years time there'll be no C.C.C.P' would have sounded just as absurd.

But what do you know?

That's nice. But not the topic.
The topic is Brexit and how it can be done in the way brexiteers want it without it blowing up the good friday agreement.

This isn't about the EU. It's about post-EU borders and how they are in conflict with good friday.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An interesting article: Long read: The European Union is a liberal empire, and it is about to fall

(@TagliatelliMonster may be of interest to you also)

Neat.
Create a thread about it where you summarize the main points and I'll be happy to participate.

Let's try and stay on topic in this thread, wich is about post-EU borders and good friday and how brexiteers seem to be completely ignoring that aspect.

 

[Augustus]

Nationalism is bound to die. It is a beast that can not survive. But its death throes are very destructive indeed, because they are fed by uninformed, irrational expectations of so many people.

What do you consider most likely to replace it? Globalism? Localism? Something else?

 

[Altfish]

This is not mine, but worth repeating...

"The year is 2192. The British Prime Minister visits Brussels to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many tourists from all over the world."

 

[Augustus]

Sure, if it wasn't for The Troubles, there would be no issue.
But the reality is that the good friday agreement is there for a reason and the people in Ireland (on both sides of the border) care about it very very much.

So, who would be opposed to a North Sea border in your opinion?

The Good Friday treaty is "no real political obstacle"???

Perhaps the UK electorate outside of Ireland "doesn't care" about that, but I assure you that all other parties involved (both irelands, the EU,... even the US) care very much.

The GFA isn't what is preventing Brexit though.

The only reason it hasn't already been sorted out is the result of the last UK general election and the fact that, by happenstance, at this point in time the ruling party doesn't have a large majority.

Right, that's the same....

Do you genuinely think the average person cares much about technicalities that only affect people and places far away from them and that they never visit?

Can I ask, how old are you?
Do you remember last century?

Old enough.

IIRC you are from Belgium, how familiar with the nuances of Nationalist/Loyalist politics are you?

 

[Flankerl]

I think those who wholly support the E.U. see it as more U.S. like

Well no, people usually don't.
Also being Federal is usually something rather good as it keeps the power from the central government and spreads it out over the federal states to keep the central government from accumulating too much power like in unitary states.

From a mile off, with 20/20 hindsight, anyone could see that the Soviet Union was doomed. It was ruled by a foreign power no-one really liked, (in the E.U.'s case that would be practically Germany)

The highest EU committee has the horrible idea of the veto.
So whether Germany wants something or not is irrelevant when another member country uses its veto.
Also it's France and Germany who are at the core of the EU, along with the other founders of the ECSC.

they gathered countries under one economic system

So that doesn't happen in the EU.

tried to exclude others and/or make it hard to trade with others who weren't part of their Soviet Sphere of Influence/Satellite States

It's so incredibly tedious how British people in particular struggle to understand the common market.

When there are no border controls for goods and services the entirety of the market has to operate as one, otherwise goods and services that are simply illegal in other member countries will find its way there.

Funnily enough the UK used to be quite involved in trade within the EU and spearheaded various trade deals.

Very few regular people wanted much if anything to do with this ideology that had been fostered upon them, but the economic benefits (had the system done what it was supposed to do) could have been, and actually often were, very beneficial (schools, hospitals etc.), but at the end of the day, it was a fractured, glued-together union run by a team of people who couldn't see past their ideological noses to recognise the problems that actually needed to be fixed. Had they done that there would probably still be a Soviet Union.

The EU parliament is elected by the citizens of the EU.
The European council is made up of the elected heads of Government of the member countries.
The "evil" European Commission is made up of 28 commissioners, one from each member country.

So there's one unelected body out of 3 and that one in particular is as diverse as it possibly gets.

It's good that the UK has no unelected higher ups. Or even aristocratic Lords.
Now that would be really weird.

But there isn't. Just like in 20 or 30 years time, there'll probably be no E.U.

I know that sounds stupid, but saying to someone in the 60s 'In 30 years time there'll be no C.C.C.P' would have sounded just as absurd.

Since the whole Brexit fiasco began support for the EU has only risen in the EU 27.
All of the separatist movements have toned down their rhetoric and lost support.

Meanwhile Irish unity is closer than it has ever been and Scotland might just break free upon Brexit.


Though I've listened to enough LBC call ins to know that nothing I could ever say would change your mind.
The lorry drivers said it would ruin their lives and it didn't matter.
The farmers said it would ruin their lives and it didn't matter.
The list just goes on and on.

"Taking back control" only to never be able to articulate a single law that annoys them so much.
Well apart from all the made up ones by the British press.

 

[Augustus]

So northern ireland would be excluded from a trade deal between the UK and the US?

Nope, countries with special economic zones sign treaties all the time. It's not rocket science.

This is what the northern ireland only backstop was.... which was the proposal given by the EU a few weeks after the referendum, which was subsequently shut down by the UK with the words that "no prime minister could ever allow such a thing".

And then the PM decided it was fine to allow such a thing. As they say, a week is a long time in politics.

So you say that long term economic forecasts are not reliable? So that means that your argument/point about the EU isn't reliable either, since by your own acknowledgement, whatever data you could use to base that on, would be unreliable?

I'm basing that largely on the past, present and human nature, not some pseudo-scientific forecasting methodology that has proven to be about as reliable as flipping a coin.

I'm fairly confident I'll be proved right in time, but, as has been said, 'it's tough making predictions, particularly about the future'

 

[LuisDantas]

What do you consider most likely to replace it? Globalism? Localism? Something else?

Globalism is indeed unavoidable, as well as indispensable. We have reached a level of impact on the environment and among our mutual communities that makes that plain. It is quite dismaying to see that so many people are on denial about that.

Localism, of course, is also very much necessary, mainly because demographic levels make it so.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Globalism is indeed unavoidable, as well as indispensable. We have reached a level of impact on the environment and among our mutual communities that makes that plain. It is quite dismaying to see that so many people are on denial about that.

Localism, of course, is also very much necessary, mainly because demographic levels make it so.

That is worth considering.

Pollution is concerning, but how does globalism guarantee an improvement? Might it not make things worse and at a faster pace? Who is to say that a global community would be better at saving the planet? We have large, multi state countries; and they are no environmental panacea. They still threaten it. Who is to say that diversity in the form of smaller nations won't be a better stop gap?

 

[LuisDantas]

That is worth considering.

Pollution is concerning, but how does globalism guarantee an improvement? Might it not make things worse and at a faster pace? Who is to say that a global community would be better at saving the planet? We have large, multi state countries; and they are no environmental panacea. They still threaten it. Who is to say that diversity in the form of smaller nations won't be a better stop gap?

Coordinated, cooperative efforts have no true alternative, when it comes to dealing with things such as demographic planning, ecological viability, and use of natural resources.

I just don't see how that can be attained without some form of Globalism.

Smaller nations are essentially what brought us to this current situation, and while they are _somewhat_ more stable (not quite as much in these resource-hungry times), they are no help in actually solving anything of global significance.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Coordinated, cooperative efforts have no true alternative, when it comes to dealing with things such as demographic planning, ecological viability, and use of natural resources.

I just don't see how that can be attained without some form of Globalism.

Smaller nations are essentially what brought us to this current situation, and while they are _somewhat_ more stable (not quite as much in these resource-hungry times), they are no help in actually solving anything of global significance.

Well...I get that, but I don't see government doing anything permanently useful. When was the last time a government did something good that was not accomplished through inaction? I'm convinced we must look to new technology not government to protect resources. We must hope for that, because government never proves trustworthy or permanent.