Pihero wrote:

So in fact we didn't insult anybody, did we ?

There were plenty of insults. Most of them have since been removed - see post 560.

Pihero wrote:

In many countries, this could be characterized as defamation.

I'm sure you'll be hard-pressed to find many (if any) countries where making a claim against an unspecified set of anonymous user IDs could count as defamation. Even less so if the claim being made is actually true.

There were no insult, just some people started to talk about nuclear weapons and it was off limits.

Dutchy wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Thanks Dutchy - I appreciate you taking time to come back on some of the points I raised. A lot of what you have mentioned has been covered already, but I think your point about the UK and its component parts brings up some very interesting angles on the whole argument.

Would you be kind to give us some more information on all the banks moving out of the UK. You said "lots of banks are planning to move to.... insert European city .... I have seen some talk of some departments of banks having to move. But talking to some big US banking executives in New York last week, (its just chatter so my argument is baseless - so I can't back it up sorry folks) - that really isn't the case - at least they don't see it like that. So if you could show us the statements from banks who are moving entire operations out of the UK, it would help back up your argument - which is valid - but it needs some back up. Thanks Dutchy.

While I'm not Dutchy, I'll try to answer you. I have the impression that a lot of banks are making plans to relocate their staff in London to. Paris, Dublin and Frankfurt seems to be the most popular choices. Wether or not they will actually act on those plans will probably depend on the Brexit negogiations, but it would probably be stupid of them to not have a plan B in case their London office loses acces to the EU market. Recommended reading: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/arti ... xit-timing

no problem, mate.

Not just banks, car manufacturers, and other businesses are rethinking before investing in the UK at the moment, or want guarantees from Westminster that any negative outcome will be compensated. I would do the same if I were about to invest many millions of pounds.

True, the car industry will also face some potential challenges. And if Britain leaves the single market without a trade deal I can easily see car manufacturers moving production from the UK. http://www.politico.eu/article/nissan-t ... -deal-ceo/

Dutchy wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

First up I honestly believe the situation between England and Scotland is in some ways like the EU and UK. Huge trade between each other, so much commonality, freedom of movement, finance, citizens in each other's states, etc etc etc.

Let me tell you this - when I read the EU v UK arguments - they are nearly all parallel to the UK v Scotland - in reverse.
It's almost surreal sometimes. The same arguments some of you passionate continental European posters argue - why would you want to leave, life will be difficult afterwards, costs will rise, blah blah blah - are EXACTLY the same arguments the UK uses against the Scottish leaving the UK. It's like a mini UK Scotchit - or for want of a better term. The same rhetoric, the same bitching moaning you are idiots, no you are idiots - it would almost be amusing if it wasn't so tragic. The Brits want out of a Union. The Scots want to stay in a union. But they want out of a union. I'm getting confused.

They are, you are not the only one to make that connection. Any argument May uses for leaving the EU can be used by Nicola Sturgeon for Scottish independence. http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwo ... -stalemate

Yes, but one big difference, Scotland wants to join (or remain) in a much bigger union.

According to the referendums, Scotland wants to remain in both unions. But if there is a new independence referendum, they will have to choose between staying in the UK but outside the EU, or leaving the UK and reentering the EU.

Pihero wrote:

I've never understood how a huge majority at the parliament could change Mrs May's hands in the coming negotiations.
Please enlighten us.

Look beyond the EU and just at the UK and you will see:

1. Gino Miller took the government to court which created a delay in trigerring Brexit and putting forth the negotiating position.
2. House of Lords - with some members "compromised" - delayed the court ordered parliament bill to trigger Article 50 -
3. Labour MP's pushing for an approval vote in parliament and more powers to negotiate
4. Labour MP's and some Tories pushing for UK to confirm status of EU residents without any negotiation.
5. Labour MP's disagreement on the bill to codify all existing EU regulations into UK law allowing them to be repealed after Brexit on an individual basis.

The parliament has a huge role to play in ensuing that what is negotiated is passed into law in the UK, the slim majority of the government meant that those in denial could create even more delays.

par13del wrote:

The parliament has a huge role to play in ensuing that what is negotiated is passed into law in the UK, the slim majority of the government meant that those in denial could create even more delays.

But in fact they can't create more delay as the end of the delay is known: 29 march 2019 0 h CET. UK general election is an internal affair that May is using to try to get 5 years uncontested power.
It is nice for her but I don't see what it could change for Brexit.

Olddog wrote:

par13del wrote:

The parliament has a huge role to play in ensuing that what is negotiated is passed into law in the UK, the slim majority of the government meant that those in denial could create even more delays.

But in fact they can't create more delay as the end of the delay is known: 29 march 2019 0 h CET. UK general election is an internal affair that May is using to try to get 5 years uncontested power.
It is nice for her but I don't see what it could change for Brexit.

I agree ; it seems like internal politics are more important than the exit from the EU.
For most Europeans I know - very different political backgrounds -, that's fine by us, hard Brexit they want ? Hard Brexit it will be, the sooner, the better.

Example, the Labour Manifesto states that if no deal is reached by the end of the two year period they will refuse to leave the EU, how they will do that is open to suggestion, guess they will ignore the referendum results and state that this election over turned that vote????

As for the delay, if the UK is delayed by internal politics they will have to request an extension by the EU individual governments, to the people who voted for leave that would be a delay created by internal UK politics.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2017-39930865

Olddog wrote:

But in fact they can't create more delay as the end of the delay is known: 29 march 2019 0 h CET. UK general election is an internal affair that May is using to try to get 5 years uncontested power.
It is nice for her but I don't see what it could change for Brexit.

Well an extension can be requested, whether it will be granted is another story, however, the delaying tactics can be used to ensure that nothing is finalized on the UK side in due time..Would be interesting if an extension is denied, the remainer's for the most part seem to think an extension is desirable and a given.

Yes an extension can be requested. But granted ? I very much doubt they can get it. Labour has no power to refuse since article 50 process started.

Well we did see one quote where an EU official said the Article 50 could be rescinded so......

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

But in fact they can't create more delay as the end of the delay is known: 29 march 2019 0 h CET. UK general election is an internal affair that May is using to try to get 5 years uncontested power.
It is nice for her but I don't see what it could change for Brexit.

Well an extension can be requested, whether it will be granted is another story, however, the delaying tactics can be used to ensure that nothing is finalized on the UK side in due time..Would be interesting if an extension is denied, the remainer's for the most part seem to think an extension is desirable and a given.

An extension depends on an unanimous agreement of all UE27 !
If one thinks it's a given, he/she is a lot more optimistic than I am.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/ma ... tification

Guess we don't have to worry about small minded Wallonians derailing any future deals.

NOT SO FAST !!!

Pihero wrote:

NOT SO FAST !!!

I am not sure why some in the UK think that trade being an exclusive Commission competence would help anyway. Isn't the Commission repeatedly described as this bureaucratic, anti-UK body run by an out of touch drunk?

This is a very funny episode :
Apparently the mistake came on the definition of *exclusive competences* for the EU Commission and those of the member states.
So a few people just wanted the "bloody difficult woman" to have as a sole opponent a very weak EU Commission led by a "drunkard" she will manipulate around her little fingers...
Alas ! small minded Wallonians and all their ilk DO have a say and as a matter of fact, any trade agreement between the EU and any third country will have to be validates and ratified by... 32 assemblies !

Talk about taking one's wishes for reality !

There is still time to wake up !

this is turning into another competition of most stupid Johnson wanting the EU to pay the UK for leaving the EU and the EU deciding to make an agreement with the UK next to impossible. Lemming politicians...

seahawk wrote:

EU deciding to make an agreement with the UK next to impossible. Lemming politicians...

Since the UK is a part of the EU this one is even more their own fault than all the rest of the Brexit Problems.

best regards
Thomas

As per my reading, trade - which is limited to import/export of goods & services, and which involves import duties etc is in domain of EU bureaucrats. Only investment related issues, and disputes resolution issues need to be ratified by individual countries.

So this can be split into two phases. One for market access for goods and services, which EU commission has full powers to negotiate and can be done earlier. The second phase for investments etc can go on in parallel but will take more time for ratification among member countries.

No, it does not work that way. In this case UK is not a foreign entity looking for a trade deal. It is a part of Europe wanting to split while keeping access to it.

I think what blrsea is saying is that the UK has the option to negotiate a minimalist free trade agreement that has good chances to pass relatively quickly (before Brexit preferably), or to try for an all-of-the-above deal that will never be ratified in time.

Aesma wrote:

I think what blrsea is saying is that the UK has the option to negotiate a minimalist free trade agreement that has good chances to pass relatively quickly (before Brexit preferably), or to try for an all-of-the-above deal that will never be ratified in time.

Let's put that into perspective :
According to the EU Commission, and Barnier in person, the *exit* negotiation should be completed in October 2018 in order to be validated by the EU 27 in time for the 29 March 2019 deadline.
But :
1/- these can't start until the UK general elections and their sequels are over . So as a matter of fact they can't start before end of June.
2/- that leaves 15 months to achieve an agreement ( including hols)
3/- the UK government wants * series* of four consecutive days per month.... giving us a total of 60 days max.
4/- I assume that the negotiations would go smoothly ( I'm an un-reformable optimist !) and the text submitted to the EU 27 represent an acceptable agreement ; surely, it would conform to the good progress the Commission wanted in order to proceed to the phase of future relationships / trade agreement negotiations.
Big big problem : there are only 5 months left. A trade agreement completed in 5 months is totally unrealistic... which brings us closer to the end of the 2 year period... with no accord.
Of course, an extension is possible... it will only need an unanimous agreement from the EU 27.

Sh1T ! I'm not optimistic anymore !

tommy1808 wrote:

Since the UK is a part of the EU this one is even more their own fault than all the rest of the Brexit Problems.

best regards
Thomas

I would think the UK would be careful here, after all, as a member of the EU they did exercise their authority in postponing the EU military HQ initiative, look where that go them in the public eye, so............

Pihero wrote:

Big big problem : there are only 5 months left. A trade agreement completed in 5 months is totally unrealistic... which brings us closer to the end of the 2 year period... with no accord.
Of course, an extension is possible... it will only need an unanimous agreement from the EU 27.

Sh1T ! I'm not optimistic anymore !

Well the only thing going in both sides favour is:

1. The UK is a current member of the EU and presently follows most if not all of the EU product directives related to trade
2. The UK and the EU know exactly what items are traded between each other.

I am more inclined to believe that it will be political issues that would make the time too short whether it was months or years and since both sides have continued to trade with non-EU countries, they both have mechanisms in place to ensure that proper separation or products are in place.

It can work or it can not. If you follow the lines of Junker and Johnson it will be a disaster, if you follow a less stupid approach it might work. The basic problem is that, if the UK wants to make good on the promises made to the voters in run-up to the Brexit, it can only blow up.

Aesma wrote:

I think what blrsea is saying is that the UK has the option to negotiate a minimalist free trade agreement that has good chances to pass relatively quickly (before Brexit preferably), or to try for an all-of-the-above deal that will never be ratified in time.

Yup, thats what I meant. If anything requires all EU members to ratify, even another 2 year extension won't be sufficient.

I understand what you mean, but there are steps to follow. And Brexit deal should be solved before any other deal if i understood perfectly what EU negotiator said.

Olddog wrote:

I understand what you mean, but there are steps to follow. And Brexit deal should be solved before any other deal if i understood perfectly what EU negotiator said.

That is indeed the proposal of the EU-27.

Hello! I'm back. Sorry I've been away - business to attend to. I'm sure no one missed me. Maybe Dutchy. I think he secretly likes me and my fun debates. Aha.

I'm not going back quoting anything or any of that stuff - just going to say (again) - what I think.

I would again argue that any politician coming along and "posturing" about contributions or any of that guff - its ELECTIONEERING!!
Come on people - we've all been there when our leaders have made VERY bold statements on international policy, but when push comes to shove after the respective General, it doesn't happen that way. Diplomacy takes over. So my plea to this forum is we stop taking BoJo's sounding off's as anything more than rhetoric to get an electorate out and vote.

It's what happens after June 8 that counts.

Let me ask a question - as there have been lots of posturing about the UK General and it holding up negotiations. I assume there will be no subsequent hold up for the German Elections - or any other EU nation that dares to have an election between now and March something 2019.
Because that would strike as a hypocritical note to the complaints about the UK holding up proceedings.
So has the EU commission / Parliament / EU who ever runs this organisation had an agreement that all member states aren't allowed to hold elections during this time? Or does due process take over - like the German election was always going to be on this date, so you get away with it

What if Italy holds a snap poll? Greece? These are hardly stable political states right now - so if there is a Greco meltdown - there is a guarantee it won't hold back negotiations? Because what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, no?

Lastly - going back to banks - I think my question wasn't about wholesale departures of Goldman Sachs, and the likes from London. Just a departmental move. I have seen that many times, even between US states, and between countries. This isn't a mass exodus as far as I can see - (which is purely based on gossip from my banking friends in wall st in New York) - so i offer it as pure tittle tattle, gossip and wild speculation. And nothing more. A few thousand here. A few thousand there. The talk - certainly amongst my friends of Wall St, is of a resetting of the balance, that may cause London a few wobbles, but its too big and too important worldwide, to let this movement of a few EU organisation to let it go down.

(Addendum - I don't think anything racist or xenophobic has been said here - but a poster made a claim that users from other countries external to this issue weren't worthy of participation in the debate - you know who you are. The mod correctly deleted all the posts around that discussion - and I will say this is the last time I'll mention this - so lets enjoy everyone (regardless of nationality) participating in a great and really enjoyable debate - Airnet would be less fun without this)

Hugs & fun friendly debate - BCalDC10

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, but one big difference, Scotland wants to join (or remain) in a much bigger union.

I said I wouldn't quote anything, but as I enjoy debating interesting points with Dutchy, your quote makes me think of lots of things.

The problem is - and I have thought much about this in recent days - how to formulate a response and I think the fact that most reasonable people with a degree of intelligence (me a masters in Mechanical Engineering, Commerce and French) - see how hard the arguments are. And they are so complex. Or you wouldn't all get your panties in a bunch about this, as much as you all do.

Scotland has an issue of being in a Union (with the rest of the UK). It wants full control over its economy, its defense, its home controls, police, social security benefits, I assume its borders, its immigration, healthcare, its domestic spending. Etc etc - A view from being a member of the UK union.

So by leaving the United Kingdom, in the short term it becomes its own singular country with control over EVERYTHING! Congrats Scotland. You are independent nation. Crack on. Do your best. But then she says - och aye we want to be in the EU!! (As a full member I assume)

So my question is - what does an independent member country - like Scotland, theoretically in the future, give up to be a member of the EU. There are pro's and con's. Access to the single market is obviously a massive benefit to a country like Scotland. There are probably downsides. So what are they?

So I ask all forum members to be honest, (and polite) and say what are the downsides to EU membership for a country joining? And please don't say there aren't any, because if there were no downsides, countries wouldn't want to leave. So what freedoms does a country give up, and what costs does it bear, to gain access to the EU group of 28 (27 after March 2019)?? Do those costs (financial and otherwise) outweigh the benefits?

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, but one big difference, Scotland wants to join (or remain) in a much bigger union.

I said I wouldn't quote anything, but as I enjoy debating interesting points with Dutchy, your quote makes me think of lots of things.

The problem is - and I have thought much about this in recent days - how to formulate a response and I think the fact that most reasonable people with a degree of intelligence (me a masters in Mechanical Engineering, Commerce and French) - see how hard the arguments are. And they are so complex. Or you wouldn't all get your panties in a bunch about this, as much as you all do.

Scotland has an issue of being in a Union (with the rest of the UK). It wants full control over its economy, its defense, its home controls, police, social security benefits, I assume its borders, its immigration, healthcare, its domestic spending. Etc etc - A view from being a member of the UK union.

So by leaving the United Kingdom, in the short term it becomes its own singular country with control over EVERYTHING! Congrats Scotland. You are independent nation. Crack on. Do your best. But then she says - och aye we want to be in the EU!! (As a full member I assume)


So my question is - what does an independent member country - like Scotland, theoretically in the future, give up to be a member of the EU. There are pro's and con's. Access to the single market is obviously a massive benefit to a country like Scotland. There are probably downsides. So what are they?

So I ask all forum members to be honest, (and polite) and say what are the downsides to EU membership for a country joining? And please don't say there aren't any, because if there were no downsides, countries wouldn't want to leave. So what freedoms does a country give up, and what costs does it bear, to gain access to the EU group of 28 (27 after March 2019)?? Do those costs (financial and otherwise) outweigh the benefits?

That is a very difficult thing to answer, the benefits and cost will differ for each and every country. I think it has more to do with your worldview, then any rational arguments. And thus that will differ from person to person.

In central and eastern Europe they were occupied for 50years and wanted some protection and a better live in general, and I think that is still valid.

Benefits:
Larger economic market without any restrictions --> make the pie bigger instead to redistribute it
Shared general set of rules and thus control mechanism, you don't need to do everything times 28
Joined research projects
For every country --> have more power in the world
Shared values and a shared justice system and thus protection for the individual, the EU will enforce it, if necessary, see the Hungary case
A mechanism for countries to settle their differences other than war, bare in mind that there hasn't been a weaponised conflict within the EU since its conception --> Europe is the most bloody continent, everybody fought everybody each and every time.

Drawbacks:
You give up some sovereignty, as you do with all international treaties to which you commit.
Another bureaucratic layer
Slow progress, lots of countries must agree
Can't react quickly if a situation calls for: refugee-crisis, Euro-crisis

As with everything, there are winners and losers, with countries, among the population.

As for Scotland, the UK members are far more qualified to answer that one, but let me give it a try.
As far as I understand it, besides the strong national identity, Scotland is more Labour orientated and thus more social than Westminster and that is a source for conflict. And, as the referendum results have shown, they want to remain part of the EU.

Now I am going to speculate: the UK population hasn't really got over the fact that Britania doesn't rule the waves anymore. From the world power where the sun never sets to an Island nation of the coast of Europe. If you look what has happened during the rule of Queen Elisabeth II, the empire got dismantled. The Scottish seems to be more Europe orientated.

Dutchy wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, but one big difference, Scotland wants to join (or remain) in a much bigger union.

I said I wouldn't quote anything, but as I enjoy debating interesting points with Dutchy, your quote makes me think of lots of things.

The problem is - and I have thought much about this in recent days - how to formulate a response and I think the fact that most reasonable people with a degree of intelligence (me a masters in Mechanical Engineering, Commerce and French) - see how hard the arguments are. And they are so complex. Or you wouldn't all get your panties in a bunch about this, as much as you all do.

Scotland has an issue of being in a Union (with the rest of the UK). It wants full control over its economy, its defense, its home controls, police, social security benefits, I assume its borders, its immigration, healthcare, its domestic spending. Etc etc - A view from being a member of the UK union.

So by leaving the United Kingdom, in the short term it becomes its own singular country with control over EVERYTHING! Congrats Scotland. You are independent nation. Crack on. Do your best. But then she says - och aye we want to be in the EU!! (As a full member I assume)


So my question is - what does an independent member country - like Scotland, theoretically in the future, give up to be a member of the EU. There are pro's and con's. Access to the single market is obviously a massive benefit to a country like Scotland. There are probably downsides. So what are they?

So I ask all forum members to be honest, (and polite) and say what are the downsides to EU membership for a country joining? And please don't say there aren't any, because if there were no downsides, countries wouldn't want to leave. So what freedoms does a country give up, and what costs does it bear, to gain access to the EU group of 28 (27 after March 2019)?? Do those costs (financial and otherwise) outweigh the benefits?

That is a very difficult thing to answer, the benefits and cost will differ for each and every country. I think it has more to do with your worldview, then any rational arguments. And thus that will differ from person to person.

In central and eastern Europe they were occupied for 50years and wanted some protection and a better live in general, and I think that is still valid.

Benefits:
Larger economic market without any restrictions --> make the pie bigger instead to redistribute it
Shared general set of rules and thus control mechanism, you don't need to do everything times 28
Joined research projects
For every country --> have more power in the world
Shared values and a shared justice system and thus protection for the individual, the EU will enforce it, if necessary, see the Hungary case
A mechanism for countries to settle their differences other than war, bare in mind that there hasn't been a weaponised conflict within the EU since its conception --> Europe is the most bloody continent, everybody fought everybody each and every time.

Drawbacks:
You give up some sovereignty, as you do with all international treaties to which you commit.
Another bureaucratic layer
Slow progress, lots of countries must agree
Can't react quickly if a situation calls for: refugee-crisis, Euro-crisis

As with everything, there are winners and losers, with countries, among the population.

As for Scotland, the UK members are far more qualified to answer that one, but let me give it a try.
As far as I understand it, besides the strong national identity, Scotland is more Labour orientated and thus more social than Westminster and that is a source for conflict. And, as the referendum results have shown, they want to remain part of the EU.

Now I am going to speculate: the UK population hasn't really got over the fact that Britania doesn't rule the waves anymore. From the world power where the sun never sets to an Island nation of the coast of Europe. If you look what has happened during the rule of Queen Elisabeth II, the empire got dismantled. The Scottish seems to be more Europe orientated.

Interesting. When a country becomes a full member, when does the "assessment" bill land on the mat? Congrats at joining our club - here are your subs. Cheque will do, AMEX maybe not - think of the airmiles! is there a fine print that commits you to payments beyond 5 years of membership terms, and you won't get any money back on jointly owned assets?

I note you didn't mention security as a benefit. Do you see NATO as being the key here? How does that reconcile with a proposed EU defence force.
If you merge all your armed forces, as has been proposed a lot recently - how does this work in practice? i can't see too many small EU states being thrilled at being dragged into a Falkland style conflict, say a French territory was invaded. You could see your EU harmony fracturing beyond repair - but I cite an extreme example, something to be wary of though.

Is the empire decline just a Brit thing? France seems to keep a grip on its colonies with a firm fist - just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. Do the Dutch think much back to their days of colonialism? I think to dismiss the British Empire so quickly is incorrect. That empire had far reaching effects on over 1 billion people. So it's not something you just "get over" that quickly or easily. You all still discuss Roman Empire effects even now, 1800 years later.

As for the Scottish being more European, I don't match that view. I see it as blind panic that "what the f*** will we do once we're out of the UK" logic rather than - ooooh we're so European. Scotland's biggest trading partner is the rest of the UK by 4 times. Leaving the UK that goes away. Like UK leaving the EU. Your biggest trading partner goes away. I know plenty Scots - they all voted remain on financial reasons - not feeling themselves "more European"

I dont have time for a detailed answer and most was already answered up this thread. But as it was often talked the UK military, have a look at that answer dont by Federica Mogherini in the guardian today about defence and Brexit:

Any hopes the UK may have had of using security cooperation as bait for a better deal, were also dismissed on Thursday by the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, Federica Mogherini.

Announcing the founding of an EU military headquarters, in the face of some British resistance, Mogherini told reporters: “We will define together how the future relations will be in this field but this is not a field where one side has to perceive itself as stronger than the other, on the contrary.

“The UK is an important foreign policy, security and defence player but nothing compared to the other 27 together. So there is no trade-off imaginable.”

Mogherini added: “The UK contributes to our civilian mission by 3% and military operations by 5% and that is mainly the headquarters in Norfolk. And obviously the headquarters will not be in a non-member state in the future. So there is not such significant contribution to our missions and operations form the UK to be put on the table.”

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Interesting. When a country becomes a full member, when does the "assessment" bill land on the mat? Congrats at joining our club - here are your subs. Cheque will do, AMEX maybe not - think of the airmiles! is there a fine print that commits you to payments beyond 5 years of membership terms, and you won't get any money back on jointly owned assets?

They have to be in compliance with the EU: acquis communautaire

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enla ... bership_en

The process can take quite a few years.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I note you didn't mention security as a benefit. Do you see NATO as being the key here? How does that reconcile with a proposed EU defence force.
If you merge all your armed forces, as has been proposed a lot recently - how does this work in practice? i can't see too many small EU states being thrilled at being dragged into a Falkland style conflict, say a French territory was invaded. You could see your EU harmony fracturing beyond repair - but I cite an extreme example, something to be wary of though.

NATO and the EU are two different things. If the EU wants to have a defense force, then so be it. You noted one problem there, what if an oversea territory is invaded. I think they are exempt within the NATO charter, see the Falklands, and also they are not within the EU. So perhaps that is a way to get around that?

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Is the empire decline just a Brit thing? France seems to keep a grip on its colonies with a firm fist - just my opinion, maybe I'm wrong. Do the Dutch think much back to their days of colonialism? I think to dismiss the British Empire so quickly is incorrect. That empire had far reaching effects on over 1 billion people. So it's not something you just "get over" that quickly or easily. You all still discuss Roman Empire effects even now, 1800 years later.

Don't think many people will think back at the colonial Dutch days. We still have some territories in the Caribbean, but I don't think many people will object if they became truly independent.

But that's not what I meant, sure it has had a far-reaching consequence, but looking from a distance, some people seem to long back to those days, when India, Pakistan etc. were all part of the empire. And that isn't the case anymore. A bit like Russia, they seem to think they are a world-class power while they are just a regional power at best. And that is quite dangerous, because if you feel that the empire could come back in a new way, free trade within the Commonwealth for instance, then you might get a big slab in your face. I don't see that happening.

BCal Dc10 wrote:

As for the Scottish being more European, I don't match that view. I see it as blind panic that "what the f*** will we do once we're out of the UK" logic rather than - ooooh we're so European. Scotland's biggest trading partner is the rest of the UK by 4 times. Leaving the UK that goes away. Like UK leaving the EU. Your biggest trading partner goes away. I know plenty Scots - they all voted remain on financial reasons - not feeling themselves "more European"

That might be the case, I don't know.

As it relates to Scotland, the EU has already stated that since Scotland is a part of the UK they have to leave when the UK leaves, politicians who still talk about them remaining in the EU are simply confusing the electorate.
Scotland becomes an independent country first, then they can apply to join the EU after meeting all the entry requirements.

The UK is not giving them an independence vote before the election so.......

par13del wrote:

As it relates to Scotland, the EU has already stated that since Scotland is a part of the UK they have to leave when the UK leaves, politicians who still talk about them remaining in the EU are simply confusing the electorate.
Scotland becomes an independent country first, then they can apply to join the EU after meeting all the entry requirements.

The UK is not giving them an independence vote before the election so.......

That is indeed the official position,

BCal Dc10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

BCal Dc10 wrote:

I note you didn't mention security as a benefit. Do you see NATO as being the key here? How does that reconcile with a proposed EU defence force.
If you merge all your armed forces, as has been proposed a lot recently - how does this work in practice? i can't see too many small EU states being thrilled at being dragged into a Falkland style conflict, say a French territory was invaded.

That ship has sailed. All EU states ratified the Lisbon treaty, which comes with a mural defense clause. It is actually a much stronger defense clause than NATO, since "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States."

No exclusion of territory and you have to go all in.

Best regards
Thomas

The G7 meeting seems to have made France and Germany pissed off.

Merkel today talkes about that Trump and Brexit makes US and UK less trsutworthy as allies and alternatives is needed.

olle wrote:

The G7 meeting seems to have made France and Germany pissed off.

Merkel today talkes about that Trump and Brexit makes US and UK less trsutworthy as allies and alternatives is needed.

The alternative is a stronger EU and she is right. Trump makes the US less trustworthy, he is too erratic to trust.

Several odd situations from what I see.

First the German PM has now said that the EU can no longer rely on the US or UK. No doubt the Trump visit was the primary reason for that, with the UK added in because of BRITEX.

As much of a moron as our President is all I can do is apologize for those who voted for him and believe that there are far wiser man and women in the Congress that will pull that pile of blubber aside and give him a small bit of education. I think we know that briefing papers for the President needs to be of the illustrated type, but please don;'t loose hope.

As far as the UK goes, I believe that now is the time for the EU and UK leaders to stop talking publicly and work together to maintain as tight a relationship as possible, The EU gains nothing if all the UK banks move from London and causes a financial disaster in the UK - not when it is so important for the EU to depend on NATO installations in the UK and the UK voters to support Article 5. Angry little games from either the UK or the EU only favor Russia.

olle wrote:

The G7 meeting seems to have made France and Germany pissed off.

Merkel today talkes about that Trump and Brexit makes US and UK less trsutworthy as allies and alternatives is needed.

Have you seen the British "no debate" for the next PM? If a nutjob like Corbyn looks more competent than the current PM there got to be a problem. May sounds a lot like Trump, because she rather have no deal with the EU than a deal that is not fully favourable to the UK. That is Trump style politics.

I think it is just a way from May to try to get votes with the rabid fan base. The sad Manchester attack may have saved the elections for her as just before the polls were in free fall.

For once something was agreed between the EU and UK : http://www.politico.eu/article/us-round ... es-deepen/

Alas, the rest of the world said "NO!"

No but with the wto we will see the final result around 2025

This only shows how complicated brexit will become.

No surprise here.

A question, is there anything in the EU rules / regulations or the Article 50 process which eliminates a member from taking its turn as president after triggering Article 50?
I admit I was in support of them not taking up the position,in hindsight, I think it was a mistake, the EU would not have allowed the UK to set any major agenda nor I think would the UK want to, but the position would have allowed another more direct formal communication route of the principles both sides are after, the technocrats will and have to meet anyway, so they and their duties are not affected.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 45801.html

par13del wrote:

A question, is there anything in the EU rules / regulations or the Article 50 process which eliminates a member from taking its turn as president after triggering Article 50?

Not sure, but it wouldn't really make much sense (but it is the EU we're talking about ). That article was written shortly after the referendum and before Article 50 was actually invoked.

I am looking at it only from the point that the PM would have had much more interaction with the EU top brass to more clearly define and have conversations with those who in the long run pull the strings. The position is only 6 months, how much is actually accomplished during the tenure is another story.

Congratulations, my British friends, with your monumental decision to leave us: http://uk.businessinsider.com/oecd-char ... he-curve-1

Dutchy wrote:

Congratulations, my British friends, with your monumental decision to leave us: http://uk.businessinsider.com/oecd-char ... he-curve-1

Eh? Watching UK politics for the last few months has been nothing if not entertaining. Well worth a little economic pain.

Seriously though, if the Tory publications (Spectator, Telegraph, CH) are an indicator, the Brexiteers are doing their best impression of "fake it till you make it", although it's not clear if even they believe they're right.

I particularly enjoyed stumbling upon an a.net poster (a Brexiteer IIRC) getting mocked and laughed at in the pro-Brexit CH for pointing out the less positive implications of a cliff edge Brexit on aviation. I suspect said poster realizes his brothers in arms really don't understand what they signed up for.

The rest of the world has largely moved on. Now it's just a matter of sitting back and enjoying an unhealthy dose of schadenfreude watching this clown show proceed.