Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
News articles of interest (Brexit)
#11
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/24/brexit-m...ister.html

______________


As has long be known, and clarified by Pierre Gramegna the EU are looking to punish the UK for having the temerity to leave the EU. 

This undermines everything its adherents state about its demands placed onto the UK and highlights the motive of vindictiveness rather than 'good faith' in these negotiations. Like the Irish border for example, or the infamous "punishment clauses" the EU have added to, or considered adding to proposed agreements. 

This admittance basically flaws all zealous arguments based in favour of the EU.

Incidentally, this thread should remain as a point of contention not deleted or removed by pro-EU adherents. I would argue to those who are able to hover over this and delete to rather refute this claim and allow discussion to evolve.
Reply
#12
At Poor Dear Guest

Sorry, have never posted on the Independent.

“Interesting you decide to pull out a benign quote from Pierre.“

Very interesting indeed! It wasn’t the ‘benign’ aspect of it that was important. I was trying to help you understand what the motivation for his concern was. Providing some context to counter the conspiracy theory. 

When you want to take his opinion with more credibility then mine, it might be because that is what you would like to believe. There is no information where he got this idea from. He might simply have heard or read a rumour and believed it. Just as you do. Hope you get well soon!
Reply
#13
@ Guest

There is no logic to your argument.


The EU (and that is not some abstract mythical thing  but a union of 27 states) cannot punish you. Think about it: when you leave the EU, you are no longer connected to the EU and are free to do whatever you want. So how could the EU possibly punish you when you are free to do what you want?  

Also, why is the UK still in the EU? It could have left on March 29th 2017 but didn't. And YOUR PRIME MINISTER even asked for a post-brexit transition period lasting until Dcember 2020.
Reply
#14
@ Real European,

Sorry Pierre's claims back up many feelings in the UK.

Remember, this is a claim made from within the "unified" 27 and he would of course be closer to the sentiment of those in the EU than you or I.
Reply
#15
(30-09-18, 12:27 PM)Viridian Wrote: At Poor Dear Guest

Sorry, have never posted on the Independent.

“Interesting you decide to pull out a benign quote from Pierre.“

Very interesting indeed! It wasn’t the ‘benign’ aspect of it that was important. I was trying to help you understand what the motivation for his concern was. Providing some context to counter the conspiracy theory. 

When you want to take his opinion with more credibility then mine, it might be because that is what you would like to believe. There is no information where he got this idea from. He might simply have heard or read a rumour and believed it. Just as you do. Hope you get well soon!

And yet, I am the one pulled up for pejoratives.
Reply
#16
@ Guest,

Two questions, I would appreacite an answer:

1) What are the "punishment clauses" you keep referring to? Please quote them.

2) In what way can the EU punish the UK once the UK is out of the EU and no longer connected to it in any way?

Would you please answer these two questions?


You write: "Sorry Pierre's claims back up many feelings in the UK."

You hit the nail on the head: feelings and sentiments, not facts. 

The whole anti-EU wave is built on feelings and sentiments, hijacked by those with an ulterior purpose. 

Don't get me wrong, nothing is perfect, there are problems. Globalism does not work for everyone - at least not in the short run.

But populists depict the EU is the problem, while in reality the EU is part of the solution - the EU is shielding you from the worst effects of globalism. Can it do so in a better way? Sure, no doubt about that. But it is being held back by (soon to be former) members like the UK that persistently blocked social negotiations to improve the well being of the people.

Cameron, for instance, wanted to turn the EU into a purely ultra-capitalist trade agreement at the services of the banks and big capital - at the expense of everyone else and with total disregard for the well being of the people. He persistently blocked all social negotiations.

So, who do you blame, the EU that tirelessly tried to improve the situation of the people, or the UK that persistently blocked such attempts?

Also, consider for instance the issue of Free Movement, and then tell me who you blame, the EU or the UK.

Let's first define what Free Movement is:

A Single Market is an advanced trade agreement in which the four factors of economy (money, labour, goods, services) move freely. In order to be able to lift tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, a level playing field must be created by all members playing by the same rules.

Free movement of people in a Single Market is nothing other than Free Movement of Labour so that employers and employees can find each other easily without red tape. It provides EU citizens with the right to travel freely within the EU for maximum 90 days unless they find a a job within those 90 days in which case they can stay longer. Most member states enforce this restriction.

Now consider this:

1. When former Eastern European countries joined the EU, all member states could keep their labour markets closed for them for up to seven years. This would enable them to make adjustments and it would enable the EU to take measures to counter unbalances and distortions in the labour market.

By far most EU countries enforced this seven year block. But what did the UK do? The then Prime Minister Tony Blair said: no need for this 7 year block, they can all come to the UK right away, it will be good for the UK.

> Who do you blame: the EU or the UK?

2. Like all other member states, the UK can restrict free movement to 90 days but the UK chose to not enforce this restriction. 
Belgium, for instance, routinely expells EU citizens who have not found a job within their 90 days period of free movement. The UK CHOSE to never enforce this 90 days maximum.

> Who do you blame: the EU or the UK?

3. Same pay for same job in the same place
During the seven years block, the EU worked on a measure to counteract possible impacts on the local economies of posted workers. The Commission proposed a law of "same pay for the same job in the same place". Initially the Visegrad countries blocked this, and it took years of negotiations to get them on board. Eventually they agreed and in December last year the proposal was put up for a vote in the Council of National Ministers, where it needed a majoirty to pass.

How do you think the UK voted? Already on its way out, the UK did not support this measure of same pay for the same job in the same place but abstained, hoping to prevent a majority. As reason for its abstention and lack of support for the measure, the UK said that such a measure would harm the profits of its economy.

> Who do you blame, the UK or the EU?

Mind you, in spite of the UK's attempts to derail the measure, it got a majority regardless in the Council of National Ministers. The EU Parliament also supported it. And they meanhile agreed on a final wording so that the measure has been adopted and will be rolled out some time in 2019, giving member states two years to make the necessary preparations to introduce the rule into their own laws.
Reply
#17
At Dear Guest

Glad you are feeling better! It can be very disturbing to tell yourself scary EU bedtime stories. Better to stick to the facts.
Reply
#18
(01-10-18, 06:16 AM)Real European Wrote: @ Guest,

Two questions, I would appreacite an answer:

1) What are the "punishment clauses" you keep referring to? Please quote them.

2) In what way can the EU punish the UK once the UK is out of the EU and no longer connected to it in any way?

Would you please answer these two questions?


You write: "Sorry Pierre's claims back up many feelings in the UK."

You hit the nail on the head: feelings and sentiments, not facts. 

The whole anti-EU wave is built on feelings and sentiments, hijacked by those with an ulterior purpose. 

Don't get me wrong, nothing is perfect, there are problems. Globalism does not work for everyone - at least not in the short run.

But populists depict the EU is the problem, while in reality the EU is part of the solution - the EU is shielding you from the worst effects of globalism. Can it do so in a better way? Sure, no doubt about that. But it is being held back by (soon to be former) members like the UK that persistently blocked social negotiations to improve the well being of the people.

Cameron, for instance, wanted to turn the EU into a purely ultra-capitalist trade agreement at the services of the banks and big capital - at the expense of everyone else and with total disregard for the well being of the people. He persistently blocked all social negotiations.

So, who do you blame, the EU that tirelessly tried to improve the situation of the people, or the UK that persistently blocked such attempts?

Also, consider for instance the issue of Free Movement, and then tell me who you blame, the EU or the UK.

Let's first define what Free Movement is:

A Single Market is an advanced trade agreement in which the four factors of economy (money, labour, goods, services) move freely. In order to be able to lift tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, a level playing field must be created by all members playing by the same rules.

Free movement of people in a Single Market is nothing other than Free Movement of Labour so that employers and employees can find each other easily without red tape. It provides EU citizens with the right to travel freely within the EU for maximum 90 days unless they find a a job within those 90 days in which case they can stay longer. Most member states enforce this restriction.

Now consider this:

1. When former Eastern European countries joined the EU, all member states could keep their labour markets closed for them for up to seven years. This would enable them to make adjustments and it would enable the EU to take measures to counter unbalances and distortions in the labour market.

By far most EU countries enforced this seven year block. But what did the UK do? The then Prime Minister Tony Blair said: no need for this 7 year block, they can all come to the UK right away, it will be good for the UK.

> Who do you blame: the EU or the UK?

2. Like all other member states, the UK can restrict free movement to 90 days but the UK chose to not enforce this restriction. 
Belgium, for instance, routinely expells EU citizens who have not found a job within their 90 days period of free movement. The UK CHOSE to never enforce this 90 days maximum.

> Who do you blame: the EU or the UK?

3. Same pay for same job in the same place
During the seven years block, the EU worked on a measure to counteract possible impacts on the local economies of posted workers. The Commission proposed a law of "same pay for the same job in the same place". Initially the Visegrad countries blocked this, and it took years of negotiations to get them on board. Eventually they agreed and in December last year the proposal was put up for a vote in the Council of National Ministers, where it needed a majoirty to pass.

How do you think the UK voted? Already on its way out, the UK did not support this measure of same pay for the same job in the same place but abstained, hoping to prevent a majority. As reason for its abstention and lack of support for the measure, the UK said that such a measure would harm the profits of its economy.

> Who do you blame, the UK or the EU?

Mind you, in spite of the UK's attempts to derail the measure, it got a majority regardless in the Council of National Ministers. The EU Parliament also supported it. And they meanhile agreed on a final wording so that the measure has been adopted and will be rolled out some time in 2019, giving member states two years to make the necessary preparations to introduce the rule into their own laws.

Again, you haven't refuted Pierre's claims and as I said, he and others are closer to the workings of the EU than you are.

As I said elsewhere, you don't have to admit you're playing football when you're actually playing it.

These are his claims, yet you keep bringing my opinion back into it. And you clearly have nothing to say of his claims.

The EU is trying to punish the UK now by trying to carve up the United Kingdom. Enda Kenny the previous Irish PM was working with the British government on trusted trader schemes and technology to make the possibility of the Irish border a workable solution. As soon as Leo took over, this compromised coordination came to a grinding halt and the Irish at the behest of the EU 180 on their workings. The EU even commissioned a report which found the there are solutions so long as both sides work in cooperation to solve the Irish border - the EU won't even entertain it. They have insisted instead to carve up the UK through their intransigence and bitter vindictiveness as Pierre implied.

Finally, a "punishment clause" was removed from one of the phases of negotiations (I can't remember which one but it made the NEWS) because practicality of 'de-dramatising' the wording triumphed in this single instance over ideological resentment. Secondly, it is reported the reason May will not enter a FTA similarly to the Canadian one is because the EU have already made clear - when the UK is still free from the yoke of the EU, the EU will instil "punishment clauses" if the UK deregulates where it will be able to punish Britain by ramping up it's tariffs on key exports to the EU.

Even out of the EU, the still want to have its economic influence over the UK and shows what a totalitarian regime it is at its heart.

As for globalism, that has hurt many people in the UK and the EU is a huge culprit of this which serves only large multinational cooperations. With its ongoing and unquestioned protectionist racket it has put the price of goods up in the UK restricting consumers by price. It allows a surplus of cheap labour to flood the labour market and suppress wages, many of its policies are overbearing and affect the day to day lives on many with faceless bureaucrats making policy that doesn't effect them, but supports big business, like this report here:

 [size=14.95]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 102110.htm[/size]

[size=14.95]You can claim the EU is good for humanity, you can claim EU is Europe & Europe is the EU, you can claim that the Brits are the evil empire of yesterday and that everything in the world that is good is the result of the EU.[/size]

[size=14.95]But that propaganda doesn't fly with everyone, because it quite simply isn't the truth![/size]
Reply
#19
Says the delusional cultist who only entertains pro-EU sentiment.
Reply
#20
@ Guest,

Thank you for further explaining. Finally I see what you were referring to.

And I will refute it straight away:


What the UK press called the Punishment Clause, was part of the first DRAFT terms of the TRANSITION PERIOD

What it meant is this:

The UK requested a post-Brexit transition period. That is a temporary trade agreement with the EU, starting from March 29th 2019 when it leaves the EU to December 2020.

The post-Brexit transition period is temporary trade agreement of Single Market + Customs Union (at the request of the UK!) during which the EU and UK will try to negotiate a permanent trade agreement.

Now, a single market is a level playing field that is created by all members playing by the same rules as a result of which tariff and on-tariff bariers can be lifted.

These rules are made by the National Ministers and the member states and the EU Parliament.

When one of the members violates a rule, the level playing field gets damaged. For instance, suppose that to make a product A, it is prohibited to use cheap toxic chemicals. This means all member states have to use more expensive non-toxic chemicals to make product A.

Suppose a member state violates these rules and uses prohibited cheap chemicals to put a much cheaper and toxic product on the market.

Then the EU will obviously start a procedure against this member state.

Such a procedure lasts 2 years or more.

Now we are getting there: the post-Brexit transition period is a temporary SM+CU trade agreement between the UK and EU lasting about 16 months.

Should the UK violate the rules during this period, then the EU would have to launch a procedure. But such a procedure lasts 2 years or more, so it lasts longer than the duration of the post-Brexit transition period.

In other words, during the post-Brexit transition period the UK would be able to violate the rules of the Single Market and get away with it, since any procedure against a vialtion would only be concluded long after december 2020.

This means that the UK would for instance be able to use toxic chemicals during its 16 months post-Brexit transition period and get away with it - the sanction would be too late to do anything about it.

So, in its draft the EU proposed to use a different and fast track mechanism for the UK during the post-Brexit transition that instead of sanctions 2 years after an incident (which would be pointless since the UK wuld have left he post-Brexit transition by then), an immediate sanction would be incurrent in the way of an immediate loss of some rights.

Would you care to explain what is unreasonable about this?

Either way, this was just a draft made by the staff. The 27EU member states then discussed the draft and decided to remove this clause and instead TRUST the UK that it would not intentionally try to destroy the Single Market during the post-Brexit transition period.

This means that 27 member states have decided to trust the UK that it will stick with fair play during this post-Brexit transition period to the point that they have no immediate means to interfere should the UK purposefully try to undermine the Single Market during this post-Brexit transition period. You can call that blind trust.

And you are complaining that the 27 EU member states decided to implictly and blindly trust the UK ???
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)