I welcome everyone's view on this, it is an emotional discussion because - I reckon - touches on so many things. I have learned some great interesting things from some members and I welcome everyone's view on this sensitive subject.
The thing that opened my eyes and actually changed my mind was the piece from Marcon's staff about the Brexit and the EU in general. Someone posted the link here earlier, but I can't seem to find it anymore. I have read the whole piece last Thursday and I thought it was well balanced and I actually could see it work for everyone. The concept of an inner circle of highly integrated countries and another circle of countries which could have some influence, but not decision powers, countries like Brittain, Turkey, and Ukraine could join this circle. I think it cold actually involve 3 circles, most inner circle with the Euro countries, the inner circle with EU countries not adopting the Euro and the outer circle which have some of the perks, have influence and have to adopt EU guidelines, but the freedom of movement is highly restricted.
I still owe BCal Dc10 an explanation for the South Korea - EU free trade deal. As I said, it falls within the jurisdiction of the EU commission and EU parliament to conduct trade negotiations with other countries, as long as they are strictly bound by trade. As for dumping of cars - with subsidies from the SK government - that will never be allowed, not within one treaty, because that is not free trade. You have seen it with the EU - Ukraine treaty. The trade parts of this treaty came into effect on January 1st of this year, other parts didn't because The Netherlands didn't rectify it - because of the referendum held here and it rejected the treaty as such -. So the political, aid, military angle hasn't come into effect yet.
And to come back to the UK, yes, we can just have a trade deal, but then Brittish banks can't trade within the EU and since the British economy is heavily depended on this, this will be a major problem. You can see it now, lot's of banks are planning to move to either Paris, Frankfurt, Dublin or Amsterdam because of the Brexit. Those are real life results of the Brexit.
BCal Dc10 wrote:
So I have had fun being away for a day or two - and I was chatting to some interesting folks in New York (uber drivers - always have an opinion!) and I mention brexit - and this was a response from one uber driver when we got chatting about politics and I mentioned brexit, who said - well the UK is still part of the permanent members of the security council, they hold a nuclear weapon deterrent, and they have one of the best security services in the world. Isn't that something the EU will want to think about and remember during these talks about who gets what. His words.
I know it is a terrible thing to mention, but when push comes to some shove about you know - stuff - the UK will say - well you still want all our top class GCHQ security service assistance or not?
Now y'all can bicker until the cows come home about whether that is immoral or wrong, but when I mentioned this at dinner with some learned friends tonight, they said - well the EU should decide if forcing the UK into economic hardship is immoral or wrong? Punishing a country for leaving rather than encouraging an environment that both parties will economically gain from - that is the right thing to do. One at the table said - beat them til they bleed. I think he had too many martinis. Aha. But brings up an interesting point. Is forcing the U.K. Into an economic hardship something that is beneficial to the EU?
People in the USA I have talked to about this find this Franco/German punishment ideology completely crazy. They see the desire to see a fellow close country and ally to fail is just bizarre.
As always, some interesting questions here.
- the uber driver is quite wrong. One of those areas the EU hasn't really come together is foreign policies. I would love to see a seat reserved for the EU and that the EU becomes a permanent member, but then France should give up its seat for that. But I feel that is a long way off. There are many examples where the UK votes one way and France another, most notably with the Iraq war of 2003, France was against it and the UK all for it. As for nuclear weapon deterrent, France has them, but more importantly, Britain isn't leaving NATO, so that is not in issue either. I know some pleat for an EU defense force, but the EU - as of yet - doesn't have any, so that is not an issue either.
As of the security services, don't know much about that one, but I can't imagine that the British security services are that much more interconnected and that they share that much more information than putting all the services of the EU-27 together. So in this area you also have a mutual beneficiary relationship, so why would Brittain give that up?
- You have some interesting friends there, would love to sit in, in one of those dinners
. I still believe the whole punishment idea is a lot of EU rhetoric, they shouldnot do it, yet they do. The actual negotiations aren't going be like a punitive expedition (is this correct English?). As I said, I subscribe to the Marcon ideas about this, parallel discussions of the Brexit deal and a new set of trade deals with an outlook to a new design of the EU itself. Never waste a good crisis.
What I find more interesting, what will happen to the UK, will it be broken up? Will Scotland leave, will Northen Island be united with the Republic of Ireland?