Quantcast
Brexit
Bofferbrauer2 said:
only777 said:

"Why is the danger of an EU collapse an argument for leaving the EU?"

Really?  You would want to stay in the house of cards as it falls down?  Besides I actually wrote my answer for this in my post.  That was: 

 The UK be wise to leave the EU, take the painful couple of year hit while getting it affairs in order, because by that time the EU very well could collapse and the UK will be left as the most powerful and stable county in Europe.

"Let's pretend Germany would leave the EU because of the danger of a EU collapse."

You miss key facts.  Germany are the biggest player in the EU, infact the EU is a project by Germany.  They don't want to leave it.   But the biggest issue is that Germany and most other EU countrys (Not the UK though) use the Euro as their money.  To pull out of the Eu is a huge task to reissue and change their financial systems again.  The UK doesn't have this problem as they still use the Pound (£).

" The EU is the largest economic area in the world"

No its not. Both Asia and North America have higher GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_GDP_(nominal)


The EU is not a continent, but an economic bloc. And like you could see, it took entire continents to rival with the EU in that regard, as neither the US or China are big enough to beat the EU in that regard.

The problem with your theory is that the house in question is held up by the different nations in the EU. Leaving would be the reason why it collapses. But if you don't do so, it stays in place. What you're advocating is herd mentality: One's leaving, so everybody must leave. It's the reason why the stock markets crash (because everybody panics and starts selling too).

While there's a risk that Le Pen would push France out of the EU, she would need to win the election first. She has a good shot for the first round, but I doubt very much that she will win the second round. And depending on how severe Brexit will end up to be, this might also scare voters away from such an Eurosceptical party like the Front National.

Speaking of the FN, funny and ironic bit: Marine le Pen moved the party away from Pétainism and more into Gaullism. De Gaulle was a staunch advocate of not letting the UK join the EU. Now the UK are leaving and another Gaullism leader is trying to become Président(e?) de la République. The EU was Robert Schumann's (then Minister of French foreign affairs) project and not a German one as you claim. At worst, it could e called a Luxembourgish project as Schumann was born in Luxembourg. It is, funny enough, also a byproduct of the Marshall plan, which ordered the European countries to work out their industrial supplies together, which led to the predecessor of the EU, the ECSC.

Okay, so let's tackle those points.

"it took entire continents to rival with the EU in that regard, as neither the US or China are big enough to beat the EU in that regard."

The EU has been in constant decline ( Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=EU ).  Sure the EU is a big economic force, it added a wealth of many rich countrys together so it was always going to start strong.  But all it's ever done is make everyone under it weaker.  This is not good economics.

" Leaving would be the reason why it collapses. But if you don't do so, it stays in place."

Lets pretend Brexit never happened, and there was never a vote to leave.  That doesn't stop Greece from bankruptcy.  That wouldn't stop the immigration crisis from hitting Germany.  that wouldn't stop Italy for giving the EU the middle finger.  that doesn't stop Spain from hitting rock bottom.  It doesn't stop the yellow vests in France.  Even if Brexit never happened, all those other things still would have, and added together are a bigger threat to the EU than Brexit.

" she would need to win the election first. She has a good shot for the first round, but I doubt very much that she will win the second round."

She might win.  She might lose.  But in the age of Trump I'd say anything is possible.



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.

Around the Network
MrWayne said:
LurkerJ said:
100,000 jobs at risk in Germany from 'no deal' Brexit

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/10/100000-jobs-risk-germany-no-deal-brexit/

What's your point? no deal Brexit will be bad for Germany and the other EU members, hell Brexit is no matter how bad for Germany and the other EU members, that's the reason none of them wants brexit.

Just to add to this:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/07/world/europe/brexit-impact-on-european-union.html



only777 said:
MrWayne said:

Why is the danger of an EU collapse an argument for leaving the EU? It's like preventing dying from cancer by committing suicide.

Let's pretend Germany would leave the EU because of the danger of a EU collapse. Not only would Germany face massive economic repercussions but likelihood of an EU collapse is much higher too. The EU is the largest economic area in the world, a collapse would lead to an avalanche that would negatively affect every country on this earth.

Working towards a scenario where everyone loses but you may lose the least(that's not even for sure) is not very intelligent.

"Why is the danger of an EU collapse an argument for leaving the EU?"

Really?  You would want to stay in the house of cards as it falls down?  Besides I actually wrote my answer for this in my post.  That was: 

 The UK be wise to leave the EU, take the painful couple of year hit while getting it affairs in order, because by that time the EU very well could collapse and the UK will be left as the most powerful and stable county in Europe.

"Let's pretend Germany would leave the EU because of the danger of a EU collapse."

You miss key facts.  Germany are the biggest player in the EU, infact the EU is a project by Germany.  They don't want to leave it.   But the biggest issue is that Germany and most other EU countrys (Not the UK though) use the Euro as their money.  To pull out of the Eu is a huge task to reissue and change their financial systems again.  The UK doesn't have this problem as they still use the Pound (£).

" The EU is the largest economic area in the world"

No its not. Both Asia and North America have higher GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_GDP_(nominal)


I swear, people have been saying the EU will collapse for nearly as long as people have been saying PC gaming is going to die.

The other problem is it's going to be a lot longer then a couple of years in terms of economic hit. If no deal happens it'll be decades before the UK recovers.



fatslob-:O said:

 

Is it really something to laugh about ? Especially when both France and Italy could face floodgates of cheaper produce imports from the UK ? The EU doesn't seem to think it's all that funny given their demands over a hard border in the event of no deal ... (I wonder what also happens if Ireland isn't going to give into EU demands) 

As far as food is concerned, supply would be vastly enhanced since buying outside of the EU without tariffs are far cheaper and with less regulations. Hormone injected beef, chlorinated chicken, and GMOs FTW! (Again benefits of not accepting the EU's ridiculous standards) Even with subsidies which is a lie since the UK feels far less benefits from CAP so most the funds goes to either France, Germany or Spain and even Italy benefits more from it than the UK but EU produce is still expensive as shit! EU food is overpriced but since Britain is stuck in a customs union where EU regulates that you can't have good shit like hormone injected beef, chlorinated chicken or GMOs so they're stuck with their stupidity and have no other options. The UK doesn't need to stockpile on anything really since the Irish border is open so what it needs are free trade agreements with other countries! It's not all about the tariff rates, it's more about the non-tariff barriers like regulations and refusing to use advanced American/Canadian methods to agriculture highly distorts market pricing. Americans or Canadians (this one has far shorter growing seasons compared to the EU) can enjoy the fact that they pay so little for such big portions since those guys are allowed to waste food like no tomorrow ... 

So, just to be clear, you're in the Patrick Minford school of thought? You're happy to go tariff-free on WTO rules meaning we import from the EU and from all countries around the World tariff free and effectively destroy our agricultural sector in the UK? You get that just because we make imports tariff free doesn't mean anyone else has to reciprocate (and in fact no one would as that would mean opening up all global markets and damaging their own industries)?

So you're quite happy to completely destroy an entire industry in the UK and suffer the numerous job losses (not to mention loss in tax revenue) that would result from that?

How do you think we're going to get free trade deals with anyone if we're already tariff free? What would we use as negotiating leverage if everyone else can export whatever they want to us with no import tariffs but our farmers still need to pay tariffs to export around the World?

And EU foods are overpriced? You get that they're our nearest neighbors so even if production and regulatory costs are higher (although the EU has one of the largest free trade networks in the World so a number of Countries are already having to meet those standards), transport is immensely cheaper, especially for foods with a short shelf life.

You also get that UK has been a part of the EU in the development of the food/agricultural regulations? The UK voted for nearly all those regulatory standards in.



only777 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

The EU is not a continent, but an economic bloc. And like you could see, it took entire continents to rival with the EU in that regard, as neither the US or China are big enough to beat the EU in that regard.

The problem with your theory is that the house in question is held up by the different nations in the EU. Leaving would be the reason why it collapses. But if you don't do so, it stays in place. What you're advocating is herd mentality: One's leaving, so everybody must leave. It's the reason why the stock markets crash (because everybody panics and starts selling too).

While there's a risk that Le Pen would push France out of the EU, she would need to win the election first. She has a good shot for the first round, but I doubt very much that she will win the second round. And depending on how severe Brexit will end up to be, this might also scare voters away from such an Eurosceptical party like the Front National.

Speaking of the FN, funny and ironic bit: Marine le Pen moved the party away from Pétainism and more into Gaullism. De Gaulle was a staunch advocate of not letting the UK join the EU. Now the UK are leaving and another Gaullism leader is trying to become Président(e?) de la République. The EU was Robert Schumann's (then Minister of French foreign affairs) project and not a German one as you claim. At worst, it could e called a Luxembourgish project as Schumann was born in Luxembourg. It is, funny enough, also a byproduct of the Marshall plan, which ordered the European countries to work out their industrial supplies together, which led to the predecessor of the EU, the ECSC.

Okay, so let's tackle those points.

"it took entire continents to rival with the EU in that regard, as neither the US or China are big enough to beat the EU in that regard."

The EU has been in constant decline ( Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=EU ).  Sure the EU is a big economic force, it added a wealth of many rich countrys together so it was always going to start strong.  But all it's ever done is make everyone under it weaker.  This is not good economics.

" Leaving would be the reason why it collapses. But if you don't do so, it stays in place."

Lets pretend Brexit never happened, and there was never a vote to leave.  That doesn't stop Greece from bankruptcy.  That wouldn't stop the immigration crisis from hitting Germany.  that wouldn't stop Italy for giving the EU the middle finger.  that doesn't stop Spain from hitting rock bottom.  It doesn't stop the yellow vests in France.  Even if Brexit never happened, all those other things still would have, and added together are a bigger threat to the EU than Brexit.

 

Add the US to the graph and you'll see that they're performing similarly. In fact, the last 2 years, despite your claim of slowdown the EU outpaced the US. The perception of slowdown comes from the inflation in the 70s and 80s; it enabled more growth but was less stable, and the inflation ate up most of the growth anyway.

Of course most if those things would all have happened (most because the immigration crisis hit all of Europe and got resolved pretty quickly, and Spain is recovering these days. The Yellow vests protested against rising cost of living in France due to a planned rise of the fuel tax and nothing else, thus having nothing to do with the EU). But that's like saying that the next government shutdown in the US is clear sign to leave the United States ASAP. No country is without times of crisis, if you count these as reasons to leave then better not live on the planet Earth because such things happen in every single country on Earth.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:

1. The backstop id just in case of a Brexit with a deal, since this includes a 22 month transition period. The Backstop id for the transition period, not for the Brexit itself. A no-Deal Brexit nullifies the need of the Backstop.

2. True. It is also explicitly her duty to call for such a poll when the people wants to become part of Ireland. In other words, it's time to plan if she wants to act on her duty. On a somewhat related and sad side, it looks like Brexit could refuel the Troubles even without any hard border: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/security-situation-in-northern-ireland

3. Deal or no deal, that doesn't change anything here. In fact, the UK already implemented them and several countries already protested against them (New Zealand and Taiwan at least for my knowledge, but there might very well be more)

4. I literally facepalmed when I read that. That's just border controls, not a fucking Berlin Wall. Besides, if a physical barrier inevitably leads to militarization, how come the European borders were not controlled by military force for decades before the Schengen agreement? Or that there's no military presence at the EU borders? Maybe because in inevitably leading to militarization is complete bullshit? Pretty much! Ireland can with no problems at all choose both the Customs Union and uphold the GFA. There's a clear difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to do so.

5. Leo is believing that an agreement can still be found, thus clinging on the backstop agreement. But I think we both agree here that there will be no deal Brexit. But I agree the Taoiseach is getting increasingly desperate as he tinks the backstop is the only solution... hence why he urges the UK time and again to accept the 585 page-long deal, as without a deal, no backstop either. One must note thought that until two weeks ago, May also urged the parliament in favor of the backstop, the fact that she's not doing that anymore just shows that the parliament isn't willing for it and the EU won't renegotiate the deal. We'll see in the coming days how Leo's position will evolve I guess.

6. Look at number 2

And if you don't know by now that you're in total denial, not everything collapsing around you could point you in the right direction

1. The backstop and the whole of UK remaining in a customs union is indefinite so how do you propose to solve this without a no deal exit ? The Labour party is fucking themselves either over a people's vote or a permanent customs union. The Conservative party is fucking themselves either over an indefinite customs union or having no customs union at all. The ERG (along with the DUP) have Theresa May right in their crosshair just like they did with David Cameron ... 

2. Neither the DUP or Sinn Fein has any say either way unless they somehow won the majority in the House of Commons then they could in theory appoint whatever Secretary of State they wanted for Northern Ireland. It's ultimately Karen Bradley's choice to call for a border poll to which she recently rejected to Sinn Fein and calling for one doesn't make any sense either since in the last general election the DUP along with Sylvia Hermon won the majority of votes and seats in the parliament representing Northern Ireland so there's no reason to call for a border poll when the people of Northern Ireland want British unionists to represent them. Maybe if the DUP get decimated in the next election and if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the prime minister but right now it's not looking so good for Corbyn's chances ... (even if Sinn Fein held a majority in Northern Ireland a Conservative government can still reject calls for a border poll so only the prime minister has the power to affect whether a vote will be held or not) 

4. And what if Leo keeps refusing ? Ireland NEEDS something like a Berlin Wall because Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland will get very angry over being separated and that poses border security risks to personnel. Ireland and the UK has tried just doing customs checks before but lo and behold both of them were finding themselves fighting against paramilitaries. The extreme nationalist will probably try using violent methods to breach customs checks and they'd see it as a betrayal of sorts from the Irish government. Can you be absolutely certain that those extreme Irish nationalists won't revolt ? The EU has made it clear that it can not ignore the risk of a backdoor anymore and right now Irish goods entering the whole EU continent aren't checked because Ireland makes sure that shipments arriving from countries outside the EU are compliant with EU customs standards along with the UK since both have no need for a physical border in that case but a no deal Brexit derails this arrangement since the UK aren't obligated to see eye to eye with EU customs standards ... 

5. Leo is not wrong in thinking that the backstop is the only way for them to realistically keep the GFA and be in the single market but the reality is that the UK isn't going to draw the line so someone else needs to whether that's going to be the EU or Ireland. The only other option left to be able to keep both is if Ireland accepts a China style "one country, two systems" arrangement whereby they have extended areas that includes the Irish border under a different "designated special customs area" which would essentially mean the Republic of Ireland would now have internal borders just like China does with Hong Kong but this would split the Irish communities and we don't know how Irish nationalists arriving from Northern Ireland would react to this ... (if Ireland wants a border then it should do that to itself to meet two different customs instead of expecting the UK to accept a backstop) 

One way or another the UK will be taking something as a collateral in the scenario of no deal ... 



fatslob-:O said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

1. The backstop id just in case of a Brexit with a deal, since this includes a 22 month transition period. The Backstop id for the transition period, not for the Brexit itself. A no-Deal Brexit nullifies the need of the Backstop.

2. True. It is also explicitly her duty to call for such a poll when the people wants to become part of Ireland. In other words, it's time to plan if she wants to act on her duty. On a somewhat related and sad side, it looks like Brexit could refuel the Troubles even without any hard border: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/security-situation-in-northern-ireland

3. Deal or no deal, that doesn't change anything here. In fact, the UK already implemented them and several countries already protested against them (New Zealand and Taiwan at least for my knowledge, but there might very well be more)

4. I literally facepalmed when I read that. That's just border controls, not a fucking Berlin Wall. Besides, if a physical barrier inevitably leads to militarization, how come the European borders were not controlled by military force for decades before the Schengen agreement? Or that there's no military presence at the EU borders? Maybe because in inevitably leading to militarization is complete bullshit? Pretty much! Ireland can with no problems at all choose both the Customs Union and uphold the GFA. There's a clear difference between not wanting to do something and not being able to do so.

5. Leo is believing that an agreement can still be found, thus clinging on the backstop agreement. But I think we both agree here that there will be no deal Brexit. But I agree the Taoiseach is getting increasingly desperate as he tinks the backstop is the only solution... hence why he urges the UK time and again to accept the 585 page-long deal, as without a deal, no backstop either. One must note thought that until two weeks ago, May also urged the parliament in favor of the backstop, the fact that she's not doing that anymore just shows that the parliament isn't willing for it and the EU won't renegotiate the deal. We'll see in the coming days how Leo's position will evolve I guess.

6. Look at number 2

And if you don't know by now that you're in total denial, not everything collapsing around you could point you in the right direction

1. The backstop and the whole of UK remaining in a customs union is indefinite so how do you propose to solve this without a no deal exit ? The Labour party is fucking themselves either over a people's vote or a permanent customs union. The Conservative party is fucking themselves either over an indefinite customs union or having no customs union at all. The ERG (along with the DUP) have Theresa May right in their crosshair just like they did with David Cameron ... 

2. Neither the DUP or Sinn Fein has any say either way unless they somehow won the majority in the House of Commons then they could in theory appoint whatever Secretary of State they wanted for Northern Ireland. It's ultimately Karen Bradley's choice to call for a border poll to which she recently rejected to Sinn Fein and calling for one doesn't make any sense either since in the last general election the DUP along with Sylvia Hermon won the majority of votes and seats in the parliament representing Northern Ireland so there's no reason to call for a border poll when the people of Northern Ireland want British unionists to represent them. Maybe if the DUP get decimated in the next election and if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the prime minister but right now it's not looking so good for Corbyn's chances ... (even if Sinn Fein held a majority in Northern Ireland a Conservative government can still reject calls for a border poll so only the prime minister has the power to affect whether a vote will be held or not) 

4. And what if Leo keeps refusing ? Ireland NEEDS something like a Berlin Wall because Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland will get very angry over being separated and that poses border security risks to personnel. Ireland and the UK has tried just doing customs checks before but lo and behold both of them were finding themselves fighting against paramilitaries. The extreme nationalist will probably try using violent methods to breach customs checks and they'd see it as a betrayal of sorts from the Irish government. Can you be absolutely certain that those extreme Irish nationalists won't revolt ? The EU has made it clear that it can not ignore the risk of a backdoor anymore and right now Irish goods entering the whole EU continent aren't checked because Ireland makes sure that shipments arriving from countries outside the EU are compliant with EU customs standards along with the UK since both have no need for a physical border in that case but a no deal Brexit derails this arrangement since the UK aren't obligated to see eye to eye with EU customs standards ... 

5. Leo is not wrong in thinking that the backstop is the only way for them to realistically keep the GFA and be in the single market but the reality is that the UK isn't going to draw the line so someone else needs to whether that's going to be the EU or Ireland. The only other option left to be able to keep both is if Ireland accepts a China style "one country, two systems" arrangement whereby they have extended areas that includes the Irish border under a different "designated special customs area" which would essentially mean the Republic of Ireland would now have internal borders just like China does with Hong Kong but this would split the Irish communities and we don't know how Irish nationalists arriving from Northern Ireland would react to this ... (if Ireland wants a border then it should do that to itself to meet two different customs instead of expecting the UK to accept a backstop) 

One way or another the UK will be taking something as a collateral in the scenario of no deal ... 

1. The backstop is a part of the divorce deal. Since UK is heading straight into a no-deal Brexit, this part also falls through. In other words, with a No-Deal Brexit, the Backstop also automatically drops off the table and thus the UK is not part of the Customs Union anymore then in any way, and will have to pay import taxes if they want to export to the EU.

2. They have no say, but it's the NI Secretary of State's duty to perform such polls. Also, it's her duty to reflect on people's interests

4. No need for such security. Besides, if the Troubles come back, they happen in Northern Ireland, so it would rather be in UK's interest to raise the wall sky-high instead of Irelands to keep the Nationals from supplying themselves with everything they need. For the rest, look at point number 1

5. Leo is right in a way, as it would keep the spirit of the GFA, but not the letter, which doesn't say anything at all about or against border controls, So these can be put in action without breaking the agreement.

LurkerJ already posted the collateral, with some jobs being lost on the continent as there will be slowing trade with the UK for a while at least. The economy of the EU will get a small hit, but nothing near the hit it will be for the UK.



Scoobes said:

So, just to be clear, you're in the Patrick Minford school of thought? You're happy to go tariff-free on WTO rules meaning we import from the EU and from all countries around the World tariff free and effectively destroy our agricultural sector in the UK? You get that just because we make imports tariff free doesn't mean anyone else has to reciprocate (and in fact no one would as that would mean opening up all global markets and damaging their own industries)?

So you're quite happy to completely destroy an entire industry in the UK and suffer the numerous job losses (not to mention loss in tax revenue) that would result from that?

How do you think we're going to get free trade deals with anyone if we're already tariff free? What would we use as negotiating leverage if everyone else can export whatever they want to us with no import tariffs but our farmers still need to pay tariffs to export around the World?

And EU foods are overpriced? You get that they're our nearest neighbors so even if production and regulatory costs are higher (although the EU has one of the largest free trade networks in the World so a number of Countries are already having to meet those standards), transport is immensely cheaper, especially for foods with a short shelf life.

You also get that UK has been a part of the EU in the development of the food/agricultural regulations? The UK voted for nearly all those regulatory standards in.

@Bold Can just use article 21 in that case to apply for an exemption ... 

As far as 'destroying' an industry is concerned, Britain stands to make FAR MORE money by undercutting European producers through a backdoor than to keep subsidizing ANY sort of agriculture because France, Germany, and Spain takes most of the CAP funding ... (with no deal the British should come to Ireland with these cheap imported goods and look at all the profit they'll rake in by selling contraband to a very big market) 

As far as free trade 'deals' are concerned, the backdoor would only be available to the UK because of WTO article 21. The UK should use this advantage to gain the best trade deals among the most desperate bidders (poor countries) ... 

Even with the shortest shipping routes, food is still more expensive because the EU employs less productive methods of agriculture. It's stupid to be fear mongering about hormone treated beef, chlorinated chicken or GMOs when the likes of Canada has genetically modified fish for sale such as the AquAdvantage salmon from AquaBounty Technologies. Transport costs won't matter much when your food takes 2-3x longer to grow or if the labour costs outweigh productivity. If the EU is going to be a protectionist market then it should strive to grow to be globally competitive but now that we're on the cusp of a "big data/machine learning revolution" when they go backwards by implementing data protection laws which is a shame because they'll be missing out on the potential of a growing sector for years ... 

Yes the UK has been a part of EU development but it's been one mistakes after another either from the UK's own politicians (Blair goofed up when he imposed no freedom of movement controls) or from EU politicians (letting Greece enter the eurozone, migrant crisis, etc) until that faithful day where David Cameron showed light (Referendum) at the end of the tunnel (Brexit) so now Britain can finally right the many wrongs the EU has caused by punishing the rotten project that's at the brink anyway ... (Ireland will soon be forced to choose either in the name of 'solidarity' or 'reunification') 

The EU had 43 years to prove to itself that it can show the goods but enough is enough ... 

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 11 February 2019

Bofferbrauer2 said:

1. The backstop is a part of the divorce deal. Since UK is heading straight into a no-deal Brexit, this part also falls through. In other words, with a No-Deal Brexit, the Backstop also automatically drops off the table and thus the UK is not part of the Customs Union anymore then in any way, and will have to pay import taxes if they want to export to the EU.

2. They have no say, but it's the NI Secretary of State's duty to perform such polls. Also, it's her duty to reflect on people's interests

4. No need for such security. Besides, if the Troubles come back, they happen in Northern Ireland, so it would rather be in UK's interest to raise the wall sky-high instead of Irelands to keep the Nationals from supplying themselves with everything they need. For the rest, look at point number 1

5. Leo is right in a way, as it would keep the spirit of the GFA, but not the letter, which doesn't say anything at all about or against border controls, So these can be put in action without breaking the agreement.

LurkerJ already posted the collateral, with some jobs being lost on the continent as there will be slowing trade with the UK for a while at least. The economy of the EU will get a small hit, but nothing near the hit it will be for the UK.

1. Is being a part of an indefinite customs union a part of that deal as well ? If it is then the ERG are right in that the EU can go kiss their own asses ... 

2. It's also the duty of NI Secretary of State to determine the requirements for the polls and she isn't to be held accountable by the people but the prime minister itself ... (just by the virtue that it is the unionists alone who have a decisive advantage in both votes and representation of NI constituencies means that there's no clear majority to hold a border poll)  

4. Pretty sure there would need to be security because the extreme Irish nationalists wouldn't be attacking British border patrol officers (UK probably won't send any before Ireland does) but they'd be attacking Irish border patrol officers! Then there's also the issue of there being over hundreds of crossing points and Ireland was FORCED TO BLOCK the vast majority of the crossing points because they've suffered many more breaches on their side so if Ireland is to so much as to block even just a SINGLE crossing point they'd automatically void the GFA. During the Troubles only 20 crossings were open while today there are as many as 275 crossings so I doubt that Ireland will be able to effectively police all of them ... 

5. Again Ireland CAN'T BE BLOCKING the crossing points since it would be in absolute breach of the agreement ... (they need a hard border or they get kicked out of the customs union)

The UK will be taking more than just some jobs on the continent. It will also either enable smuggling or result in Ireland getting kicked out of the EU customs union. How is one supposed to deal with the nationalists feeling betrayed in the process and the numerous crossing points ... (for Ireland it's either all or nothing regarding a border so they can't just have a 'soft' border like only a customs check as it would still open the possibility of smuggling)

Last edited by fatslob-:O - on 12 February 2019

Bofferbrauer2 said:
only777 said:

Okay, so let's tackle those points.

"it took entire continents to rival with the EU in that regard, as neither the US or China are big enough to beat the EU in that regard."

The EU has been in constant decline ( Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=EU ).  Sure the EU is a big economic force, it added a wealth of many rich countrys together so it was always going to start strong.  But all it's ever done is make everyone under it weaker.  This is not good economics.

" Leaving would be the reason why it collapses. But if you don't do so, it stays in place."

Lets pretend Brexit never happened, and there was never a vote to leave.  That doesn't stop Greece from bankruptcy.  That wouldn't stop the immigration crisis from hitting Germany.  that wouldn't stop Italy for giving the EU the middle finger.  that doesn't stop Spain from hitting rock bottom.  It doesn't stop the yellow vests in France.  Even if Brexit never happened, all those other things still would have, and added together are a bigger threat to the EU than Brexit.

 

Add the US to the graph and you'll see that they're performing similarly. In fact, the last 2 years, despite your claim of slowdown the EU outpaced the US. The perception of slowdown comes from the inflation in the 70s and 80s; it enabled more growth but was less stable, and the inflation ate up most of the growth anyway.

Of course most if those things would all have happened (most because the immigration crisis hit all of Europe and got resolved pretty quickly, and Spain is recovering these days. The Yellow vests protested against rising cost of living in France due to a planned rise of the fuel tax and nothing else, thus having nothing to do with the EU). But that's like saying that the next government shutdown in the US is clear sign to leave the United States ASAP. No country is without times of crisis, if you count these as reasons to leave then better not live on the planet Earth because such things happen in every single country on Earth.

" (most because the immigration crisis hit all of Europe and got resolved pretty quickly,"

It's still very much still going on, which is why we have the situation in Poland and Austria.

"The Yellow vests protested against rising cost of living in France due to a planned rise of the fuel tax and nothing else, thus having nothing to do with the EU"

Sorry, no.  The yellow vests started with fuel but evolved into a far larger movement. - https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/a3op4n/the_peoples_directives_demands_made_by_the_yellow/ /  https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2018/11/29/les-gilets-jaunes-publient-une-nouvelle-flopee-de-revendications_a_23604413/



Sony want to make money by selling art, Nintendo want to make money by selling fun, Microsoft want to make money.