Europe III: April F-EU-Ls

[gIzzE]

Mrs May has had any chance of negotiations taken away from her at every stage.

She has been undermined by those who wanted to remain constantly since she started negotiations.

This was always going to lead to one outcome, a no deal.


Those that hate the thought of that the most have unfortunately created that out come.


Anyway, we are getting close to a financial meltdown, here in the UK and across the EU, at least they can blame it all on Brexit when we leave.
Just wait an see.
Do your homework on the debt trap most EU countries are in, look at the 69 trillion euros the German banks are over valued, and then study hw this is all being hidden short term by the ECB printing money. The EU want us to crash out, at which point they can stop printing money and can blame it all on Brexit.
So far everything is working out wonderfully for them.

[fishbowlhead]

Mrs May has had any chance of negotiations taken away from her at every stage.

She has been undermined by those who wanted to remain constantly since she started negotiations.

This was always going to lead to one outcome, a no deal.


Those that hate the thought of that the most have unfortunately created that out come.


Anyway, we are getting close to a financial meltdown, here in the UK and across the EU, at least they can blame it all on Brexit when we leave.
Just wait an see.
Do your homework on the debt trap most EU countries are in, look at the 69 trillion euros the German banks are over valued, and then study hw this is all being hidden short term by the ECB printing money. The EU want us to crash out, at which point they can stop printing money and can blame it all on Brexit.
So far everything is working out wonderfully for them.

Not a single leaver voted Leave based on factual evidence though gIzzE. All hype and tosh they bought into.

Well they wanted to rock the boat, don’t be surprised when it tips over and we all drown.

I’ve got one word for everyone in this country,

DEPRESSION. A financial one.

[gIzzE]

I have yet to hear a single remainer understand the state of the EU either though.

Depression across the EU is inevitable, it is just being stalled at the moment. Every country needs to be in control of its currency and be in control of their decisions so they can deal with the collapse.
It is really not going to be nice.

The numbers they are talking about will make the collapse of the banks in 2009 through sub prime lending look like a party.




It depends what you mean by factual evidence?
Taking back control of our borders, our laws, our decisions, and being able to spend our money on the things we want/need to spend our money is pretty much as deep as you can get with most people, and to be fair that is pretty much the things we need to be in control of when this depression happens.

The EU should have let Greece leave when they asked, same with Italy a couple of years ago, they are tied up in too much red tape not to get seriously hurt when it happens.

It is a real shame what has happened, trying to hide a spiralling debt and racking up more and more debt to hide it is the same scenario you see every day before a business goes bust, we are seeing that now with the EU, they have left it too late, they can't show their audited accounts now, it would throw the world into a complete meltdown. They should have dealt with this back in the late 90's, but they have gotten deeper and deeper hoping that the countries that are struggling would one day bounce back and be on a level playing field, but the gap is just getting bigger and bigger.

I am selling my cars, selling my watches and my toys, and whacking money into my house, I am then hoping to sell my business and the property and leave myself with enough money to live on a low paid job doing whatever.

Brexit will not be the cause, the EU is the cause and the corruption that is trying to hide it all.
They have seriously ****ed up what could have been a truly wonderful project for us all, it started out as something great, a trading bloc where people could move freely around to work, and the greed of it all has ruined it.

[gIzzE]

Actually, I don't think it was greed, I think it was unrealistic hope.

I know everyone on here thinks I am some stupid brexiter who has no idea of what we have done, but I genuinely believe it was the best thing going forward, the longer it drags out the worse it is going to be when it happens.

[Neon Ignition]

The EU's issues are that it overstepped its primary boundaries. The idea of having free trade throughout joined nations and more open movement is one thing and something that they could have easily been at the centre of, it could theoretically have grown in an organic manner to eventually encapsulate any country in theory instead of ring fencing Europe. The concept of building a joined standing amongst countries to help avoid conflicts etc in a post-WW era is good. But then you add all the usual political corruption, career minded power grabbing etc and the EU became more than just key agreed beneficial agreements. As a single body overseeing Europe as a single entity it was always flawed, always failing to take into proper account that a single model doesn't work for every country which is why they've always had such mixed results in EU nation fortunes and public perception. In effect they've tried to create something in 40 years that should take a lot, lot longer to accomplish.

I mean, if you had opt-in or out shared agreements on trade, movement, human rights etc where your nations voice on those agreements and benefits varied dependent on how much of it you opt into would anything else really be required relating to the EU? They're a big fan of their four pillars that they won't compromise on but 1 - Do we only need the pillars, not anything else they're propping up and 2 - What if the EU citizens want changes to one of those pillars?

[Dogg Thang]

Except that you say the "EU" like it's some completely external thing when, up to now, it has included the UK, a nation which has been very influential in it. When you say "the EU's issues", it would be more accurate to say "our issues". So rather than choosing to be part of its shaping as it evolves over time (as any body and nation does), you have chosen to take your ball and go home. But your home is on fire.

And that's fine - that's the choice. It would be very wrong if you couldn't do that. But you then don't get to blame the EU (which included you) for that after the fact.

[Neon Ignition]

I'm definitely happy to lump our government in with other EU nation governments in terms of responsibility for the EU as it currently exists. It's something they all took upon themselves to do and it's also on them that all the current circumstances have come about. I just feel that if it had remained a simpler proposition of separate European countries working together on key beneficial terms we'd all likely still have most of the benefits with a lot less of the drama.

[Dogg Thang]

Yeah, I think there is a possibility that you're right. While it feels like a large chunk of the desire to synchronise things was to make that flow between countries much easier (and it has largely worked), it may well be that we could have something similar without that same level of synchronicity. I don't know, mostly because there are so many details that I don't know the impact of them one way or another. In both cases, the huge differences between the countries and situations would be a challenge but tackling those challenges was always part of the aim - the EU nations could never make those challenges go away but that also doesn't mean it is fruitless to try to ease them.

[Neon Ignition]

I'm not sure how it'd work but presumably that's how it was all originally envisaged. I mean, if you have 28 countries, 28 economies, 28 cultures etc it seems bizarre to assume a one size fits all approach would work. If it was agreement led it would mean that if Country A felt its immigration numbers were too high they'd be free to restrict free movement but doing so would incur a higher trade fee level etc. If they reopen their borders completely they revert back to free trade. More getting countries to subscribe to a common approach but under more of a banner where they feel there's more flexibility and national culture protection. If the EU operated in that way the UK would have probably imposed immigration limits, presumably any fees to the EU wouldn't be an issue because they'd already be free to set trade agreements with non-EU signed nations already.

[gIzzE]

Yeah, I think there is a possibility that you're right. While it feels like a large chunk of the desire to synchronise things was to make that flow between countries much easier (and it has largely worked), it may well be that we could have something similar without that same level of synchronicity. I don't know, mostly because there are so many details that I don't know the impact of them one way or another. In both cases, the huge differences between the countries and situations would be a challenge but tackling those challenges was always part of the aim - the EU nations could never make those challenges go away but that also doesn't mean it is fruitless to try to ease them.

But it hasn't worked.

Trying to synchronise countries is what has caused the EU project to fail.

The idea was get every country on a level playing field, same wages, interest rates, cost of living, so we had a totally free and equal move,ent of people.
It was never going to work, they were warned at every stage.

It didn't need a team of data analysts to work out that Bulgaria and Romania were never going to appeal to people as much as moving to Germany or the UK.

So they have tried to get around this with wealth distribution. Problem is, 23 of the countries can't put in.

It hasn't worked, the only way you can judge it is financially, and the EU is insolvent.

[Dogg Thang]

I'm not sure how it'd work but presumably that's how it was all originally envisaged. I mean, if you have 28 countries, 28 economies, 28 cultures etc it seems bizarre to assume a one size fits all approach would work. If it was agreement led it would mean that if Country A felt its immigration numbers were too high they'd be free to restrict free movement but doing so would incur a higher trade fee level etc. If they reopen their borders completely they revert back to free trade. More getting countries to subscribe to a common approach but under more of a banner where they feel there's more flexibility and national culture protection. If the EU operated in that way the UK would have probably imposed immigration limits, presumably any fees to the EU wouldn't be an issue because they'd already be free to set trade agreements with non-EU signed nations already.

I'm guessing the reality is much trickier because what happens in one EU nation also impacts the others. So to some extent, they have to make sure that a move that positively impacts one country doesn't also cause problems in other countries. That happens anyway, by the way, and there is definitely a huge amount of flexibility as ultimately each EU nation is self-governing but I can understand both the desire to examine individual elements in terms of their effect across the whole of the EU and also the huge challenge involved in that.

[QualityChimp]

UK food safety reform during Brexit creates ‘additional risk’

"(The report) was written by Professor Tim Lang, Professor Erik Millstone of Sussex, Tony Lewis of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health, and Professor Terry Marsden of Cardiff.


“The FSA’s ROF proposals could potentially weaken food standards in the UK at the very time that the UK needs to demonstrate to the world that it has and maintains rigorous standards,” they wrote.


“Furthermore, the FSA’s plans risk undermining the ability of UK producers to sell their products to the EU after Brexit, as the FSA is still to demonstrate how it intends to ensure that its proposals meet the regulatory requirements for countries from which foodstuffs can be imported into the EU.”


The report called for clarity from the FSA on costs of the current and proposed systems to industry, the agency and local authorities; as well as anticipated savings that ROF might provide.


“It is vital, in the context of negotiating and enacting Brexit, that the FSA, and the UK government more generally, avoid any decisions, proposals or actions that could adversely affect food safety standards in the UK or the reputation of the UK’s food supply,” Millstone said."

Horse lasagne all round!

[Neon Ignition]

It's curious they haven't clarified that yet, I remember them saying they'd maintain EU standards on food and they're already doing it so there's no concerns about ability either. Though if they also sell ratburgers to non-EU countries you can imagine the reputation taking a hit.

[MartyG]

New polling suggests support for Brexit is slipping: https://news.sky.com/story/public-op...veals-11453220

[gIzzE]

Of course it is.

The Chequers proposal is worse than staying in.


The main question was..

Remain in EU, Chequers Deal or No Deal.

When you split the leave votes into two of course you will get the win for remaining.

48% wanted to remain in this poll.

https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/almost-half-of-uk-voters-want-to-stay-in-the-eu-poll-finds-37166529.html