The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Why does the US or the U.K. need an army? It is the exact same answer! An clearly it makes no sense to continue an alliance with a country whose policies are so adverse to that of the EU members. There is no reason why the EU should not act to defend its interests just as just as the US or the U.K.

Why should a trading bloc have to "defend its interests"? What on earth might they be?

NATO has 28 members (funny that), trying to find common agreement amongst that lot is about the same as trying to find common agreement within the EU. Only in the EU Germany takes on the bully role, whereas in the NATO it's the US.

p.s. Quoted from the Trump thread as it's more relevant to this one.

[marton]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	Well unless the U.K. is going to pony up the €60b or so to honor it's commitments under the current budget, I can't see the EU parliament approving a deal, even if the council were to agree.

There are basically two possibilities for UK if no EU deal.
To use standard WTO tariffs (copied from EU deal) or go to a zero tariff model which that professor was espousing.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Why should a trading bloc have to "defend its interests"? What on earth might they be? NATO has 28 members (funny that), trying to find common agreement amongst that lot is about the same as trying to find common agreement within the EU. Only in the EU Germany takes on the bully role, whereas in the NATO it's the US. p.s. Quoted from the Trump thread as it's more relevant to this one.

"Why should a trading bloc have to "defend its interests"? Same reason as shops employ security guards

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Now for the terminally deluded on here, here's a nice picture to illustrate how the Netherlands swung in this week's elections. Orange is to the left, blue to the right. When Marine Le Pen waltzes the first round of the French elections I'm sure marton, J2488, and baboon will be along to tell us what a victory it is for progressive social democratic politics.

As Edot repeated elsewhere- all this right-left dichotomy is dead.
What do you mean by the 'right' - because just as the 'left' it comes in many guises and colours. Dutch elections were won by the centre right- not the extreme right.

And great news today much closer in Switzerland- with vociforous anti migration, and Islam- Oskar Freysinger from UDC, has resoundly lost to the centre right with Darbellay, who is definitely NOT a leftie- but very much centre right too. Well done our Valaisans friends- bravo. And that despite the personal scandal that shook his career a year ago- about a baby outside his mariage (even more damaging in a very traditionally Catholic Canton).

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	There are basically two possibilities for UK if no EU deal. To use standard WTO tariffs (copied from EU deal) or go to a zero tariff model which that professor was espousing.

Except to get to trade on WTO terms with pretty much the rest of the industrial world, the U.K. must first be admitted to the WTO as a full member, indeed that is even a requirement for most trade deals the U.K. would like to sign after it leaves the EU. Now I understand the quickest time from application to confirmation has been about three years.

So the zero tariff model becomes zero on imports and whatever the export partners decide to impose for say three to five years maybe... great for the EU, US and China, not so great for the U.K. me thinks.

[marton]

	Quote:
	As Edot repeated elsewhere- all this right-left dichotomy is dead. What do you mean by the 'right' - because just as the 'left' it comes in many guises and colours. Dutch elections were won by the centre right- not the extreme right. And great news today much closer in Switzerland- with vociforous anti migration, and Islam- Oskar Freysinger from UDC, has resoundly lost to the centre right with Darbellay, who is definitely NOT a leftie- but very much centre right too. Well done our Valaisans friends- bravo. And that despite the personal scandal that shook his career a year ago- about a baby outside his mariage (even more damaging in a very traditionally Catholic Canton).

Agreed, the brainless assignment of people to be left or liberal (often accompanied by gratuitous insults) simply demonstrates the failure of some people to be able to devise valid counter points; accept the situation for what is - an admission of failure

	Quote:
	As Edot repeated elsewhere- all this right-left dichotomy is dead. What do you mean by the 'right' - because just as the 'left' it comes in many guises and colours. Dutch elections were won by the centre right- not the extreme right. And great news today much closer in Switzerland- with vociforous anti migration, and Islam- Oskar Freysinger from UDC, has resoundly lost to the centre right with Darbellay, who is definitely NOT a leftie- but very much centre right too. Well done our Valaisans friends- bravo. And that despite the personal scandal that shook his career a year ago- about a baby outside his mariage (even more damaging in a very traditionally Catholic Canton).

When I talk about the Right, I'm not talking about the far-Right. Likewise when I talk about the left. What I say isn't "dead", it's reality. Look across Europe, look at what is happening. There has been rapid demise in the center-left. People have cottoned on that in the 21st century there is very little need for what they represent anymore. Mainly because what they represent no longer exists in the modern world.

OK you are on to something that makes more sense here. So centre left is moving to centre right. And yet many predicted it would move to far right- as in Holland.

And yes, you are right, Left parties are up the creek without a paddle as the world is changing very fast- leaving huge swaithes of the population without any real purpose- and getting angrier, looking for scape goats- usually foreigners/immigrants.

Been a long time since I agreed with Blair, but today on the Marr show (BBC tv uk) he said:

'We have become the managers of the status quo, in circumstances where people want answers- and if we don't provide the answers to the accelerating process of change, then others will ride the anger that is caused by those changes. With immigration ... and also jobs. How do we deal with the new wave of technology, automation, artificial intelligence, Big Data, etc,

He fell short of saying what I feel is even more important and not really addressed by either the left or the right (whatever that means) ... what will be the rôle of the increasing number of people that the modern world has no 'job' for- and who do not have the qualifications or, let'sput it bluntly here, the ability - to access the new jobs. Labour or Socialists just cannot bring back the tradtional employers for them, mines, steel works, textile mills, etc - and those jobs available at poor wages in the fields, are not wanted as aspitations have changed- and will be taken by more 'hungry' immigrants.

No-one seems to be really addressing this- and this is what is pusing people towards extreme right wing- as it happened before.

[McTAVGE]

Meanwhile...


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...record-numbers


makes me think of the time when the Health Authorities in Geneva were talking of getting rid of all the French who lived in France and worked at Geneva hospital: doctors, nurses... and replace them with Swiss staff. How they quickly changed their tone!

	Quote:
	OK you are on to something that makes more sense here. So centre left is moving to centre right. And yet many predicted it would move to far right- as in Holland. And yes, you are right, Left parties are up the creek without a paddle as the world is changing very fast- leaving huge swaithes of the population without any real purpose- and getting angrier, looking for scape goats- usually foreigners/immigrants. Been a long time since I agreed with Blair, but today on the Marr show (BBC tv uk) he said: 'We have become the managers of the status quo, in circumstances where people want answers- and if we don't provide the answers to the accelerating process of change, then others will ride the anger that is caused by those changes. With immigration ... and also jobs. How do we deal with the new wave of technology, automation, artificial intelligence, Big Data, etc, He fell short of saying what I feel is even more important and not really addressed by either the left or the right (whatever that means) ... what will be the rôle of the increasing number of people that the modern world has no 'job' for- and who do not have the qualifications or, let'sput it bluntly here, the ability - to access the new jobs. Labour or Socialists just cannot bring back the tradtional employers for them, mines, steel works, textile mills, etc - and those jobs available at poor wages in the fields, are not wanted as aspitations have changed- and will be taken by more 'hungry' immigrants. No-one seems to be really addressing this- and this is what is pusing people towards extreme right wing- as it happened before.

This is half the problem. All the (often noble) causes that traditional Left fought for in the 20th century are simply no longer there. Workers rights, welfare, social insurance etc. has now all been accepted across the political spectrum and enshrined in law. Without an objective the Left has lost their way. They've been a victim of their own success.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Why should a trading bloc have to "defend its interests"? What on earth might they be?

You can't seriously be asking a question that stupid. The bulk of geopolitical history has been driven by different actors defending their interests in relation to trade and resources. To ask why a nation, or any political entity, would want to defend it's interests if that interest is trade has to be the daftest question I've heard in ages.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	You can't seriously be asking a question that stupid. The bulk of geopolitical history has been driven by different actors defending their interests in relation to trade and resources. To ask why a nation, or any political entity, would want to defend it's interests if that interest is trade has to be the daftest question I've heard in ages.

Britain is Germany's third most important export partner, Germany don't want a Hard BREXIT.
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/ge...-business.html

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Britain is Germany's third most important export partner, Germany don't want a Hard BREXIT. https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/ge...-business.html

Did you read your own link?

He also said;

	Quote:
	He said the European Union should take a tough line in Brexit negotiations with Britain. "EU membership is based on the free movement of services, goods, capital and workers ... Britain now wants to benefit from the first three but do away with the free movement of workers and that's not possible, above all because there could then be copycats," Schweitzer said.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Britain is Germany's third most important export partner, Germany don't want a Hard BREXIT.

What's that got to do with asking something as asinine as "why should a trading bloc have to defend its interests?" Seriously, it beggars belief.

If Germany don't want a Hard Brexit more than the alternative (the UK having it's cake and eating it), then naturally it would not be in Germany's interests to see one happen. But that's a big if that you've failed to even identify, let alone demonstrate is the case.

Reality is that overwhelmingly while Germany doesn't like the idea of a hard Brexit, they (and the majority of the bloc) like the idea of allowing a former member to have their cake and eat it much less. A hard Brexit is something no one wants, but it's better than the alternative as far as Germany and the EU is concerned. Even the link you supplied says this.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Aeneas
	What's that got to do with asking something as asinine as "why should a trading bloc have to defend its interests?" Seriously, it beggars belief. If Germany don't want a Hard Brexit more than the alternative (the UK having it's cake and eating it), then naturally it would not be in Germany's interests to see one happen. But that's a big if that you've failed to even identify, let alone demonstrate is the case. Reality is that overwhelmingly while Germany doesn't like the idea of a hard Brexit, they (and the majority of the bloc) like the idea of allowing a former member to have their cake and eat it much less. A hard Brexit is something no one wants, but it's better than the alternative as far as Germany and the EU is concerned. Even the link you supplied says this.

You claim nobody wants a hard BREXIT, really not sure thats true.
I think many people myself included would rather have a zero Tarif trade situation. For years Japanese TV type cameras had a 60% EU tariff, this personally cost me several hundreds of thousands of pounds. All to protect Philips now Thompson from Sony.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	You claim nobody wants a hard BREXIT, really not sure thats true.

You're right. No one sane wants a hard Brexit because it is close to impossible that the UK will get as favourable a trade agreement with the EU without access to the common market. There's a few Brexiteers who would, but from what I can see that is fuelled by a fear that access to the common market might become the thin edge of the wedge to returning to the EU in the future. But yes, if you include the nutcases, not everyone is against a hard Brexit.

	Quote:
	I think many people myself included would rather have a zero Tarif trade situation. For years Japanese TV type cameras had a 60% EU tariff, this personally cost me several hundreds of thousands of pounds. All to protect Philips now Thompson from Sony.

So you would favour countries like China suffering no barriers to trade and let our own relatively overpaid industries compete? Trump has it all wrong?

	Quote:	Aeneas
	You can't seriously be asking a question that stupid. The bulk of geopolitical history has been driven by different actors defending their interests in relation to trade and resources. To ask why a nation, or any political entity, would want to defend it's interests if that interest is trade has to be the daftest question I've heard in ages.

Where is EU trade interests being threatened? Where do EU resources need protection?

Come on, no woolly statements. Why does the EU need an army?

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Where is EU trade interests being threatened? Where do EU resources need protection? Come on, no woolly statements. Why does the EU need an army?

Because the EU will soon be a nation, and a nation needs an army.

Unless it's Costa Rica.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Where is EU trade interests being threatened? Where do EU resources need protection?

You denied that the EU needed to protect it's trade interests, not whether it presently had any so stop moving the goalposts. As to why it, or any nation, super-national, regional or other bloc or entity would need to protect it's trade interests if threatened, then it would be for the same reasons, regardless if it is a national, super-national, regional or other bloc or entity. From what I can see you have a mental block against this because it is not a nation state.

So OPEC never protects it's trade interests? Oh wait, it does...

Not that this is in any way relevant, because you're intentionally trying to turn the discussion away from the EU's stance with an EU Army which is more nonsense, or are you suggesting that the EU would use a military to impose it's Brexit will?

	Quote:
	Come on, no woolly statements. Why does the EU need an army?

I'll tell you the moment you explain what this has to do with the argument. I'd rather not waste my time responding to what appears to be a pretty transparent straw man.

[Aeneas]

	Quote:
	Because the EU will soon be a nation, and a nation needs an army.

Don't feed the troll. He wants to change the argument on one about a European army, despite the fact that this has nothing to do with that and he's just introduced the topic to distract from the whoppers he's coming out with.