47
   

Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 07:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Mr Rees-Mogg, a leading figure in the eurosceptic ERG group of Tory MPs, had said this morning that "if a long extension leaves us stuck in the EU we should be as difficult as possible".
He suggested: "We could veto any increase in the budget, obstruct the putative EU army and block Mr Macron’s integrationist schemes".

A spokesperson for the European Commission suggested that the Tory MP was essentially irrelevant and not involved in negotiations.
And Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator, also piled in. Seizing on Mogg’s comments, he said: "For those in the EU who may be tempted to further extend the Brexit saga, I can only say, be careful what you wish for."
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 08:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
France has doubled down on its opposition to Britain being granted any further Brexit extension without a concrete plan that has clear support in the Commons, warning that without one Britain must be deemed to have chosen to leave the EU without a deal.

“The European council took a clear decision on 21 March,” France’s new secretary of state for European affairs, Amélie de Montchalin, said in a statement. “Another extension requires the UK to puts forward a plan with clear and credible political backing.”

The council would then “have to define the necessary conditions attached to this extension”, De Montchalin said, adding that “in the absence of such a plan, we would have to acknowledge that the UK chose to leave the EU in a disorderly manner.”

De Montchalin said Paris had “read with interest Theresa May’s letter to President Tusk. As the Prime Minister rightly wrote, the current impasse is not in the best interest of either the UK nor the EU. It cannot be allowed to continue.”

(via the Guardian's live-blog)
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 08:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, has said that Theresa May’s letter to Donald Tusk today does not answer some of the EU’s key questions.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 09:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
According to Reuters, Norbert Roettgen, head of the foreign affairs committee in the German parliament, said that Theresa May’s request for an article 50 extension until just 30 June made no sense and was motivated by "domestic tactical manoeuvring".
A source close to President Macron told Reuters that France was not ready to accept an extension of article 50 unless the UK presented a clear plan for the future and added: "We’re not there today."
livinglava
 
  0  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 09:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

According to Reuters, Norbert Roettgen, head of the foreign affairs committee in the German parliament, said that Theresa May’s request for an article 50 extension until just 30 June made no sense and was motivated by "domestic tactical manoeuvring".
A source close to President Macron told Reuters that France was not ready to accept an extension of article 50 unless the UK presented a clear plan for the future and added: "We’re not there today."

It seems like all this drama is based on the fear surrounding a no deal Brexit.

Surely the solution to that is to go ahead without a deal and handle it in a way that averts whatever it is people are afraid will happen without a deal.

What exactly are the fears of a no-deal Brexit, anyway?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 10:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Mr Rees-Mogg ... had said this morning ...

Rees-Mogg totally overstates the potential disruption the UK could cause (or he doesn't know it better):
1. There is no budget to veto
2. The UK can't veto further defence co-op, or EU job appointments
3. Integration schemes need EU law. The EU-elections for the new parliament are in May.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 11:44 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Labour said it was disappointed Theresa May had not offered "real change or compromise" over her plan to leave the EU in talks with the opposition party.

The the SNP’s leader, Nicola Sturgeon tweeted: "This is similar to when I met PM on Wednesday. She wanted to know where we could compromise, but refused to indicate any compromise she might make. It is a bizarre approach from someone who made great play of wanting to find consensus - and has just wasted yet more time."

And EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, will visit Dublin on Monday for Brexit talks with the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 12:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May’s government is ready to hold more discussions with the opposition Labour party this weekend over Brexit, a spokesman for May’s office said on Friday.

“We have made serious proposals in talks this week and are prepared to pursue changes to the Political Declaration in order to deliver a deal that is acceptable to both sides,” he added in a statement.

“We are ready to hold further detailed discussions this weekend in order to seek any such changes in the run-up to European Council on Wednesday. The government is determined to work constructively to deliver the Brexit people voted for, and avoid participation in the European Parliamentary elections.”
Reuters
livinglava
 
  0  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 07:56 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Labour said it was disappointed Theresa May had not offered "real change or compromise" over her plan to leave the EU in talks with the opposition party.

So do I understand correctly that the Labour side of GB politics is against Brexit, as is the EU, and only the GB Torries are in favor of it?

So basically the anti-Brexit politics is an attempt by socialists within and outside GB to force the Lords into remaining within the control structure of the Union, in the same sense that an actual labor union seeks to control the "ownership of the means of production" in order to have the production process and its proceeds benefit them first and foremost and only secondarily benefit the owners/investors?

Please clarify if I am misunderstanding or misinterpreting this, but it seems like Brexit is like the owners of a company wanting out of a labor-union contract as workers/unions attempt to dissuade them and maintain control over the industry.

What exactly is it exactly that the pro-EU people want from the capitalists that is causing them to want out so badly? Is there sufficient restraint in entitlement-aggression on the left to empathize with the right in any way; or is it total class warfare fueled by 'rage against the bourgeoisie' to subjugate them into total service to socialism?

Maybe I am overdramatizing it, though, and EU democracy is sufficient to protect the political/economic interests of the pro-Brexiters? Are they just being spoiled and nit-picky in wanting out of the EU when, in fact, they could achieve the same goals as an incorporated state as they could in independence?
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 09:45 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
So do I understand correctly that the Labour side of GB politics is against Brexit, as is the EU, and only the GB Torries are in favor of it?
Labour is a political party in the UK. And within Labour, there are Berxiters as well as Remainers.
The same is with the other parties in Parliament - divided as are the Conservatives.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 09:50 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
So basically the anti-Brexit politics is an attempt by socialists within and outside GB to force the Lords into remaining within the control structure of the Union, in the same sense that an actual labor union seeks to control the "ownership of the means of production" in order to have the production process and its proceeds benefit them first and foremost and only secondarily benefit the owners/investors?
I've no idea why you introduce the unions here, they are no political party in the UK.
I don't think that 49% of the UK's population is "socialist".
In the Lords, you have members of all parties as well as Brexiters as Remainers - generally, the Lords leaning more to the pro-Remain side - until during the last few years moreBrexit-supporting members became members.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 09:53 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I've no idea, why this should be a left thing. But what do I know?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 10:41 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
What exactly is it exactly that the pro-EU people want from the capitalists that is causing them to want out so badly? Is there sufficient restraint in entitlement-aggression on the left to empathize with the right in any way; or is it total class warfare fueled by 'rage against the bourgeoisie' to subjugate them into total service to socialism?

Maybe I am overdramatizing it, though, and EU democracy is sufficient to EU democracy is sufficient to protect the political/economic interests of the pro-Brexiters? Are they just being spoiled and nit-picky in wanting out of the EU when, in fact, they could achieve the same goals as an incorporated state as they could in independence?
I really don't get from where you got that "pro-EU-people" want anything "from the capitalists that is causing them to want out so badly".
You may look up what the referendum was about and why it was done.

An aditional reason for leaving the EU certainly would be if the EU would "protect the political/economic interests of the pro-Brexiters".
To demand such an (illegal under EU-laws) interference is a very outlandish idea.



0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 10:48 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
As reported yesterday, there were no firm commitments for when further discussions might take place. But Downing Street has insisted it is prepared to pursue alterations to its Brexit deal and is ready to hold further talks with Labour this weekend.
Prisons minister Rory Stewart told BBC Radio 4's PM programme there were "tensions" but insisted that both sides were very close and that there was "quite a lot of life" left in the talks.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Fri 5 Apr, 2019 10:54 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
https://i.imgur.com/EvMuv7B.jpg

Quote:
The government has already begun handing out British passports that do not carry the words “European Union” on the cover, despite Brexit being delayed.

The two words were missing from burgundy passports issued this week as the government had initially prepared for Brexit day to be on 29 March.

The Home Office said some passports with the words European Union would still be issued while the remaining stock is used up, and that members of the public would not be able to choose between the two.
[...]
The decision to remove the words from 30 March was made on the assumption Britain would leave the EU a day earlier.

It is part of a two-stage redesign process which will see blue passports gradually phased in from the end of the year.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Burgundy passports that no longer include the words ‘European Union’ on the front cover were introduced from 30 March 2019.

“In order to use leftover stock and achieve best value for the taxpayer, passports that include the words ‘European Union’ will continue to be issued for a short period after this date.

“There will be no difference for British citizens whether they are using a passport that includes the words European Union, or a passport that does not. Both designs will be equally valid for travel.”
The Independent
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  -1  
Sat 6 Apr, 2019 09:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've no idea why you introduce the unions here, they are no political party in the UK.
I don't think that 49% of the UK's population is "socialist".
In the Lords, you have members of all parties as well as Brexiters as Remainers - generally, the Lords leaning more to the pro-Remain side - until during the last few years moreBrexit-supporting members became members.

Idk know what is explicitly considered 'socialist' or not, but what I mean generally refers to the use of government to control markets and business in favor of enriching the large masses of people who are not in direct ownership/control of 'the means of production.'

If you look at the history of unions, especially in Europe, the unions following WWII were always strong enough to maintain wage growth that outpaces inflation. In other words, they were successful at keeping the purchasing power of the middle-class on par with productivity growth more generally.

The EU news I generally catch wind of is often about large anti-trust settlements that effectively transfer income from large corporations, such as Microsoft, to government. Although the stated intent is to punish market dominance, the practical effect seems to be to effectuate fiscal transfers from the corporations to the people, which to my mind appears socialist.

So I would assume there are 'capitalists' in the traditional Marxian use of the term, in the Torries who see this pattern of fiscal transfers and business-control within the EU, who don't expect to be able to wrest control of their businesses back from governmental regulators. This is the reason I would expect Brexit to be popular with that party.

The other reason I think Brexit is popular has to do with freedom of movement and migration. Some of that is just racism/xenophobia, I think, but there is another side of it that is more sensible, which has to do with migration driving up prices by augmenting demand in housing and other markets; as well as the various trafficking activities that happen because human migration can be exploited by organized crime for profit.

What I'm wondering is if there are sufficient means of addressing and dealing with such problems (or others) without seeking Brexit, or whether the interest in Brexit emerged because of a sense of inadequacy within the EU (confederational) governmental complex to do so. In short, do Brexiters feel like there are problems against which their hands are tied by EU governmental institutions, and if they had more hope of being able to deal with those problems without leaving the EU, would the interest in Brexit subside?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 6 Apr, 2019 11:10 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
If you look at the history of unions, especially in Europe, the unions following WWII were always strong enough to maintain wage growth that outpaces inflation. In other words, they were successful at keeping the purchasing power of the middle-class on par with productivity growth more generally.
I was born after WWII.
I live in Europe.
I've studied history.
I'm not aware of any "union" in Europe besides
- the European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), founded 1948,
- Benelux (1948),
-- both becoming/joining the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951,
--- on 25th March 1957, the Treaties of Rome were signed, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).
You certainly know what happened afterwards ... 26 (27 with the UK) EU-countries now.

To what other unions (plural, as far as I get it) are you referring, especially, since these "unions following WWII were always strong enough to maintain wage growth that outpaces inflation" to use your own words.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 6 Apr, 2019 11:16 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
The EU news I generally catch wind of is often about large anti-trust settlements that effectively transfer income from large corporations, such as Microsoft, to government. Although the stated intent is to punish market dominance, the practical effect seems to be to effectuate fiscal transfers from the corporations to the people, which to my mind appears socialist.
You should switch to other sources for news.
Besides that the EU has indeed antitrust laws. Perhaps, that's called 'socialist', but in the USA, you've got the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890 ...
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 6 Apr, 2019 11:22 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
So I would assume there are 'capitalists' in the traditional Marxian use of the term, in the Torries who see this pattern of fiscal transfers and business-control within the EU, who don't expect to be able to wrest control of their businesses back from governmental regulators. This is the reason I would expect Brexit to be popular with that party.
You can assume and expect what you want, but the history of Brexit and the referendum tells a different story.

So, following your 'idea', they've got about 80% socialist business companies in the UK but in the other 26 countries they are nearly 100% socialist.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Sat 6 Apr, 2019 11:24 am
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:
The other reason I think Brexit is popular has to do with freedom of movement and migration. Some of that is just racism/xenophobia, I think, but there is another side of it that is more sensible, which has to do with migration driving up prices by augmenting demand in housing and other markets; as well as the various trafficking activities that happen because human migration can be exploited by organized crime for profit.
Does that only work in one way? I mean, 3 million UK-citizens are leaving permanently in other EU-countries.

Besides that, the UK is not a Schengen country.
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/06/2024 at 08:19:17