Politics, politics, politics

[Gutter Boy]

So there might be a legal case, but it's never been tested before. And the ECJ is going to be flexible with us in the coming years!

This is the crux of the sovereignty issue. The EU fixes our economy on one course and no matter who we vote for, we are bound by those narrow perimeters

 

[Gutter Boy]

If you want freedom of trade (which we do) then this is why it is their business, otherwise you could have a situation where all services and manufacturing is state owned in Germany with subsidies and then they export everything (undercutting with the subsidies) to the other countries. If you want a free market you need to have rules and these are the rules that have been put in place, they don't mean you cant have nationalised utilities but have rules to make sure you don't abuse this.

The argument is for fair trade to replace free trade. Free trade is neo-liberalism's police force.

 

[glorygloryeze]

So there might be a legal case, but it's never been tested before. And the ECJ is going to be flexible with us in the coming years!

This is the crux of the sovereignty issue. The EU fixes our economy on one course and no matter who we vote for, we are bound by those narrow perimeters

 

[glorygloryeze]

I largely agree. However, if we get lots of benefits as a nation by being in the club, and we can get around those rules on a few technicalities and stay in the club with the benefits, then imo there's no need to burn the whole place down and start again. It's not worth the aggravation so that's why we should either stay in a very close relationship with the EU, or remain -- if the electorate have changed their mind in suitable numbers, now knowing what a ball-ache this all is.

That sounds all fair and good; but one of the EU's long-term goals is a United States of Europe under one President, with a centralised financial and monetary system plus a singular army.
The place will burn itself down eventually because it cannot work but that wont stop the EU top brass from trying.
The aggravation will be when the electorate rebels against the quasi-dictatorship via riots, the rise of the far right etc

Better off out before then, after all we have our own problems to deal with anyway.

 

[r-u-s-x]

The argument is for fair trade to replace free trade. Free trade is neo-liberalism's police force.

this is your argument I was discussing the need for rules if we want free trade... fair trade is not really on anyone's agenda its a bit of a red herring at the moment, if it appears like it has any chance of happening in the real world I would be very supportive of it.

 

[r-u-s-x]

That sounds all fair and good; but the EU's main goal is a United States of Europe under one President, with a centralised financial and monetary system plus a singular army.
The place will burn itself down eventually because it cannot work but that wont stop the EU top brass from trying.
The aggravation will be when the electorate rebels against the quasi-dictatorship via riots, the rise of the far right etc

Better off out before then, after all we have our own problems to deal with anyway.

Its not, its main goal is to increase prosperity with free trade.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Its not, its main goal is to increase prosperity with free trade.

Ok then, let's just ignore the various top EU brass who've called for it then...

 

[Gutter Boy]

Its not, its main goal is to increase prosperity with free trade.

For who?

a) the top 5% - the capitalists who own 75% of the wealth
b) the 95% of ordinary Europeans who own 25% of the wealth
c) the developing world, who get their raw materials and young educated population stolen away, and manufacturing and service sectors supressed

Hmmm, let me see...

 

[Gutter Boy]

That sounds all fair and good; but the EU's main goal is a United States of Europe under one President, with a centralised financial and monetary system plus a singular army.

The Eurozone's financial and monetary system is already more centralised than that of American states.

 

[the dza]

So there might be a legal case, but it's never been tested before. And the ECJ is going to be flexible with us in the coming years!

This is the crux of the sovereignty issue. The EU fixes our economy on one course and no matter who we vote for, we are bound by those narrow perimeters

The things that other nations can do and are doing within the EU seems to make the legal argument pretty strong. There are nations with (de facto) nationalised rail/energy etc. and they operate within the EU. We can do the same, we just haven't had any politicians with the will to make it happen. The loopholes are there, others use them.

 

[the dza]

That sounds all fair and good; but the EU's main goal is a United States of Europe under one President, with a centralised financial and monetary system plus a singular army.
The place will burn itself down eventually because it cannot work but that wont stop the EU top brass from trying.
The aggravation will be when the electorate rebels against the quasi-dictatorship via riots, the rise of the far right etc

Better off out before then, after all we have our own problems to deal with anyway.

The Eurozone's financial and monetary system is already more centralised than that of American states.

Within the EU, Britain has been a major player. As such, we've put ourselves in a position where we are outside of the Eurozone (we don't have the Euro as our currency) and we are outside of Schengen and have other opt-outs, rebates etc.

 

[the dza]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/68b23ec8-f41d-11e8-8c84-29b2667b0b46

European leaders are prepared to offer Britain a three-month extension to Article 50 to prevent parliamentary deadlock triggering a no-deal Brexit.

Under plans being discussed in European capitals the EU would agree to extend Britain’s membership until July to allow time for either a second referendum or to agree a Norway-style soft Brexit.

However, the EU has made clear that the extension would only be offered after parliament had come to a clear conclusion about the type of future relationship it wants.

The move was part of a response to growing fears in Brussels that if Theresa May’s deal is voted down by MPs the ensuing chaos could increase the odds of a no-deal Brexit.

Speaking to the European parliament yesterday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead negotiator, warned MPs threatening to vote against the withdrawal treaty that the “future of the country is at stake” and that it was the only offer available. “Given the difficult circumstances of this negotiation and given the extreme complexity of all the issues of the British withdrawal, the treaty that is on the table is the only deal possible,” he said. “This is now the moment of ratification.”

Any EU withdrawal agreement would have to be put into British law before March 28 next year for it to take effect. That would be further complicated if the Commons voted on an alternative arrangement, such as the Norway option, or chose to put the deal to a second referendum.

Yesterday a source made clear that Europe would also welcome a softer Brexit under which Britain would join Norway in the European Free Trade Association [Efta] and sign up to a customs union with the bloc. They said it could be a “game changer”, adding: “Norway plus a customs union would be viewed positively”.

In a significant shift on Wednesday Erna Solberg, the Norwegian prime minister, softened her hostility to Britain joining Efta. “If that is what they really want, we will find solutions,” she said.

Giving evidence to senior MPs yesterday Mrs May claimed that any extension to Article 50 would require the reopening of the Brexit negotiations that could result in a worse deal than the one on offer at present.

Asked by the Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, who backs a second referendum, whether Article 50 could be extended to give time for a vote Mrs May claimed that it would lead to additional complications. “What is clear is that any extension to Article 50 reopens the negotiations and reopens the deal and at that point the deal can go frankly in any direction,” she said.

Asked whether the EU had directly told her this, Mrs May dodged the question, saying: “What has been made clear is this is the deal that we have negotiated with the European Union.”

Mrs May also admitted that the EU was not convinced that there should be frictionless trade with Britain after Brexit. “If I’m being honest with you, we haven’t persuaded absolutely everybody in Europe about frictionless trade yet,” she said.

European diplomats have made clear that Article 50 would only be extended to give time for a deal to be implemented, not to reopen negotiations.

“It is something available to us that has been talked about in Paris and Berlin,” said one. “Where we are clear is that this is only on offer when we know what the British parliament wants.”

In practical terms the extension could only last until July when the new European parliament is convened. The EU is adamant that the withdrawal treaty, a legal text including the backstop customs union to avoid a hard border in Ireland, cannot be renegotiated. It is open to changing the political declaration to allow the Norway option.

What is Norway-plus?

• Britain would approve the EU withdrawal agreement but during transition negotiate membership of the European Free Trade Association. It would enter into a long-term customs deal with the EU.
• Membership of Efta — and through it the European Economic Area — would give unrestricted access to the EU single market yet not be under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Britain would leave the common agricultural policy.
• The UK would be unable to strike free trade deals, have very limited control over freedom of movement and no say over new EU rules and regulations it would have to apply.
• Advocates of Norway-plus say that it represents a soft Brexit that could command the support of a majority of MPs.
• Critics call it an unsatisfactory fudge that would not deliver on the referendum result or resolve the tensions that led to Brexit.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Ok then, let's just ignore the various top EU brass who've called for it then...

Main goal? they are already doing one thing while the other is hot air, I know which I think is their main goal.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Main goal? they are already doing one thing while the other is hot air, I know which I think is their main goal.

Ok, would you prefer if i had said "one of their long-term goals" instead of "main goal"?

 

[r-u-s-x]

For who?

a) the top 5% - the capitalists who own 75% of the wealth
b) the 95% of ordinary Europeans who own 25% of the wealth
c) the developing world, who get their raw materials and young educated population stolen away, and manufacturing and service sectors supressed

Hmmm, let me see...

Ok their main goal is free trade, I can tell as this is what they have put in place over the past 50 years.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Ok, would you prefer if i had said "one of their long-term goals" instead of "main goal"?

Yes I would have preferred that, even then its just hot air at the moment and if we were in the EU we help shape policy.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Within the EU, Britain has been a major player. As such, we've put ourselves in a position where we are outside of the Eurozone (we don't have the Euro as our currency) and we are outside of Schengen and have other opt-outs, rebates etc.

And the May plan or EFTA is one more step away from the brick, and Canada is two more steps...

 

[glorygloryeze]

Yes I would have preferred that, even then its just hot air at the moment and if we were in the EU we help shape policy.

Ok, i'll edit my post above.
An EU army, the Euro, a European Central Bank, a European Parliament and Commission together with an EU President were all 'hot air' once too..that's hope it starts before it becomes "oh it's only right we do it, after all we've already got x, y,z so this next step is just logical isn't it" etc

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/68b23ec8-f41d-11e8-8c84-29b2667b0b46

European leaders are prepared to offer Britain a three-month extension to Article 50 to prevent parliamentary deadlock triggering a no-deal Brexit.

Under plans being discussed in European capitals the EU would agree to extend Britain’s membership until July to allow time for either a second referendum or to agree a Norway-style soft Brexit.

However, the EU has made clear that the extension would only be offered after parliament had come to a clear conclusion about the type of future relationship it wants.

The move was part of a response to growing fears in Brussels that if Theresa May’s deal is voted down by MPs the ensuing chaos could increase the odds of a no-deal Brexit.

Speaking to the European parliament yesterday, Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead negotiator, warned MPs threatening to vote against the withdrawal treaty that the “future of the country is at stake” and that it was the only offer available. “Given the difficult circumstances of this negotiation and given the extreme complexity of all the issues of the British withdrawal, the treaty that is on the table is the only deal possible,” he said. “This is now the moment of ratification.”

Any EU withdrawal agreement would have to be put into British law before March 28 next year for it to take effect. That would be further complicated if the Commons voted on an alternative arrangement, such as the Norway option, or chose to put the deal to a second referendum.

Yesterday a source made clear that Europe would also welcome a softer Brexit under which Britain would join Norway in the European Free Trade Association [Efta] and sign up to a customs union with the bloc. They said it could be a “game changer”, adding: “Norway plus a customs union would be viewed positively”.

In a significant shift on Wednesday Erna Solberg, the Norwegian prime minister, softened her hostility to Britain joining Efta. “If that is what they really want, we will find solutions,” she said.

Giving evidence to senior MPs yesterday Mrs May claimed that any extension to Article 50 would require the reopening of the Brexit negotiations that could result in a worse deal than the one on offer at present.

Asked by the Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, who backs a second referendum, whether Article 50 could be extended to give time for a vote Mrs May claimed that it would lead to additional complications. “What is clear is that any extension to Article 50 reopens the negotiations and reopens the deal and at that point the deal can go frankly in any direction,” she said.

Asked whether the EU had directly told her this, Mrs May dodged the question, saying: “What has been made clear is this is the deal that we have negotiated with the European Union.”

Mrs May also admitted that the EU was not convinced that there should be frictionless trade with Britain after Brexit. “If I’m being honest with you, we haven’t persuaded absolutely everybody in Europe about frictionless trade yet,” she said.

European diplomats have made clear that Article 50 would only be extended to give time for a deal to be implemented, not to reopen negotiations.

“It is something available to us that has been talked about in Paris and Berlin,” said one. “Where we are clear is that this is only on offer when we know what the British parliament wants.”

In practical terms the extension could only last until July when the new European parliament is convened. The EU is adamant that the withdrawal treaty, a legal text including the backstop customs union to avoid a hard border in Ireland, cannot be renegotiated. It is open to changing the political declaration to allow the Norway option.

What is Norway-plus?

• Britain would approve the EU withdrawal agreement but during transition negotiate membership of the European Free Trade Association. It would enter into a long-term customs deal with the EU.
• Membership of Efta — and through it the European Economic Area — would give unrestricted access to the EU single market yet not be under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Britain would leave the common agricultural policy.
• The UK would be unable to strike free trade deals, have very limited control over freedom of movement and no say over new EU rules and regulations it would have to apply.
• Advocates of Norway-plus say that it represents a soft Brexit that could command the support of a majority of MPs.
• Critics call it an unsatisfactory fudge that would not deliver on the referendum result or resolve the tensions that led to Brexit.

Why the fudge would we want to be in the EFTA?

No say, no other trade deals, still (I believe) paying into the pot, no controls on immigration - what is the point of even considering it?

And, of course the EU would be up for that! We would be a silent partner trapped in their back pocket indefinitely, fudge that. Its even worse than Mays deal.

We need to be all in, or all out. Anything in between is a bloody clusterfudge.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I actually wonder if May, being a remainer, has purposely negotiated such a bad deal to effectively force us to stay in by proxy, extending article 50 etc.

Tusk today as before keeps saying that 'cancelling Brexit' is on the table...FFS, we need to GTFO ASAP