World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Brexit - ciao Britain? She doesn't go anywhere
message 251:
by
Nik
(new)
Sep 28, 2020 01:49AM
One of the ideas behind all the hardships is probably to demonstrate that exit is painful lest others will entertain funny thoughts
reply
|
flag
Swiss staying on board with EU..."Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to end an accord with the EU allowing the free movement of people.
With all referendum votes counted, nearly 62% said they wanted to keep free movement, while 38% were against.
Switzerland is not a member of the EU but has a series of interdependent treaties with Brussels which allow it to access to Europe's free trade area.
The move to rein in immigration was proposed by the Swiss People's Party (SVP), but opposed by the government.
A similar initiative to introduce quotas on immigrants from the EU to Switzerland narrowly passed in a 2014 referendum, damaging Swiss-EU relations.
Swiss people are given a direct say in their own affairs under the country's system of direct democracy. They are regularly invited to vote on various issues in national or regional referendums"
Philip wrote: "....Swiss people are given a direct say in their own affairs under the country's system of direct democracy. They are regularly invited to vote on various issues in national or regional referendums ..."I like that part about Swiss system....
Meanwhile, I guess we are nearing another (quasi-) climax on Brexit road
As elections exhaust themselves in the States, on the one hand, while Brexit is still sort of unaccomplished, on the other, and allowing for new active members from the UK, thought they might want to weigh in
Nik wrote: "As elections exhaust themselves in the States, on the one hand, while Brexit is still sort of unaccomplished, on the other, and allowing for new active members from the UK, thought they might want ..."
Ha ha, after 4 years of that debate, you must think we're suckers for punishment, Nik.
Well, I'll rise to the bait ;) I wanted to leave from the moment we signed The Maastricht Treaty in the mid '90s and voted accordingly in 2016.
Don't regret it one bit but wish we had someone else in charge to oversee it. Hope Boris proves me wrong and does the job satisfactorily.
Ha ha, after 4 years of that debate, you must think we're suckers for punishment, Nik.
Well, I'll rise to the bait ;) I wanted to leave from the moment we signed The Maastricht Treaty in the mid '90s and voted accordingly in 2016.
Don't regret it one bit but wish we had someone else in charge to oversee it. Hope Boris proves me wrong and does the job satisfactorily.
Current status - getting all formal1. UK left EU on 31st Jan 2020
2. UK is currently in UK/EU Transition agreement which expires at 23:00 on 31st Dec 2020
3. UK and EU currently in continuing trade agreement talks to replace 2.
4. This was supposed to be completed by Mid Oct because EU had to have it done to allow national Parliaments to ratify - if ratification needed - some dispute about whether they do or don't as UK in is still in (or out depending on belief system)
5. If No 3 then UK leaves and will trade on WTO terms. Other agreements not covering trade unclear e.g. Europol, etc.
6. Main stumbling blocks remain Fishing access, data protection and ability of UK to support UK industries without falling foul of EU competitive rules in particular state aid - EU want UK to follow EU law and UK says we are not in EU. EU in general wants UK to agree to ECJ jurisdiction and UK says no.
7. No impact on NATO, Bilateral Frnech, Irish etc agreements, UN membership, membership of EHCR, or was going to say price of fish but who know.
After all this nothing actually changes the goods and services exchanged between UK and EU on 1st Jan will be same as on 31st Dec only the bureaucracy changes and that is entirely in the gift of the bureaucrat who all need to be told to get a life. For example EU thinks data protection will be different in 2021 when UK DPA 2018 includes all the GDPR rules. Jurisdiction would go to UK Supreme Court not ECJ for UK decisions but ECJ for European. For some reason EU believes this is not adequate 1 minute after it was perfectly adequate.
Basically my conker is bigger than yours.
It will go to the wire because that's what the EU always does - got to keep all those EU personnel in employment and those offices in Brussels, etc full. By the way EU not reducing size of Bureaucracy all UK roles being replaced with more EU civil servants. Still not clear where EU budget is coming from after UK leaves, but we are in make up budgets as you go along territory in all nations at the moment
Beau wrote: "Nik wrote: "As elections exhaust themselves in the States, on the one hand, while Brexit is still sort of unaccomplished, on the other, and allowing for new active members from the UK, thought they..."Can you explain why you want to leave? What is it about Brexit that made the majority want out? Is it a bad deal of something else? I have no dog in the fight and have no real opinion except the people spoke.
Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Nik wrote: "As elections exhaust themselves in the States, on the one hand, while Brexit is still sort of unaccomplished, on the other, and allowing for new active members from the UK,..."On the remain side it was blamed on attitudes to immigration, which I felt was insulting. i.e. they accused those in favour of Brexit as being racist at worst and xenophobic at best (given most Europeans are the same race as most Brits)
Personally my beef was with EU institutions behaving like a nation state with the ECJ in particular over-riding elected Parliaments and fining nations. I can throw in the treatment of Greece.
The EEC started as a trade body then federalists and others decided they wanted to be a Super state even bigger than USA. They spent money on anthems, currency (German banks dressed up as European central bank), Presidents and wanted a European Army. Because it started as a trade agreement it was run by a commission and then an attempted democratic Parliament was bolted on without full authority and with barely anyone voting for it run on Party lists proportional representation. For years accounts were not audited (Signed off) due to corruption and misspending. The elite of Europe with all the trappings of power then spread into every aspect of national life . i.e debates like federal and state power in the USA only there was no constitution actually voted for by the individual states.
The Eu did do and still does many good things (Like central governments everywhere) it just over reached would not pull back and treated the threat of UK leaving as a joke failing to answer any calls for reform.
Just before the referendum the UK PM David Cameron went to Brussels to try to negotiate some changes. He was treated appealingly and came back with nothing. Not the first PM in that position.
The voting public saw through that and voted out - narrowly in % terms. Since then we have had elections 2x new PMs and now Boris in charge with a very clear mandate to get out because all the remainers did not accept result (Still don't)
Lots of parallels to US elections and some similar themes on big government. In the end my own opinion was torn but it came down to the EU would not reform. The clubs rules would not change so we had to leave even if we liked the membership benefits in some areas.
Philip, you beat me to it lol! Here's the answer to Papaphilly's question I wrote earlier...
The EU started out in the ‘50s, under a different name, as a sort of co-operative for trading coal and steel. Gradually it morphed into a trading block. Although there was opposition to it back then, the modern debate began after the Maastricht Treaty in the mid ‘90s, which paved the way for political union. This resulted in certain powers being moved from national parliaments to The European Parliament, European Court and The European Commission. The real power resides with The Commission, which is made up of political appointees rather than directly elected politicians. Europhiles make no bones about saying their aim is complete political and economic union – along the lines of a United States of Europe.
This is the main reason I (and everyone I know) voted to leave. We wanted a clearer, more transparent political system, where our Westminster Parliament made all of the decisions. The phrase ‘taking back control’ was used by the leave side at the time of the referendum.
Another reason was economics. I favour small business but the EU’s structure is very much geared towards medium sized firms and particularly multi-nationals. On the other side of the coin, being a member of the EU meant that our Parliament would’ve been unable to provide state aid to any failing companies (e.g. the larger steel makers) because it would’ve broken EU rules. Lastly on the economics, the UK was a net contributor to the EU – we put in more money than we got out.
This created a bit of controversy when the leave campaign launched an advertising campaign showing our gross (rather than net) contribution and suggested funding the NHS with the money instead. (The advertisements were initially shown on the side of a double decker bus.) Doing this, they were adding 1 and 1 to get 2 ½, as the net contribution is obviously less than the gross. It was a bit naughty but no more misleading than what’s normally put forward in most election manifestos.
I don’t know anybody who took it at face value, although the Remainers made a big issue of it after the referendum. So, if you every come across well-heeled Brits (probably wearing soft shoes, chiffon scarves and expensive aftershave), carrying broadsheet newspapers, shaking their fists and wittering on about those damn lies on the side of the bus, this is what they’re talking about.
The other big controversy was surrounding freedom of movement. On the face of it, this appears a good thing as it allowed people to seamlessly travel between member states. On a practical level, it meant that a lot of workers moved from Eastern Europe to Britain. This resulted in the bottom end of the labour market being flooded with supply, and wage suppression for the poorest workers. It created a lot of resentment in deprived areas. Arguably, it also put a strain on the country’s infrastructure and housing market. Nobody doubted the quality of the people coming in – they were accepted as hard workers, often very well educated, who will undoubtedly contribute a lot – it’s just the sheer numbers entering the country were deemed dangerously high by most people.
Political commentators presumed that the remain side would win reasonably comfortably but they were mostly speaking to people in their own little bubble. They misjudged the general mood of the country. IMO, the remain side could still have won if they’d concentrated on the undoubted benefits of EU membership. Instead, they ran a negative campaign, known as ‘Project Fear’, in which they tried to frighten the electorate. This didn’t work. I believe that the remain campaign also suffered due to being seen as holding the establishment position and through numerous silly celebrity endorsements. This came at a time when a lot of people wanted change.
The run up to the referendum was very bitter, the low point being the murder of a remain supporting MP. Arguably, the country got even more divided by the issue after the referendum, but that’s another story.
Just quickly say, as you’re in the US, I’ve got an observation to make. I don’t think it would be true to say that most leave supporters like Trump, but you would struggle to find a remain supporter who doesn’t hate him.
The EU started out in the ‘50s, under a different name, as a sort of co-operative for trading coal and steel. Gradually it morphed into a trading block. Although there was opposition to it back then, the modern debate began after the Maastricht Treaty in the mid ‘90s, which paved the way for political union. This resulted in certain powers being moved from national parliaments to The European Parliament, European Court and The European Commission. The real power resides with The Commission, which is made up of political appointees rather than directly elected politicians. Europhiles make no bones about saying their aim is complete political and economic union – along the lines of a United States of Europe.
This is the main reason I (and everyone I know) voted to leave. We wanted a clearer, more transparent political system, where our Westminster Parliament made all of the decisions. The phrase ‘taking back control’ was used by the leave side at the time of the referendum.
Another reason was economics. I favour small business but the EU’s structure is very much geared towards medium sized firms and particularly multi-nationals. On the other side of the coin, being a member of the EU meant that our Parliament would’ve been unable to provide state aid to any failing companies (e.g. the larger steel makers) because it would’ve broken EU rules. Lastly on the economics, the UK was a net contributor to the EU – we put in more money than we got out.
This created a bit of controversy when the leave campaign launched an advertising campaign showing our gross (rather than net) contribution and suggested funding the NHS with the money instead. (The advertisements were initially shown on the side of a double decker bus.) Doing this, they were adding 1 and 1 to get 2 ½, as the net contribution is obviously less than the gross. It was a bit naughty but no more misleading than what’s normally put forward in most election manifestos.
I don’t know anybody who took it at face value, although the Remainers made a big issue of it after the referendum. So, if you every come across well-heeled Brits (probably wearing soft shoes, chiffon scarves and expensive aftershave), carrying broadsheet newspapers, shaking their fists and wittering on about those damn lies on the side of the bus, this is what they’re talking about.
The other big controversy was surrounding freedom of movement. On the face of it, this appears a good thing as it allowed people to seamlessly travel between member states. On a practical level, it meant that a lot of workers moved from Eastern Europe to Britain. This resulted in the bottom end of the labour market being flooded with supply, and wage suppression for the poorest workers. It created a lot of resentment in deprived areas. Arguably, it also put a strain on the country’s infrastructure and housing market. Nobody doubted the quality of the people coming in – they were accepted as hard workers, often very well educated, who will undoubtedly contribute a lot – it’s just the sheer numbers entering the country were deemed dangerously high by most people.
Political commentators presumed that the remain side would win reasonably comfortably but they were mostly speaking to people in their own little bubble. They misjudged the general mood of the country. IMO, the remain side could still have won if they’d concentrated on the undoubted benefits of EU membership. Instead, they ran a negative campaign, known as ‘Project Fear’, in which they tried to frighten the electorate. This didn’t work. I believe that the remain campaign also suffered due to being seen as holding the establishment position and through numerous silly celebrity endorsements. This came at a time when a lot of people wanted change.
The run up to the referendum was very bitter, the low point being the murder of a remain supporting MP. Arguably, the country got even more divided by the issue after the referendum, but that’s another story.
Just quickly say, as you’re in the US, I’ve got an observation to make. I don’t think it would be true to say that most leave supporters like Trump, but you would struggle to find a remain supporter who doesn’t hate him.
Three other quick points:
1. It's not only the UK that has been dissatisfied with the EU. Only the straight jacket of being in the single currency prevents other countries from leaving too. Italy, in particular, comes to mind.
2. European integration hasn't been plain sailing for the EU. Many countries have voted against it in their own referenda, only to be told to vote again until the establishment gets the results it wants.
3. I LOVE Europe but I don't like the EU as an institution.
1. It's not only the UK that has been dissatisfied with the EU. Only the straight jacket of being in the single currency prevents other countries from leaving too. Italy, in particular, comes to mind.
2. European integration hasn't been plain sailing for the EU. Many countries have voted against it in their own referenda, only to be told to vote again until the establishment gets the results it wants.
3. I LOVE Europe but I don't like the EU as an institution.
Thanks Beau for the additional points. Being half Dutch I love freedom of movement - but as you say this caused resentment at lower pay scales much as the debate in USA has been about immigration (legal or other) causing issues. UK's population has grown dramatically in last 50 years and infrastructure has not caught up (UK has gone from 50 mill in 1951 to 67 mill now and forecast 71 mil in 2031https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati...
We have another thread on population growth.
Benefits of EU were underplayed by Project Fear.
Lack of democratic decisions e.g. on Maastricht Treaty where Ireland, France and others had referenda (Often repeated) but UK did not. Resentment on the first Common Market vote which was not to join but to stay in after we had joined (On appalling terms because Edward Heath was so desperate to join and French in particular made terms difficult e.g. net contribution from that point onwards)
Anyway trade talks continue - best guess a last minute compromise deal on trade and other areas with various derogations agreed with UK contributing money to EU projects as quid pro quo and giving some ground on fishing (carefully disguised with weasel words)
Philip wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Nik wrote: "As elections exhaust themselves in the States, on the one hand, while Brexit is still sort of unaccomplished, on the other, and allowing for new active m..."Not being a wiseguy, but I would have expected you to be a remain guy. Thanks for the explanation. Racism is always the fall back position nowadays. The problem is it is so overused it is losing its power.
so standing from my side of the pond as Brits seem to like to say, I have a few observations myself. As I said, I am neither stay or go. That is up to the country. I have talked at length about American politics and little on European politics or for that matter any other country. Part of it is that I am not nearly educated enough to comment except in generalities. Part of it is that I am not from there and certainly misunderstand much of what is actually happening.
I have commented on the differences between United States Presidencies and European Parliamentarian systems. I like mine much more because I find it very stable. I do not have to worry about government recall. But then, we have really only two parties that really matter on the broad scale and do not have to create large coalitions.
My observations:
I do think there is a contingent of creating a United States of Europe. It will not work. Not because it is a bad idea, but who will lead and who will take orders from whom? The Brits (and Russians) do not think of themselves as European. That matters. Every Brit I know and I know lots think of themselves as Brits. Identity is everything. Trying to pretend it is not there is plain silly.
As in the United States, the elites are not listening to the Hoi Polloi. It has led to resentment and lots of it. The one thing about illegal immigration is that it depresses the job market on the bottom. That is a fact and in the United States more minorities are affected due to it. Do not believe the news when the claim is it is a Republican problem. Far from it. Now tell them that have no voice when their wages are being depressed. These people will go and find someone that will give them voice.
From where I stand, it looks like the Germans are by far doing better than everyone else. It also looks like the poorer countries are not getting a good deal. I understand this is a simplistic view, but I am hearing lots on this side about austerity and it seem to only affect some countries.
It also seems Europe is by far more controlled by technocrats than the United States. They do not seem to have to answer to voters and that to me is not a good thing.
Finally, you have a 1500 year head start on us and there are very deep divisions that are not going to be rectified anytime soon. It seems some of you just do not like each other.
Papaphilly wrote: "so standing from my side of the pond as Brits seem to like to say, I have a few observations myself. As I said, I am neither stay or go. That is up to the country. I have talked at length about A..."
Thanks - no wise guy needed - normally I refuse to answer anyone including family as to how I voted in any election. I wish I had kept stum in the referendum too as the rest of my immediate family all voted to remain - lots of arguments since... It was a very close decision on my part.
The points you make about wage depression certainly applied in UK. There are many variations of reasons. There are lots of historical reasons since WWII for Germany's success including the advantages gained from the Euro introduction (German entry was way to high). Technocrats is right - this has advantages and disadvantages but if the group of technocrat all believe in a federated Europe then they will work to make that happen and devise policies accordingly. There is a common theme in other areas where recruitment starts and therefore no dissenting voices appear. True in political parties, civil servants and media outlets
Accepting opposing voices works both ways.
Papaphilly, you're right about some countries in Europe getting a poor deal. Europe has always been a Franco-German club, with a fair amount of British input when we were members. The Southern European countries have had to adjust their spending habits to fit in with this model and they have suffered badly. Greece, in particular.
Your point about the elite/ hoi polloi is spot on too. If the US is similar to the UK (I believe it is), I'd argue it's the exact opposite of a Republican problem. UK Labour (read US Democrats) seem to be dominated by metropolitan 'progressives', are only interested in a globalist agenda and have turned their backs on a large section of their traditional vote. The mad thing is, they refuse to accept they're doing this. Anyway, they'll have no right to complain if a less palatable alternative comes along. It will be their fault.
Philip, I have always tried to avoid talking politics away from very close family and friends. Then I joined goodreads and the temptation became too much.
My family and friends were split down the middle between leave and remain. Fortunately, none of us fell out over it. I've heard some stories about irreconcilable family splits and lifelong friendships ending over the issue. It's a big shame. I still find it difficult to understand why the Europe question raised the political temperature quite so much.
Your point about the elite/ hoi polloi is spot on too. If the US is similar to the UK (I believe it is), I'd argue it's the exact opposite of a Republican problem. UK Labour (read US Democrats) seem to be dominated by metropolitan 'progressives', are only interested in a globalist agenda and have turned their backs on a large section of their traditional vote. The mad thing is, they refuse to accept they're doing this. Anyway, they'll have no right to complain if a less palatable alternative comes along. It will be their fault.
Philip, I have always tried to avoid talking politics away from very close family and friends. Then I joined goodreads and the temptation became too much.
My family and friends were split down the middle between leave and remain. Fortunately, none of us fell out over it. I've heard some stories about irreconcilable family splits and lifelong friendships ending over the issue. It's a big shame. I still find it difficult to understand why the Europe question raised the political temperature quite so much.
Beau wrote: "My family and friends were split down the middle between leave and remain. Fortunately, none of us fell out over it. I've heard some stories about irreconcilable family splits and lifelong friendships ending over the issue. It's a big shame. I still find it difficult to understand why the Europe question raised the political temperature quite so much. ..."The family fighting is the entire United States right now. I have watched more than one friendship die over the last four years. People have become so invested in being right they forgot it is OK to not agree. Moving forward is everyone's agenda, how you do it is the argument.
As for the Brexit fighting, I suspect it is about the not knowing what is next. I am sure there are plenty of good that happened to the U.K. with the EU. People have become complacent and that has been overturned. With both sides predicting doom, I am sure there are plenty of people terrified for the very same reason whether they are stay or go.
Beau wrote: "Your point about the elite/ hoi polloi is spot on too. If the US is similar to the UK (I believe it is), I'd argue it's the exact opposite of a Republican problem. UK Labour (read US Democrats) seem to be dominated by metropolitan 'progressives', are only interested in a globalist agenda and have turned their backs on a large section of their traditional vote...."I think you are closer to the truth than what should be comfortable. Yet, it is also simplistic. What you just articulated is much of what is talked about. However, in all things political, it is much more nuanced. As in all political groups, there are factions.
Traditionally, Democrats are made of more factions than Republicans. Whether they are better at working within their divides than Republicans remains to be seen. Right now, the Progressives are getting all of the air play. They are the Tea Party revenge. On the flip side of the coin. I expect they are going to do what the Tea Party did and divide rather than unite the party. For lack of better terms, they are true believers or maybe even zealots. I predict they will burn the party to the ground rather than compromise. That will be their undoing, just like the tea Party. Extremes do not last long in the United States as a power base. Keep this in mind, the Democrats ran as the big tent party and the Republicans were branded racists. Yet in the end, the party standard bearer was an old white guy. After all of the choices of the gay one, the women of color, the far lefty, they chose a traditional moderate.
That is what I mean by the country is centrist. They chose the norm, not the outlier.
Papaphilly wrote: "Beau wrote: "Your point about the elite/ hoi polloi is spot on too. If the US is similar to the UK (I believe it is), I'd argue it's the exact opposite of a Republican problem. UK Labour (read US D..."
It's encouraging to know that the Democrats are still a big tent party. Although I don't follow it that closely, JB strikes me as a reasonable bloke. I've heard interviews with other good, moderate Democrats too. Reconciliation should be the name of the game but (as seen on the other thread) not everyone seems to want this.
I received a link from another goodreads member to the Bobby Kennedy speech after Martin Luther King was killed. RK's sort of attitude, and the slightly softer approach to capitalism, is what I find attractive about Democrats. I hope you're right and that the new extreme element goes the same way as the Tea Party. For UK Labour, I think it might be too late for them. Many of the core support has gone and I doubt they'll be coming back.
On Brexit, as Philip and I have said, there were certainly good points to being EU members. There is uncertainty now but that is the price we pay when rulers get carried away with grand designs and stop listening to people.
It's encouraging to know that the Democrats are still a big tent party. Although I don't follow it that closely, JB strikes me as a reasonable bloke. I've heard interviews with other good, moderate Democrats too. Reconciliation should be the name of the game but (as seen on the other thread) not everyone seems to want this.
I received a link from another goodreads member to the Bobby Kennedy speech after Martin Luther King was killed. RK's sort of attitude, and the slightly softer approach to capitalism, is what I find attractive about Democrats. I hope you're right and that the new extreme element goes the same way as the Tea Party. For UK Labour, I think it might be too late for them. Many of the core support has gone and I doubt they'll be coming back.
On Brexit, as Philip and I have said, there were certainly good points to being EU members. There is uncertainty now but that is the price we pay when rulers get carried away with grand designs and stop listening to people.
I find the US election outcome fascinating because it appears that many regions are fixed in how they will vote. It seems that the big urban areas vote Dem and the smaller places vote Republican, and there are not too many changes. I know that is superficial, but the interesting thing is that here the very rural areas generally vote conservative, but they do not comprise the majority, and there are places with modest population centres that vote labour. Further, the election tends tp be decided in the major cities where people can swing or even lurch from labour to conservative, so probably most of the party strategy focuses on big cities.
Thinking of New Zealand, it’s always surprised me why we don’t make more of the Commonwealth, especially as a trading block.
We’ve got a wide range of different types of economy, encompassing primary, secondary and tertiary; almost every type of raw material and skillset; a huge consumer base; and influence in every area of the globe. It could benefit all concerned.
In fact, if done correctly, the Commonwealth could rival the US, China and Europe as a serious power.
We’ve got a wide range of different types of economy, encompassing primary, secondary and tertiary; almost every type of raw material and skillset; a huge consumer base; and influence in every area of the globe. It could benefit all concerned.
In fact, if done correctly, the Commonwealth could rival the US, China and Europe as a serious power.
For the UK deepening ties with "natural, ancestral, English speaking" partners looks like the right direction as forging economic unions hasn't gone out of fashion.From the other side, it'll be interesting to see how EU fares the internal dichotomies that start to surface. UK left, Poland and Hungary now block EU budget and economic package over the "rule of law" investigations towards them. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe...
Internal pressures from within, on the one hand, while a line of aspiring members on the other. Initial members of the union had closer mentality, while relatively new - eastern partners have different values and approach from those of the founding partners. Why to use military, if you can call Deutsch Mark "euro" and germanize the continent? French nukes, German economy, a couple of satellites and many dependent members. A politician with "Germany first", "France first" or other - agenda can wreak havoc in the already somewhat fractured eco-system.
On the larger map we see Russia trying to entice/force former republics into economic + union, China "buying" friends and protegees. The processes of reshuffle, disintegration, merger and acquisitions happen simultaneously and may offer some interesting realignments in 50 years from now..
Beau wrote: "Thinking of New Zealand, it’s always surprised me why we don’t make more of the Commonwealth, especially as a trading block.We’ve got a wide range of different types of economy, encompassing prim..."
The EEC destroyed our Commonwealth trading in favour of EU partners e.g. Caribbean bananas tariffed in favour of Canary Island Bananas - created massive industry there and decimated industry in Commonwealth.
We now have opportunity to re-instate these agreements (if they'll have us).
Nik wrote: "For the UK deepening ties with "natural, ancestral, English speaking" partners looks like the right direction as forging economic unions hasn't gone out of fashion.From the other side, it'll be in..."
EU already has Germany first in terms of Euro finance i.e. loans to Greece in economic meltdown were then sent back to German banks who had lent Greece money in first place - according to then Greek finance minister 95% of emergency funding from Euro Central bank went this way
France first in terms of agricultural subsidies - most French farms are small and common agricultural policy subsidised accordingly - more recent changes switched some to green policies
Spain first for fishing (and bananas)
Very little benefit for whole and most process was decided by original 9 members becoming 12 with and then expanding to 28 now 27 of which 19 are in Euro
Nik wrote: "For the UK deepening ties with "natural, ancestral, English speaking" partners looks like the right direction as forging economic unions hasn't gone out of fashion.
From the other side, it'll be in..."
That's an excellent assessment of the current geopolitical situation.
We need to keep an eye on the welfare of Eastern Europe. EU expansionism on 1 side, Russian on the other. It's already caused problems; we must make sure it doesn't escalate further.
Good point about France or Germany 'first' possibilities too. It's not inconceivable that Marie Le Pen could become French President. What then?
I had a genuine laugh out loud moment when you mentioned China 'buying' friends. A rejuvenated Commonwealth could be particularly good news for Australasia. Without it, I fear they will have new masters in Beijing before too long (see my point to Ian about Chinese investment over there).
From the other side, it'll be in..."
That's an excellent assessment of the current geopolitical situation.
We need to keep an eye on the welfare of Eastern Europe. EU expansionism on 1 side, Russian on the other. It's already caused problems; we must make sure it doesn't escalate further.
Good point about France or Germany 'first' possibilities too. It's not inconceivable that Marie Le Pen could become French President. What then?
I had a genuine laugh out loud moment when you mentioned China 'buying' friends. A rejuvenated Commonwealth could be particularly good news for Australasia. Without it, I fear they will have new masters in Beijing before too long (see my point to Ian about Chinese investment over there).
Do not worry much about China. They are trying and should try, but they are not going to win in the end. Nobody trusts them and the deals they have already cut are souring. Nobody likes to be bullied, especially by a country that cannot back it up.
Beau wrote: "Thinking of New Zealand, it’s always surprised me why we don’t make more of the Commonwealth, especially as a trading block.We’ve got a wide range of different types of economy, encompassing prim..."
From an NZ point of view, we are happy to trade with the UK, but you have to note that when the UK went into the common market, French agricultural subsidies became a huge problem and we had to redirect a lot of our exports, and also restructure our economy. One problem I see is the UK has much of its industrial capacity deeply enmeshed with Europe, so one step for the UK is to disentangle that, or accommodate it. We shall be happy to trade, but at present we are also happy to trade with anyone else.
As for China, China is our biggest trading partner. Trading with China has a lot of problems, but I think these are gradually being ironed out. As it happens, trading with any country has its problems, and from our point of view the worst come from Europe, in part because they restrict us and do not value us that much, in turn because we do not buy that much from them, in turn because most of what they sell can be got cheaper elsewhere. For example, most cars here come from Japan or Korea, and you get the same quality or better for 2/3 the price. Trade is quite a problem, and for us, since we offer a lot of food, China is extremely important because they have a huge number of people who eat.
Papaphilly wrote: "Do not worry much about China. They are trying and should try, but they are not going to win in the end. Nobody trusts them and the deals they have already cut are souring. Nobody likes to be bulli..."It depends what other players do. If the States keep to the recoiling course, someone else will assume the patronage. No void will be left in the current power struggle...
There is no problem with the different players trying to position themselves differently, but problems arise when they try to force others to act in ways that benefit themselves, but not necessarily the one to home pressure is applied.
My impression is that those for Brexit were concerned about immigration. How has that worked out?
Scout wrote: "My impression is that those for Brexit were concerned about immigration. How has that worked out?"The Remain side certainly portrayed it that way. Yes it was a concern but not the only concern.
The UK economy and social system was very attractive to Eastern European nations in particular Hungary, Poland, Rumania etc when they joined the EU. The UK Government at the time chose not to impose transition restrictions (unlike many other existing EU countries) and thus we had a significant increase in numbers and associated pressures on housing, doctors, schools etc. This led to a lot of bad feeling. This was probably higher in UK because the Government chose not to impose restrictions thus attracting from Germany and France. As previously commented it also led to downward pressure on wages.
There was also significant movement from the economies of Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal due to their own economic problems (Euro and EU central bank pressure) Unemployment rates in these countries were significantly higher than in UK, Germany,Netherlands. UK has a significant French population drawn to the finance centre and powerhouse that is London
The vast majority of the immigrants were very hard working and willing to do jobs UK residents were not, hence the reliance on these workers in building, hospitality, Social Care and other low paid roles.
We won't know how this pans out for years. There was an initial reduction in net immigration (Not turning to net emigration) after the referendum and who knows what the figures are now due to Pandemic.
There has also been a significant up tick in child birth (as those mostly younger immigrants have families) again adding to pressure on medical, schools etc. UK's population has continued to grow and infrastructure takes years to catch up alongside corresponding numbers of doctors (7 years) and teachers (3-4)
Accurate or only close to accurate "Muhammad" is believed to be the most popular name in the UK for male newborns: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news....There is certainly nothing wrong with the name or Islam, moreover the aggregate of Johns, Donalds, Joes and others is undoubtedly much greater, yet for those who want for their future generations traditionally English England, the tendency might be concerning. Is it?
Scout wrote: "My impression is that those for Brexit were concerned about immigration. How has that worked out?"
I completely agree with Philip's last post. Remainers tried to portray leave voters as being anti-immigration because it allowed them to claim the moral high ground. In reality, nobody knows why so many people voted leave because the reasons weren't on the ballot paper. I suspect that reclaiming sovereignty was most people's motive. It was certainly mine.
My take on immigration is that it's like any good thing - when done in moderation, it is beneficial; when taken to an extreme it becomes harmful. Free movement took it to an extreme and for that reason it needed to go.
As for the answer to your question - illegal immigration is very difficult to stop. The turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa (often caused by the UK and Western allies) means large numbers of people want to flee to the nearest safe haven/ prosperous area, which is Western Europe. Leaving the EU probably won't affect this, although the media tell us that the French are now less co-operative with us on dealing with the matter. I don't know.
What I do know is that without freedom of movement we can control legal immigration. I'm happy to leave the numbers for the UK's elected politicians to decide as I don't have a strong view on the matter.
I completely agree with Philip's last post. Remainers tried to portray leave voters as being anti-immigration because it allowed them to claim the moral high ground. In reality, nobody knows why so many people voted leave because the reasons weren't on the ballot paper. I suspect that reclaiming sovereignty was most people's motive. It was certainly mine.
My take on immigration is that it's like any good thing - when done in moderation, it is beneficial; when taken to an extreme it becomes harmful. Free movement took it to an extreme and for that reason it needed to go.
As for the answer to your question - illegal immigration is very difficult to stop. The turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa (often caused by the UK and Western allies) means large numbers of people want to flee to the nearest safe haven/ prosperous area, which is Western Europe. Leaving the EU probably won't affect this, although the media tell us that the French are now less co-operative with us on dealing with the matter. I don't know.
What I do know is that without freedom of movement we can control legal immigration. I'm happy to leave the numbers for the UK's elected politicians to decide as I don't have a strong view on the matter.
Nik wrote: "Accurate or only close to accurate "Muhammad" is believed to be the most popular name in the UK for male newborns: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news....
The..."
Are we allowed to plug our own books on this thread if it directly answers your question?
The..."
Are we allowed to plug our own books on this thread if it directly answers your question?
Beau wrote: "Are we allowed to plug our own books on this thread if it directly answers your question?..."I'm quoting Graeme here:
"Just to clarify, we have a new policy.
It's ok to link to your own publications provided they are pertinent to the topic at hand. This allows our learned colleagues to maximize the value they can contribute to a conversation. "
I guess, it's a "yes"
Nik wrote: "Beau wrote: "Are we allowed to plug our own books on this thread if it directly answers your question?..."
I'm quoting Graeme here:
"Just to clarify, we have a new policy.
It's ok to link to you..."
Great! My short answer to your question is that it doesn't concern me. I actually think that a moderate interpretation of Islam complements the traditional British way of life very well, much as Christianity has done.
My first full-length novel explains how in greater detail.
Thirty Years from Now
Here's the blurb:
2050, and England is an Islamic nation, seemingly, at ease with itself. Two climate wars and the Great Internet Crash have come and gone, leaving a population hardened by suffering but ready to move on. However, not everybody is happy with the course their country has chosen. Despite the King's recent conversion to Islam, England's resistance movement will not rest until the Islamic regime is overthrown. And they will do anything to achieve their aim.
Against this backdrop, an unlikely friendship emerges between Mohammed Ismail, a Muslim schoolteacher, from Birmingham, and Callum Smith, a journalist and member of the English Resistance, from Devon. Caught up in the Resistance's plot to assassinate the spiritual leader of the Islamic world, the two men begin to question their own preconceived ideas about their country and what they actually believe in.
They also learn that there is more to the assassination plot than meets the eye, but will they uncover the truth in time to prevent their country plunging into civil war?
With tongue occasionally in cheek, Beau Bruce paints an enthralling picture of the near-future, which should serve as a warning to our current generation of political leaders.
If you'd like to contribute to my Christmas fund, here is the link to buy the book for less than the price of a cup of coffee:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thirty-Years...
If you want a freebie, message me via goodreads and I'll send you a PDF copy.
I've had a couple of ratings through Amazon but am struggling to get anybody on goodreads to read it, so reviews would be very much appreciated. Of course, good, bad or indifferent ones would all be accepted with equal grace.
I'm quoting Graeme here:
"Just to clarify, we have a new policy.
It's ok to link to you..."
Great! My short answer to your question is that it doesn't concern me. I actually think that a moderate interpretation of Islam complements the traditional British way of life very well, much as Christianity has done.
My first full-length novel explains how in greater detail.
Thirty Years from Now
Here's the blurb:
2050, and England is an Islamic nation, seemingly, at ease with itself. Two climate wars and the Great Internet Crash have come and gone, leaving a population hardened by suffering but ready to move on. However, not everybody is happy with the course their country has chosen. Despite the King's recent conversion to Islam, England's resistance movement will not rest until the Islamic regime is overthrown. And they will do anything to achieve their aim.
Against this backdrop, an unlikely friendship emerges between Mohammed Ismail, a Muslim schoolteacher, from Birmingham, and Callum Smith, a journalist and member of the English Resistance, from Devon. Caught up in the Resistance's plot to assassinate the spiritual leader of the Islamic world, the two men begin to question their own preconceived ideas about their country and what they actually believe in.
They also learn that there is more to the assassination plot than meets the eye, but will they uncover the truth in time to prevent their country plunging into civil war?
With tongue occasionally in cheek, Beau Bruce paints an enthralling picture of the near-future, which should serve as a warning to our current generation of political leaders.
If you'd like to contribute to my Christmas fund, here is the link to buy the book for less than the price of a cup of coffee:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thirty-Years...
If you want a freebie, message me via goodreads and I'll send you a PDF copy.
I've had a couple of ratings through Amazon but am struggling to get anybody on goodreads to read it, so reviews would be very much appreciated. Of course, good, bad or indifferent ones would all be accepted with equal grace.
Beau wrote: "Great! My short answer to your question is that it doesn't concern me. I actually think that a moderate interpretation of Islam complements the traditional British way of life very well, much as Christianity has done...."Lucky you. Allowing for a much higher birth rate of the religious population here, I kinda anticipate with trepidation that when they become a majority (some projections say - in not so distant future), people might not be able to drive on Sabbath or no place to buy bacon. Maybe not existential, but I would feel missing out on something :)
Nik, can you clarify what you're talking about in your last post?
Scout wrote: "Nik, can you clarify what you're talking about in your last post?"There is a so called "status quo" agreed upon the foundation of Israel between secular and religious ways of life, which, if you ask me, is skewed towards "religious" in some areas. For example, in most places there is no public transportation on weekends, because "on the seventh day God's rested" and they give it a wild interpretation that "resting" means one can't drive on Sabbath or even press the elevator button (in public places, like hospitals they program elevators to stop on every floor on Sat, so that religious dudes don't need to press a button). There is no cross-confession marriages. Thus, Muslim can marry Muslims, Christian - Christians and Jews btw themselves, but not a combination or atheists. It's totally wild, in my opinion, when two citizens can't marry in their country and need to do it abroad - in Cyprus, Czech or Italy and then return and register. Bacon - pork is not kosher and religious tenets of Jews and Muslims ban it, but non-kosher stores sell it, of course.
The religious population lives under the principle of "be fruitful and multiply", easily reaching 6 + kids in a family. My concern: when they reach the majority and basing on a democratic principle - what possibly prevents them from imposing their way of life on a secular population too?
I forgot about this thread. What’s Brexit again?
I’ve met a lot of Muslims over the years and have remained long-term friends with some of them.
We all hear the stories about them refusing to integrate and hating Western values but, in my personal experience, this has not been the case. Some have become westernised, others remained true to their ancestors’ roots, and most of them are somewhere in between. What they’ve all had in common is no desire, whatsoever, to impose their views on me. As far as I'm concerned, Muslims are a valued part of British society.
The only threat I can see to our traditional way of life is from a small group of people who can probably trace their British ancestry back 1000 years.
I’ve met a lot of Muslims over the years and have remained long-term friends with some of them.
We all hear the stories about them refusing to integrate and hating Western values but, in my personal experience, this has not been the case. Some have become westernised, others remained true to their ancestors’ roots, and most of them are somewhere in between. What they’ve all had in common is no desire, whatsoever, to impose their views on me. As far as I'm concerned, Muslims are a valued part of British society.
The only threat I can see to our traditional way of life is from a small group of people who can probably trace their British ancestry back 1000 years.
Beau wrote: "What they’ve all had in common is no desire, whatsoever, to impose their views on me...."Lucky you, again :)
But then you read about things like Muslim patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Musl... and hope they are only a small negligible %
Nik wrote: "Beau wrote: "What they’ve all had in common is no desire, whatsoever, to impose their views on me...."
Lucky you, again :)
But then you read about things like Muslim patrol https://en.wikipedia.or..."
Morons will always behave moronically. I'm sure every part of society has them. Problems will only arise when 'woke' politicians and police chiefs don't treat all morons and criminals with equal severity.
Lucky you, again :)
But then you read about things like Muslim patrol https://en.wikipedia.or..."
Morons will always behave moronically. I'm sure every part of society has them. Problems will only arise when 'woke' politicians and police chiefs don't treat all morons and criminals with equal severity.
Nik wrote: "Beau wrote: "What they’ve all had in common is no desire, whatsoever, to impose their views on me...."Lucky you, again :)
But then you read about things like Muslim patrol https://en.wikipedia.or..."
Do you know why you only hear about the extreme and hateful? They sell papers. Do you know why you do not hear about the average living their lives? Because they are living their lives and cannot be bothered. These hate groups are always small and loud. When they die, another takes its place and they are small and loud. What is in common is they are loud and small.
They are the other and they look and act different. They are pressed on all sides by a culture they do not understand and does not understand them. Some of them will pull stunts and the rest get tarred. The extremes pass.
Most of us cannot know the future. We can assume, presume, speculate, theorize, hope and so on. I surely hope for the harmony within each country, globally, and specifically in the UK.I don't want to be that annoying guy who'd be scaring everyone, so I'd just share one more observation. Some of the Muslim world seems torn about secular/religious way of life and we see extreme turbulence within some of the Muslim countries along these lines: Egypt, Iran, and more. Hope nothing spills over..
Walking in Munich in its historical center, it felt exactly same as most Middle Eastern towns - saves travelling for anyone who wants to absorb impressions :)
UK/EU Trade talks going to the wire - news at eleven....What I mean is that every negotiation in EU goes to the wire and has for last 40 years of UK membership including UK joining EEC. i.e its called hanging on for best deal possible
I'm trying to understand what you said in post 290, Nik. It seems that Jewish religion already limits what people can do on the Sabbath, whom people can marry, whether pork is acceptable. Are these limitations imposed on all living there?
I can say that the religion does not apply to all Jews. I nearly married one, and she ate bacon with considerable gusto :-) And behaved just the same as anyone else on the Sabbath. But she was not in Israel.
Scout wrote: "I'm trying to understand what you said in post 290, Nik. It seems that Jewish religion already limits what people can do on the Sabbath, whom people can marry, whether pork is acceptable. Are these limitations imposed on all living there?..."No, although some of them influence all - like no public transportation on weekends. And in this sense Islam is somewhat similar - banning pork, having Halal dietary rules similar to Kosher, no alcohol, etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...
My concern is once there is a religious majority (and it's likely to happen allowing for a much higher birthrate), what on earth would stop them from enacting the religious rules to apply on everyone, using perfectly democratic principles?
Nik wrote: "My concern is once there is a religious majority (and it's likely to happen allowing for a much higher birthrate), what on earth would stop them from enacting the religious rules to apply on everyone, using perfectly democratic principles? ..."This one is easy. Let us take this and make it "X", that way we do not disparage any one religion or group. Let us then assume X is just like the rest of us in wanting a good life. X comes from somewhere else to our country. Let us also assume that X is there legally to avoid any confusion. X did it the right way and immigrated both properly and legally. I am also going to assume X came to the United States because I understand immigrants in my country. I also assume there are differences with different countries and I do not want to confuse what I understand with what I do not understand.
X comes to America and settles in. It is a far different country than what X left. It is both strange and scary and many are not open to a new immigrant because X is not like the majority. X gets pressed on all sides and life is hard. X is very devout in the religious realm and does not understand why others are not. There is tensions from both sides due to a lack of understanding of the other. The United States does not quite understand X's adherence to religion because it s very different from the average, yet it does understand that there are differences and that it is OK. X clings to beliefs and religion brought from the old country. X becomes a citizen, but not really American. That is a mind-frame. Yet, X follows the rules and lives a good life.
X marries someone from the old country and raised the very same way. X has children and decides to raise them the old school way of the old country. X has rejected much of the United States ways of life because they are too strange and X does not approve of how they raise their children and lack of piety. Yet there is a problem, the children of X is not foreign born and there is new competition. American culture is pervasive. The children of X is torn. they certainly are immersed in the culture and it is not as strange. yet, they are dutiful children and try to please X. Not all though, some move on with their life and live as Americans. They do have a hard life because they were brushed with the same brush as their parents, they are the other still. However, the children of X understand America and assimilate even with a different background and some inherited customs. Not all of them, but many. The children of X grow up and marry. Most of them marry approved spouses, but not all. These spouses may or may not be from the old country, but they probably have roots to the old country. The children of X have children and these children are Americans. They face some residual issues, but they are American through and through. They pay lip service to the old ways and may even be devout, but make no mistake, they are American. There are lots of the people of X now, and they vote. they may even vote for one party in greater numbers than the other party. Yet even among this homogeneous group there are differences. They may look alike and share religion. However it is now by degrees. The second and third generation of the family of X is no longer the old people but now a group of Americans with American values. They are Americans.
What I have described is what has happened to Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Catholics in the United States. They all assimilated. there are certainly rough patches and differences, but they assimilated in the end. Muslims are going through the same assimilation right now and Hispanics are now starting the decline of the mother tongue spoken at home to English only at about one in four.
So while it may appear scary right now, as time progresses, the old country loses its grip to the new.
On Brexit trade talks - PM is off to Brussels today to try and move things along or call a halt or reach a compromise or give in to EU - pick your politics.Sticking points remain:
- Access to UK waters for fishing - often portrayed as protecting UK's very small (In GDP terms) fishing industry
- UK adherence to EU competition laws - why leave if we adhere to EU rules? This covers state aid to industry, trade deals etc.
- Trade tariffs that EU will impose because on 1st Jan all UK goods will no longer meet EU regs - the fact they do now and will on 31st Dec becomes mute on 1st Jan.
- Data Protection regime adequacy- although UK law encompasses GDPR again suddenly on 1st Jan this is deemed inadequate
- Dispute mechanism - EU want ECJ - UK does not
- UK wants trade deal to remove possibility of tariffs and that would allow NI and rest of UK to operate under same regime. Ireland wants NI separate so it can continue policy towards united Ireland - all dressed up as Good Friday agreement adherence or not.
In other words same issues we have had since referendum in 2016 - with same protagonists repeating referendum arguments
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
Thirty Years from Now (other topics)Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nikolai Gogol (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
George Santayana (other topics)
