Utopia Talk / Politics / UK caves in to EU

Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 07:51:03 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/19/uk-caves-in-to-eu-demand-to-agree-divorce-bill-before-trade-talks Is Shannon still around? I find this hilarious
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jun 20 09:02:55 Woa. A ghost appeared!
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 09:03:28 The brexiteers are really making a tit of themselves.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 09:13:43 Yeah, coming to haunted the people of the past.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 09:21:23 Shannon turned up after the referendum to explain how he was sure it was a great move because his gold hoard was up in sterling terms. He didn't like it when I said he was effectively shorting the UK economy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 10:16:43 What chances are there (if any) that Brexit does not happen? Read something "no deal no brexit" a while back.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 11:28:26 Who can say? I think it'll happen though. Would EU want us too stay?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 11:37:43 I think if you would do a poll, the clear majority of the citizen of the EU would prefer that over the UK leaving. I know I would :,(
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 11:44:15 Nim: Maybe, but the politics isn't great. France would see it as disruptive to renewing a franco-german motor. We'd also veto the defence initiatives that we think undermine NATO. And the Guy verhofstadt says we'd need to end opt outs, rebates and join Euro. So, all in, difficult to see reversal happening
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 11:53:03 Both Merkel and Macron have said, there is still a chance for UK to stay in EU, until the end. But in all honesty, It better for greater EU if the UK is out of it. UK has never been a good benefit for EU, UK has been nothing but obstructionist with in the EU. The problem with UK is the attitude they have. The superiority complex, Like they are a big shot in the world stage. That mainly comes from having been allies with US for a long time. What they don't see is that mutual beneficial arrangement with US ended since the end of the cold war. Now days UK is just used by the US, and don't get anything back. Nor Is UK seen as a power. EU have wanted for a long time to get rid of UK, they are the sick-man of EU. So I really don't understand why France and Germany are not forcing the issue and closing doors.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 20 11:53:34 You'd think the UK was trying to leave the mafia from the strong-arming the EU is pulling. Freedom of travel is nice, but it's not worth the sacrifice of sovereignty that the EU represents.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 11:53:44 A reversal would be in the form of a new EU application.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 11:55:47 Emmanuel Macron says door to remain in EU is open to Britain http://www...rexit-talks-to-start-next-week
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 11:56:25 No it would not be Jergul. They could just cancel the exit.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 11:57:47 No it would not be Jergul. They could just cancel the exit.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 11:58:29 after 5 years I have been away, this bug still remains.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 12:07:23 Most of the voices in the EU say that Article 50 can be revoked during the process. There is no mention of it in the text, but so are not a great many other things. --- The trouble is, as legal blogger David Allen Green explained in a series of recent tweets, “nobody knows for certain.” There is no mention of revocation in the article text. “But then Article 50 is an atrocious piece of legal drafting,” Green wrote. “Written by diplomats, not lawyers. It shows.”
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 12:10:30 The problem remains though that there are still no signs of a "Bregret" in the UK. The question still has the country split down the middle.
Rugian Member	Tue Jun 20 12:23:53 I don't think that's an issue for Europhiles. They despise democracy after all.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 13:10:48 I disagree nim, there are great deal of signs that points towards a brexit regret. You could even see it in the recent election too. And the all pressing talks about staying in the single market might suggest that too. The Uks problem is that there brits living in it, common trait is refusing to say they where wrong.
obaminated Member	Tue Jun 20 13:15:27 Neverwoods, now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 13:18:54 Rugian where do you find the energy to talk about EU and UK relationships in a vague manner when your country is on collapse. US has even lost its title of being the leader of the free world. That no belongs to Germany.
pillz Member	Tue Jun 20 13:20:14 Neverwoods added to list of EU apologist cucks
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 13:22:53 There is a list now? I have always been pro EU. I won't pretend not to have my own bias towards EU.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 13:32:40 NW http://you...xit-everything-we-know-so-far/ Maybe things have changes since March.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 13:32:58 THAT WAS A TYPO! Changed*
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 13:43:11 Realization and desperation changes perception pretty fast. You can see the regret, read about UK farmers how they are pleaing to stay in the single market. They where also the biggest majority that voted for a leave. The French election also had a great impact on UK's bregrit. As the propaganda was EU would dissolve after UK leave. It's stronger now.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 13:50:26 If you want i can find some articles for you, when I get home. I am at the hospital for an eye check up. Have something stuck in my eye. But I think John Oliver made an mention in a episode on that.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 14:00:11 https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/877128866627821568 Hehe.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 14:36:32 NW Canceling requires the approval of every single member. The treaty has no mechanism for reversing article 50 in any other way. Anyone thinking the UK can reverse article 50 with all the reservations it currently has intact is crazy. The UK will have to make significant steps towards further EU integration if it wants back in. My view is pretty clear - Let EU muck about integrating as much as it likes. Lukewarm countries like the UK and Norway should maintain association through EFTA. Giving up a sovereign voice within the EU for the reservation rights against EU directives. The UK has serious have cake and eat it too issues that is frankly a bit unseemly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 15:28:31 NW The result that has got the most attention is the question on if people think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU. 43% said right, 45% said wrong. YouGov ask that question most weeks and almost invariably it shows people either think Britain made the right decision, or are evenly split. As a result, a lot of people have got rather excited about today’s figure, when they really shouldn’t. As regular readers will know, all polls have a margin of error. I try not to fixate upon the specifics because the margin you always seen quoted (plus or minus 3% for a 1000 sample) is based on a pure random sample with no accounting for weighting or design effects. However, it is a good rough guide – polls are not precise, there is some degree of random variation from poll to poll. So far this year YouGov have asked the right or wrong to Leave question fifteen times. On average the result has been Right 45%, Wrong 43%, a two point lead for “right”. As with all polls, it varies from week to week, so sometimes it has spat out a lead of four points, sometimes it has been neck-and-neck, and how it’s produced one finding with wrong ahead. Looking at the figure over time I can’t really be confident in any trend. The gap is smaller than in January, but it’s not as if there’s a steady decline there, it looks more like noise: Jan the average was Right 46%, Wrong 42% February the average was Right 45%, Wrong 44% March the average was Right 44%, Wrong 43% April the average was Right 45%, Wrong 43% My expectation is, as I’ve said before, the people will probably more towards “Bregret” to some degree, simply because Brexit will require some compromises and some people’s high hopes will be disappointed. However, there’s scant sign of it yet and people’s opinions are often much harder to shift than you’d think. As ever, YouGov will ask the same question next week, and the week after than and so on. If that too shows people think it’s wrong to leave (and other polls start showing the same thing too) then we can start taking about a cross-over in opinion. As things stand, I really wouldn’t get too excited/worried yet. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9859
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 15:31:57 There is no strong majority either way. Which is the most troubling thing about Brexit. It was basically decided bay the "feels" of that month/week/day.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 15:32:59 I don't get why you are saying that, still. UK has not left the EU yet, they are still a part of the EU and can still vote for legislations and directives, no nation has the right to kick out UK from EU. Currently the talks is not about UK has left the EU it's about when they do leave! Read the wording of Article 50, it was not written by law makers, it's a diplomatic legislation, it has workaround's. IF UK wishes, that can just end the talks and say some shit like, it was a joke bro(not really but you get the gist). That would not look well with the diplomats or for UK as whole, but that's something that UK can pull of. As Merkel and Macron has point out, UK can still regret it's with draw. Or UK could call for a new UK referendum in the UK for another round of votes. This is all still a possibility as no country can deny UK entry for what it's in already. If you are talking about reapplying for EU after leaving, then that's a different matter. And it's a super slim chance they will ever get back in again. As they where vetoed 4 times IIRC before getting in in the past. Best solution I see for the UK is respect the votes and leaver and apply for single-market.
EuropeanPussy Member	Tue Jun 20 15:36:57 So sad! http://www...ducts-brexit-threat-nick-clegg Melton Mowbray pork pies, stilton cheese and British-made chocolate such as Cadbury’s could be under threat from Brexit, the former deputy prime minister Nick Clegg has warned. Speaking to a food and drink industry conference on the impact of leaving the European Union, Clegg said it was possible that European rivals would start producing lookalikes to British foodstuffs if they lost the legal protection from imitation offered by EU rules. “Outside the EU they won’t enjoy the appellation bestowed on those products and I would have thought other countries would take advantage of that pretty quickly and put products into the European market that directly rival those protected brands,” Clegg said.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 15:48:49 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. 2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 5. If a State which >>has withdrawn<< from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49. ------ As NW is saying, the UK has not withdrawn and so clause 5 is not applicable. More or less Article 50 is being (re)written as the process goes on, because it is not really informative, instructive or even useful. There is no reason to think that the EU would not accept the UK revoking article 50. Though doing this would leave UK in a much weaker position.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 15:50:00 NW That is some pretty wishful reading on your part. The procedure is very clear and also specifies that a country invoking Article 50 has to reapply for membership. Article 50 is not reversable. At best, the UK can extend the 2 year period if the EU approves. Best case is EFTA as you say.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 15:51:53 Why does it not surprise me that nimi cannot recognize a clear procedure?
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 15:53:15 I see Nimatzo. Some had voted for it by single issue which is immigration.. They are the people that should be realizing all the implications of their votes. I don't get the sway back and forth.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 15:54:05 IF a country invokes article 50, THEN it has 2 years to negotiate a new relationship with the EU. The country is not longer party to the EU treaty after two years unless all members agree to give the country an extention on the 2 year limit.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 15:56:23 Jergul. If both Macron and Merkel says the UK can still regret it's choice, who's word should i choose, yours? I don't know why you are being so stubborn?
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 16:00:16 You could go with the wording of the treaty and understand merkel and macron's statement from that context: The UK can regret its decision to leave the union and rejoin as per treaty mechanisms. There is no mechanism for reversing article 50 after it has been triggered. I don't even think the UK will get enough support for an extention of negotiations unless it is willing to make huge compromises to gain an extention.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 16:02:53 Legal experts say article 50 is a horrible piece of legislation. Jergul says it is a clear procedure. Nuff said.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 16:04:09 No, jergul Macron made it clear. By quote on UK regretting. "Of course The door remains open, always open until the negotiations comes to an end" - Macron.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 16:05:06 That's one stubborn guy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 16:05:36 "I don't know why you are being so stubborn?" You have been away for too long NW.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 16:09:04 This isn't the first time Jergul thinks he is a legal expert. "Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was written with a deliberate lack of clarity - it does not say whether it can be revoked once it has been triggered. As a result, the UK government has been unable to make any definitive legal statements on the issue. The Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, has said "My understanding is that it is irrevocable," while the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said in December 2016: "Is it irrevocable? I don't know." In the recent UK Supreme Court case on Article 50, both sides assumed that it was irrevocable and the court judgement concluded: "We are content to proceed on the basis that that is correct, without expressing any view of our own." So this is not an issue that has been formally tested in a UK court. But European Council President Donald Tusk has said that he believes Article 50 can be reversed." ^Clear procedure^
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 16:10:19 Lord Kerr - the former British ambassador to the EU, who helped draft Article 50 - agreed. "You can change your mind while the process is going on," he said. He acknowledged that this might annoy the rest of the EU, and be seen as a huge waste of time. "They might try to extract a political price," Lord Kerr said, "but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 16:11:07 Like I said. The can revoke it, but it will leave the UK in a much weaker position.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Jun 20 16:12:46 Stop boozing Jergul, it kills the brain. Take micro doses of LSD and you can use google and read stuff.
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 16:13:55 It's badly written to start with. It's written by diplomats and not law makers. But lets take Jerguls argument over Donald Tusk, Merkel and Macron.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 16:59:03 Nimi Legally, the union treaty no longer applies to the article 50 member after two years have passed (barring an extention). The UK is out and will revert to WTO standards if nothing else is in place. lulz at your failure to understand a relatively simple procedure. Do more drugs, bro. NW Its not badly written. The procedure is very clear. Even an extention requires the same member support as a treaty change does. Merkel et al can mean anything from the UK being allowed to reapply, or that Germany and France stand behind changing the treaty to allow countries to retract an article 50. But the EU abides by the rule of law. And the law is very clear. The UK is out when the 2 years pass (barring an extention).
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 17:04:44 Anyway, I think we can agree the European Court of Justice would have to rule on the legality of the UK revoking article 50. So in the spirit of compromise we can just say that a court ruling is obviously required, so we don't really know if article 50 can be revoked until the court makes a ruling on the matter.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 17:15:57 Pragmatically, it would make sense to allow the uk to retract article 50 if every other EU member agrees. In practical terms, it would amount to accepting the UK back into the union after negotiating the same terms it had before article 50. But that would be pretty awful. It means the EU could play extreme hardball and offer nothing above WTO. Trusting that a no deal position would cause any country to retract article 50 and return to the fold.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 17:24:58 http://wai...ou-try-and-you-do-not-succeed/
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 17:29:26 Jergul: The treaty has no specific mechanism for withdrawing notice. Arguably, as is standard with such notices in international law, it could be unilaterally withdrawn. It would be up to the ECJ to decide. In practice universal agreement would always work. In practice I think a simple majority would work too provided France and Germany agreed. A country wishing to block it would have to sue the commission in front of the ECJ. And they would not be popular of they won.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 17:32:11 Jergul: Between issuing the notice and actually leaving, the country hasn't yet withdrawn. Generally the law on treaties allows notices to be withdrawn. If the UK did withdraw it's notice prior to leaving, it would never have withdrawn and so would not need to reapply.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 17:35:53 A 50 is notice of intent to withdraw. If you change your intent, and withdraw your notice of intent to withdraw...
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 17:39:39 Seb It also has not specific mechanism for giving me a million quid. It is not standard that triggering a withdrawal mechanism can be unilaterally withdrawn. For obvious reasons. Simple majority would not be the EJCs ruling A simple extention of the two years requires universal agreement. I think there will be quite a line up to get a ECJ ruling if the UK decides it wants to repeal article 50. With Boris at the front no doubt. I also think there will be a penalty for withdrawing. The UK could very well end up having to renegotiate its relationship with the EU no matter the course chosen. It was really stupid to create legislature invoking article 50. And there is often a price tag attached to stupid.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 17:41:17 Seb The treaty is self-enforcing on the issue. The country's treaty relationship expires two years after invoking article 50 (barring an extention).
Neverwoods Member	Tue Jun 20 17:52:15 Is this how you try to win arguments? by fatiguing your opponents? No, it's not clear it has been in a series of "this is not clear" among many leaders. If you want to argue more about this, let me show you a wall.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 20 18:04:03 Jergul: Actually, it is. There's been some rather excellent blog posts on the matter by various international law types. In pretty much all treaties unless specially stated otherwise, you can unilaterally withdraw notice you are leaving the treaty. The assumption is that provided the treaty is still in force, withdrawing notice merely leaves the treaty in place. The concern in A50 is that they failed to indicate either way, so potentially that creates a loophole that would frustrate the 2 year cutoff. However, generally that would be addressed by the commission seeking a ruling from the ECJ tag it is legal to ignore the withdrawal on the basis it was insincere (i.e. the country in question did intend to leave, but was merely attempting to game the system). Withdrawal of intent to leave isn't he same thing as extending negotiations, so not clear that the mechanisms for extension are relevant. One could equally argue that the withdrawal agreement was that the leaving country didn't withdraw, which would be passed by qmv. Simply put, A50 is badly drafted. Politics will trump it. Hence, if a majority want the UK to remain and the UK wishes to, it will be accepted by all that withdrawal can happen. Unilateral withdrawal of notice by the UK will fail also.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 18:07:44 NW The wording is very clear and article 50 is self-enforcing (the treaty agreement expires automatically two years after the article has been triggered). The lack of clarity revolves around wishful thinking. I think the ECJ will accept a pragmatic argument (universal acceptance would let the UK rejoin anyway, so lets just cut the loop short and allow the article 50 notification to be revoked if all members agree to it). This is the most likely line of thinking in the EU too. So for me, I have mapped out what Merkel et al are thinking about when they say its never too late. But universal acceptance will come with a price. The UK will likely need to give up some of its unque priviledges.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 18:23:10 Seb There is no concern regarding article 50. The treaty is self-enforcing once invoked. Two years pass and the UK is out on its ass. I misunderstood what you were talking about (I thought you meant treaties with notice requirements). If a treaty does not provide for withdrawal mechanism such as determining that notice is required, then it does not regulate notice and countries can provide it or not as they wish. The notice is irrelavant to the actually withdrawing. This is not the case with Article 50. Giving notice triggers a process that ends two years later. Recanting, or may streaking naked through paris, or giving me 1 million quid does not detrigger the process. With that said, the EU can do anything it likes with universal acceptance, so it is quite likely the ECJ will allow for a lot of leeway if universal acceptance is achieved. I suggest the most likely outcome being a ruling that recanting is ok if all members accept it. The ECJ might demand a treaty change to give wording to that effect. But same difference really. But it is also likely the UK will have to pay a price to get universal acceptance. It has reservations other members do not have. It may have to give up some of those.
jergul large member	Tue Jun 20 18:24:47 Its not badly drafted. Wishful thinking pretends that it is an creates uncertainty where none exist. 1. Give notice 2. 2 years later the treaty relationship ends. Nothing done in the meantime changes those steps.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 03:44:29 There is nothing in the treaty which says you cannot withdraw notice; and standard practice in treaty law is you can unilaterally withdraw such notice. The drafters would have said if that was going to be different. The two year deadline is a cutoff on negotiating settlement. Plenty of grounds to argue otherwise. What you have is one interpretation, which is fine. Arguing no others can exist is futile. Pretty much all that is needed is qmv. Any blocking minority will not be well liked. As to concessions, maybe. But concessions are probably going to make the issue worse. If the EU wants the UK to remain and the UK wants to remain, I think it likely status quo ante terms; because *if* there is a majority for keeping the UK in, the last thing that majority would want to do is create new grounds for a resurgence of exiteers by further eroding the case for remain. That would risk another brexit in a few years. It's difficult to imagine what concession would be worth undermining the strategic intent behind that majority's decision to support the UK remaining. The only situation would be if the majority is largely indifferent to the UK being in or out, but in that case I don't think they'd consider a UK attempt to withdraw their withdrawal anyway: messy and complex so you'd want a strong positive reason to accept it, and if so that would trump anything like rebate etc. As for the Euro, last thing France would want is for the UK to crash into the Euro zone finance meetings and side with Germany on no eurobonds.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 03:50:17 Tl;dr The law is so badly drafted either position can be argued, which means it will be a political decision. The dynamics of the politics mean it will be qmv not unanimous. Cancelling brexit will only happen if all the following want it: Britain, Germany, France & the commission. Strategically, if Germany, France and the commission want the UK to remain, they aren't going to quibble on rebates or existing opt outs. If those would tip the balance, the balance is too narrow for them to want to spend the political time and capital to facilitate cancelling brexit in the first place.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 21 04:28:46 There is literally no one with a brain or knowledge in the legal field or politics saying that article 50 is clear. Just some fisherman from Norway who consumes too much booze. The end.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 04:30:37 Who's wishful thinking? I don't even think UK is a good fit for EU, as far as I am concerned they are better out than in. All I see is an old man trying hard to be "right".
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 07:22:00 Neverwoods: Depends. A large chunk of the EU doesn't want a federal super state. I mean, would you really want to live in a state that treats a depressed county the way the EC has treated Greece? It makes American look left wing. Lets be honest, the Euro was a disaster that has broken the single market to some extent. if the EU was sensible we'd be talking about creating a proper two tier structure that gave the people that want a single market without a superstate the right kind of framework to allow collaboration without it deteriorating into a diktat from the Eurozone.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 08:03:21 Why bring up Greece, if they had been going by the books, Greece would not have been an issue. And they are very much in the clear now, thanks for EU. Without EU, who can tell what state Greece would be in. Which are large chunk countries are you pointing at? Name 5. The Euro is not perfect, reason why it's going trough reforms as I write this. I agree. You might be forgetting EU best interest is to it's citizens. It can't be a super state if it has no fallowing or countries leaving. EU was on the bring of death with the French election. If the sentiment is for EU to go and create a super state it's due to it being a very good support for it.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 08:06:16 con't. support for it by it's members. Which means a large chunk of EU countries wants a super state. unlike what you said a large chunk wouldn't. ----- There should be a god damn edit option here by now. ------
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 08:29:05 NeverWoods: "Greece would not have been an issue" That's simply not true. But fine, lets look instead at Spain and Ireland that was going absolutely buy the books - unlike Germany and France which both breached the growth and stability pact - and yet rather than taking a sensible pro-growth approach to the financial crisis instead bore the brunt of the correction needed in the Eurozone. If you look at the Eurozone as a single state, essentially what happened is you have one part of the country doing really well, investing a lot of money in stupid property deals in another part of the country, and then when the bubble pops instead of handling it as a single country; instead you basically slash public spending within that county/state, reduce their public services, reduce investment, and have all the people that are economically active largely leave, while those that are not are then lose years in productivity boosting experience on the dole queue and the old, retired, disabled etc with no option. No country operates in that way. It would be insanely pathological. Instead, there is often significant counter cyclical policies that boost investment and provide a social safety net in depressed regions of the country.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 08:32:59 Sweden, Poland, Germany and Holland, Czech republic etc. all are opposed to any further fiscal integration. So without it, you have the Euro as a mechanism that forces deflation onto part of the Euro area with no counterparty obligations on the succesful part that would exist in a normal country
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 08:34:40 And France, nearly a third of the population voted for a party that wants to leave. Seeing this as a ringing endorsement is dangerously polarising. It's as crazy as the UK's bizarre view that a 52 to 48 majority is a ringing endorsement for the hardest possible brexit.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 21 09:44:39 "US has even lost its title of being the leader of the free world. That no belongs to Germany." I just wanted to say I saved this comment, it's easily top 10 most retarded ever, and this is a forum that hosted RoB and KreeL.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 09:57:54 http://www...freedom-of-press-a7556986.html There you go Forwyn. You where never sharp, and still the same.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 21 10:00:19 Sure buddy. Keep kicking in the doors of people making "xenophobic" facebook posts, bastion of freedom.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 11:13:32 What are you on about? Just do a search for it on google, it's all over the place. Are you one of those "fake newsers"?
jergul large member	Wed Jun 21 11:14:20 Nimi Besides the false equivalency... Project much, bro? Neverwoods Article 50 wording is very clear. The mechanism for leaving is entirely self-enforcing and irreversable. There is a pragmatic argument for letting a country withdraw with universal acceptance, but the ECJ would need to rule on that being acceptable (with the alternative of universal agreement on a constitutional change adding such a clause to Article 50). Seb Nothing wrong with the Euro that federal income transfers and federalized debt could not resolve. Sigh, 12.5 by 2020 did assume more reasonable economic policies.
NeverWoods Member	Wed Jun 21 11:15:50 Let me give you a hand Forwyn. http://www...1.64.serp..0.2.149.bhfGjYbGlss This is not me saying it, this is the world sentiment.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jun 21 11:29:11 I would say that depending on who you ask the answer will be different. Some people in the world, obviously identify much more with the strongman type of leadership.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 21 11:43:25 "Just do a search for it on google, it's all over the place." Yes, a bunch of Chicken Little leftists have an opinion. When you're kicking in doors for facebook posts criticizing immigrants, you can hardly claim to lead the "free" world.
Forwyn Member	Wed Jun 21 11:49:48 But sure, let's play your game. Your first article lists three points in defense of this assertion (none of them a defense of Merkel btw): 1) "If a President can abruptly restrict the rights of US residents without bothering with lawmakers or even government departments" Temporary ban from 6 civil war-torn countries, in accordance with the powers granted him by Title 8: http://en....le_8_of_the_United_States_Code 2) Whining about free trade rollbacks and general posturing against globalism. Bernie Sanders' platform was the same, in this respect. Leftists naturally didn't mind it then. 3) He has bitched about some news organizations. MUH FREE PRESS CAN'T EVEN BE CRITICIZED. Yes, a British agency is in a position to whine about free speech. So, in essence: nebulous whining about muh Drumpf.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 21 12:17:10 Jergul: Yes, but there's no political support for that. The Euro is therefore a failure - as a policy it has been terrible. Even in a Monet style "escalating crisis ratchet", it's convinced Germany to draw a firm line on further integration. So it's left Europe stuck. Instead of creating a greater role for federal structures, it's simply entrenched German power, created a periphery of second tier nations that serve as a dumping ground for Germanies beggar thy neighbour policies, which Germany still doesn't appreciate cannot work at scale. This undermines legitimacy - both in terms of reducing living standards broadly in his the periphery, the authority and legitimacy of the EU institutions which can't get anything done without Germany but which Germany can use to hide behind when it doesn't want to agree to something. Arguably a major contributing factor to brexit is the abnormally high migration flows from periphery countries to the UK combined with Germany's refusal to consider limits on freedom of movement. The two are not unrelated - concentrating the consequences of Germanies deflation into the eurozone core would be electorally bad for Merkel. The Euro is a failure- it's impoverished Europe, it's reduced growth, and as an integration measure it has killed the kind of federalism it was supposed to drive.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 21 12:35:58 Seb I think you are profoundly oversimplifying. National currencies do give other monetary options and a number of hard choices, but the the only easy fixes are income transfers and federalized debt. PIGS bookkeeping irregularities (#informaleconomiessuckdonkeygenitals) were and remain the greatest barrier to more rational economic policies. Good money after bad is a better slogan than beggar thy neighbour. It would be more correct to state that the Euro provides mechanisms to resolve imbalances that are not currently being used. Cross-border migration is a feature of federalization, not a bug.
seb Member	Wed Jun 21 14:36:47 jergul: Oh come off it. bookkeeping irregularities were not at all responsible for problems in Ireland or Spain or even Portugal or Italy. Their public debt shot up exclusively due to having to bail out private banks in a manner that transferred almost all the losses of their investors in Germany and France onto the public balance sheets of those countries. Cross border migration on that scale without the fiscal transfer exacerbates problems. If all the working people of cornwall move to London, then those needing subsidies are not subsidised off the local tax intake. Yet that is the structure the Euro/EU system has put in place. You can say "yes, but with federal debt and cross border fiscal transfers" - but that doesn't exist and the Euro has actually made it highly unlikely that it ever will because it works fantastically for the surplus countries who have no incentive to change the system; and makes it near impossible for the rest.
jergul large member	Wed Jun 21 17:11:21 Seb Cross border migration of any scale becomes a problem if the original host country has less than structural unemployment (say 2.5%). Otherwise, it simply is a function of federation. If anything, the value of remittances help substitute for more formalized income transfers. Public debt is an issue almost solely due to the size of untaxed informal economies and shoddy accounting practices that let PIGS join the Euro in the first place. I do agree that having the public assume the risk for investment in banking was horrendously exploitive, but the cost amounts to a fraction of public debt for the countries in question. Transparency moving forward is the way out of the impass.
Seb Member	Thu Jun 22 03:36:26 Jergul: That's simply not true. In Spain and Italy the substantial increase in deficit was taking on the private sector debt that ought to have fallen as loses in German and French banks equity and bond holders.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 22 10:36:55 What is not true about my saying the bailout costs amounted to a fraction of public debt for the countries in question (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain)? Immoral extortion? Sure. Of significant explanatory power? Nope. See untaxed informal economies for the main culprit.
jergul large member	Thu Jun 22 10:38:41 And transparency is the way forward. Good money after bad instead of beggar thy neighbour and all that.
jergul large member	Fri Jun 23 08:53:35 Fraction = A quantity that if doubled, is still less than the whole. Usually less than a quarter, but more than 1/20.
Seb Member	Fri Jun 23 10:51:49 On holiday now - but Irish debt pre crisis was like 40bn. Bailout was something like 70bn. Total debt peaked at 180bn. So 180-40 = 140 so about half the increase in national debt directly attributable to bailout. How much of the remaining half can be attributed to austerity measures forced as part of the bailout reducing tax revenues through lost growth? If we are arguing about whether it's 75% Vs 50% I think that's largely semantics. Exclusively was hyperbolic I admit. But it's not credible to claim this isn't the fundamental cause of the woes of the periphery. By forcing such a huge increase in debt, the political conditions and leverage for austerity was imposed and the required cuts to public services exacerbated the damage. Spain and Ireland were not running deficits prior and I don't know how you are supporting your claim this was cooked books.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: