BREXIT --->

[MoroseTroll]

As an EU member state at least you can pipe up with 'our population think this is bullshit', which is what france did about the TTIP.

I'm afraid the EU will eventually sign up the TTIP, no matter what France or any other its member did or will do.

Unless Norway and Sweden are able to negotiate their own agreements with China and America and Russia and whatnot, they are going to be tied to what the EU does.

Perhaps.

I think it's better to at least have a say, don't you?

I guess the smaller the EU member, the weaker his voice is. France is a big enough economy, Britain is too. But there is another economy (Germany) which is much bigger, so what good is to have a say, if the big ones can bellow, "Shut up, you little... one" ?

Uh, on where the tandem is going to go?

You tell me, you're still in EU . I just see your large tandem going somewhere, that's it.

[caffeinatedzombeh]

What will UK regulation do about that problem that will be better than the CFP?

What it's already done about it is massively increase fish stocks. I'm unsure how much of the good stuff that's happened is related to the EU, certainly some of the bodies that organise it are at least partly funded by the bit of the UK's EU contribution that gets spent in the UK. I'm not sure how much of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is from the EU, certainly some of it relates to enforcing the EU's rules and penalties involved for breaching them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...analysis-shows

My understanding of the fishermen's moaning is that a: it'd be better *for them* if the UK's waters weren't open to EU fishing (the Spanish) and whilst you can't really argue with that you may or may not think that that's a good thing, b: that the spanish boats largely ignore the rules and the spanish don't enforce them which may or may not be very true and c: some of the EU rules on fishing are shit and the fish and people would be better off without some of them.

I think that a is certainly true, that there is considerable scope for improving b within the EU and that c is probably true and the EU might get around to doing something about it one day maybe.

[Vivian]

I'm basically thinking of one of these now. In germany, appropriately enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJCWyRBiQEA

[faetal]

And thanks for proving my point. God forbid someone could be against Europe precisely because it's a racist construction with arbitrary frontiers separating whites from the less desirable coloured people (Hint: some of the walls lining those frontiers would make Trump cream his pants), and because it is leading us into an inevitable conflict with a superpower (Hint: Russia is right on our doorstep, it's not in our best interest to antagonize them). But no all that is just too hard to understand for someone like you I guess, too many grey areas.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm saying that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage are not likely to be doing much in favour of the working classes. Your weird rant about racism is tilting at windmills in the extreme.

[faetal]

Just in case anyone is interested in an actual expert analysis: https://www.facebook.com/Universityo...3361974024537/

[Starker]

He talks a lot of sense. Honestly, it's a mystery to me how anyone can think that Britain will be able to renegotiate trade terms at a more advantageous position or get access to the single market just like that. Especially as it won't be able to use the threat of leaving the EU as a bargaining chip.

[nickie]

Thank you, faetal. Pity that those who should watch that, won't.

[Tony_Tarantula]

Its all idle speculation anyway. A rigged vote is near guaranteed, and even if they don't the EU has historically ignored anti EU votes or replaced politicians who are anti EU.


That's what the guy in Faetals video is missing. Just because Britain is a sovereign entity on paper doesn't mean it actually is: the EU has done plenty of things that they "can't do". It's the same problem I run into frequently with lawyers where they get so caught up in the letter of the law that they completely ignore what the practical reality is.

[Vivian]

Examples?

[Tony_Tarantula]

Best I can do on my mobile.

[faetal]

In what Dunning-Krüger black hole are you able to dismiss the opinions of someone who has worked in his field for as long as he has?

"That's what the guy in Faetals video is missing"

You don't know if he is or not as you don't have anywhere near to his level of experience with the actual functioning of the EU. You talk about speculation as being a reason why x has no meaning, and you justify it with...speculation.

If you want to get into the debate in response to a 25 minute seminar from an academic expert, you need to offer more. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but in what sense do you imagine that video gets dismissed just on your say so?

[Tony_Tarantula]

I said that he's absolutely correct from a legal standpoint. How is that dismissing his expertise? The issue is that the EU doesn't seem too bothered by its own rules.

It's kind of like saying that complaints about search and seizure violations are completely unfounded because they're forbidden by the US Bill of Rights when you're dealing with someone like Joe Arpio. You would be completely right but it would mean nothing with regards to how he operates.

[faetal]

Evidence it. It's a REALLY broad statement and is either ideological or based on specific things which have happened.
The best way to confer your point would be to reference those things.

[Vivian]

What's that taken from Tony? Best match I can find is from a book called 'Why Vote Leave', by Daniel Hannan. Is there any backup from a more objective source?

I mean, here's wikipedia's take on the Denmark Maastrich treaty thing, and it sounds like them being 'made to vote again' is a particularly loaded interpretation of what happened: "In Denmark, two referendums were held before the treaty of Maastricht passed. The first was held on 2 June 1992, had a turnout of 82.9% with approval of the treaty of Maastricht denied by a slim margin of 50,7%, with 49.3% in favour of the treaty.
After that defeat of the treaty, Denmark negotiated and received the following four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs and Common Defense. A new referendum was held on 18 May 1993. There was a turnout of 85.5% of which the 56.8% voted in favour of the treaty with the opt-outs."

[Tony_Tarantula]

Again can post more later. Some misleading details but this example is more or less correct.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA4D0N720140514

[Vivian]

Cool, thanks!

Hang on a minute, Berlusconi?! That's not an objective source!!

[faetal]

There's no hurry.

[faetal]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA4D0N720140514

Is that the right link? Seems to be an interview with Berlusconi. Sort of only works if we assume Berlusconi (previously convicted of fraud) is being honest.

[Tony_Tarantula]

Furthermore he skirts around the biggest issue: the failing EUD and the EUs unsustainable financial condition. His frame only makes sense if you accept that the EU provides economic benefits worth having. If you view it as a sinking ship then his arguments again become irrelevant because why fight to preserve benefits that don't exist?

[faetal]

EUD? What is the current financial status of the EU in your opinion? Again, links.

[Tony_Tarantula]

I'll try to find something open when I get home. What I've seen from the subscription financial data services I have access to it has not been good. Over the last year there have been massive capital outflows from the EU.

Don't take it just from me. Soros was in the news lately for shorting the EUD.

[Tony_Tarantula]

Not the source you'll like but please try to get over that. You'd be surprised how many Wall Street types follow ZH religiously.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...%E2%80%9D-risk

[faetal]

Not sure how much stock (hahahaha geddit!) I place in what investment bankers think of markets given that analysis of individual traders versus financial performance shows an almost complete absence of correlation: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/inves...sion-of-skill/

Markets do what they do. The only sure fire way to predict markets is to influence them. Part of the reason war is so popular (invest in munitions or aerospace or similar, manufacture war, stock increases in value), ditto business subsidy and creeping privatisation - you can't reliably play the stock market otherwise, it's just a casino. Of course that will never stop those involved with it from having the illusion of skill. Sure they'll be well-trained, knowedgable etc.. but zero ability to reliably predict stock values over time.

I won't "get over" weak sources. Basically, I'm not asking for links as some form of currency to play, I don't care that you respond with a link, I care whether or not there is good information to back up what you are saying, else I have no clue about the value of what you are saying (unless you get good with providing detailed mechanisms which pan out logically).

But do wait until you get home - I'm in no hurry and mobile phones aren't the best for detailed stuff.

[Vivian]

Hmmm. Interesting but yeah, I think I'd need backup from someone who doesn't call themselves Tyler Durden? I'll have a poke around.

[caffeinatedzombeh]

it sounds like them being 'made to vote again' is a particularly loaded interpretation of what happened

Pretty much, afaik in all of those "made to vote again" situations whilst it's reasonably true that countries that voted against what the EU had decided were persuaded to try again the question being asked wasn't quite the same in the second attempt and some of the reasons people voted no had been dealt with.

The "ignored" against the EU constitution refers to the entire thing being chopped about reordered and worded as amendments to previous treaties then signed as the treaty of Lisbon "to avoid having referendums" in particular the government of the UK at the time said it wasn't going to honor its manifesto pledge to have a referendum on the constitution as the new treaty wasn't the same thing.