Devolved parliaments within member countries of the EU can choose to accept or reject extranational trade deals? What's one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world capable of?
Welcome to the world of a very hard to come Brexit and all the rubbish spouted by the Brexiteers in the referendum. How did we ever get to the point where the many listened to the lies of the few?
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Russia's stance on Syria has nothing to do with the attitude of Europeans. Russia will only keep its air and port bases in Syria (now designated permanent by the Russian puppet parliament) if Assad survives.
I really do believe that Russia has taken such a strident position in Syria to piss off the West. I think Assad is an excuse....we have humiliated Russia, and taken it for granted since the end of the Cold War.
The strategic importance of Syria does not warrant the kind of political and military investment the Russians have given it. Russia has plenty of places to exploit for oil and energy.
I'm sorry, but pissing off the Russians is just bad politics.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Mio caro Tyson: an interesting comment on my prose style. The majority view - not just on here - tends to the opposite view. But, hey, you're right: writing simply and clearly is a skill. The master is Orwell, IMO.
Perhaps you could do a header on the Italian perspective and show us how it should be done.
I did not present that third point as fact but as my view. I don't think countries like losing their young. But governments - particularly in countries with the history that many Central and Eastern European governments have - are acutely aware of the political/social risks of a large unemployed population. And those same governments have been vociferous in not wanting restrictions placed on the ability of their young to come to Britain to work. They're not doing it out of high-minded principle. They're doing it because it brings them benefits. And, IMO, one of those benefits is not having voters asking them why their economy is not offering them the same opportunities Britain is.
Just as importantly, it relieves the pressure to actually change things at home. Export unemployment, close your eyes and its all fine...
Though actually the Eastern economies are some of the fastest growing on the continent. They will not have very different living standards to us in a couple of decades.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
That doesn't amount to anything more than the author saying the Government will lose because he wants them to lose, because he doesn't agree with Brexit.
I think Government will lose because it absolutely should lose, not because I or anyone else wants them to lose.
The referendum said we should come out of the EU. It is for Parliament to decide how we do it. It is stating the bleeding obvious comrade.
But the case is to give Parliament a vote on the enacting of Article 50. Now there is no choice involved in that in the way you claim. We either invoke Article 50 or we do not. If we do not then we remain in the EU and you have ignored the result of the referendum.
Now I know that is the result you want but it is not in accordance with what you have just written. You cannot have it both ways. Either we invoke A50 and leave the EU or we do not invoke it and we do not leave.
The debate in Parliament is far more interesting and is saying that Parliament should have a say in the final settlement. That is something I agree with - as long as they understand that if they do not support the final agreement then we will still be leaving anyway and it will be the hardest of hard Brexits.
Oh..... my mistake......I thought the Court case was about Parliament dictating the terms of Brexit, not whether it was enabled in the first place; something that was decided by the referendum (albeit an advisory referendum).
It shows maybe how complicated this has all become, or it shows that my limited IQ of 80 is finding this all much too difficult to process.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
How about the EU-SSR?
I would like to see Russia (and Ukraine) part of the EU in time. To do this they would have to transform themselves into countries very different politically and economically fom the present.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Russia's stance on Syria has nothing to do with the attitude of Europeans. Russia will only keep its air and port bases in Syria (now designated permanent by the Russian puppet parliament) if Assad survives.
I really do believe that Russia has taken such a strident position in Syria to piss off the West. I think Assad is an excuse....we have humiliated Russia, and taken it for granted since the end of the Cold War.
The strategic importance of Syria does not warrant the kind of political and military investment the Russians have given it. Russia has plenty of places to exploit for oil and energy.
I'm sorry, but pissing off the Russians is just bad politics.
It's not oil and energy, it's the Mediterranean port.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Yes, but there was a better way of doing it than just making them part of us or them. We used a Cold War framework to dictate a Cold War settlement.
NATO exploited the weakness in Russia to make a land grab. And now when they retaliate because the Russians have a propensity to do so, we complain.
The West has been responsible for Ukraine and arguably Syria through ill conceived, political opportunism.
Sorry CycleFree...I'll speak my mind. First your prose is particularly dense, convoluted and difficult to read. Think shorter, simpler sentences. The problem is readers who have little time just give up. It's a skill to write simply and clearly.
Second, really...you think EU countries are happy to send their best and brightest abroad so they don't agitate at home? Major assumption there on many fronts and a bit bonkers.
And third, I gave up on the article after reading that ludicrous observation which you presented as a point of fact.
Mio caro Tyson: an interesting comment on my prose style. The majority view - not just on here - tends to the opposite view. But, hey, you're right: writing simply and clearly is a skill. The master is Orwell, IMO.
Perhaps you could do a header on the Italian perspective and show us how it should be done.
I did not present that third point as fact but as my view. I don't think countries like losing their young. But governments - particularly in countries with the history that many Central and Eastern European governments have - are acutely aware of the political/social risks of a large unemployed population. And those same governments have been vociferous in not wanting restrictions placed on the ability of their young to come to Britain to work. They're not doing it out of high-minded principle. They're doing it because it brings them benefits. And, IMO, one of those benefits is not having voters asking them why their economy is not offering them the same opportunities Britain is.
Just as importantly, it relieves the pressure to actually change things at home. Export unemployment, close your eyes and its all fine...
Hmmmm, surely countries that don't take care of their people lose them. It's like companies: if you need not fear losing your best staff, you are unlikely to treat them well.
Think of it like this - which is easier? Reform the socio-economic structure of a medium sized country by removing/reducing the "system" which benefits everyone who has power in that state... or watch as a bunch of young people get jobs abroad.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Russia's stance on Syria has nothing to do with the attitude of Europeans. Russia will only keep its air and port bases in Syria (now designated permanent by the Russian puppet parliament) if Assad survives.
I really do believe that Russia has taken such a strident position in Syria to piss off the West. I think Assad is an excuse....we have humiliated Russia, and taken it for granted since the end of the Cold War.
The strategic importance of Syria does not warrant the kind of political and military investment the Russians have given it. Russia has plenty of places to exploit for oil and energy.
I'm sorry, but pissing off the Russians is just bad politics.
A Russia-friendly Syria would also be able to block a middle east-european gas pipe that could compete with one of Russia's core none-military exports.
While you have given strong arguments for the benefits of freedom of movement (all of which I agree with - I am an immigrant in the US - but all of which I think you can still achieve with a modicum of limits on freedom of movement), you still have not answered why freedom of movement is inseparable from a single market of goods, or of goods and services
Restrictions on movement of labour are a form of NTB that a country places on itself. In a supposed single market this would create distortions which turn it into a misnomer.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Russia's stance on Syria has nothing to do with the attitude of Europeans. Russia will only keep its air and port bases in Syria (now designated permanent by the Russian puppet parliament) if Assad survives.
I really do believe that Russia has taken such a strident position in Syria to piss off the West. I think Assad is an excuse....we have humiliated Russia, and taken it for granted since the end of the Cold War.
The strategic importance of Syria does not warrant the kind of political and military investment the Russians have given it. Russia has plenty of places to exploit for oil and energy.
I'm sorry, but pissing off the Russians is just bad politics.
A Russia-friendly Syria would also be able to block a middle east-european gas pipe that could compete with one of Russia's core none-military exports.
'An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas".'
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Except it was the Eastern European nations themselves which pushed for NATO membership, and that can really only be seen as 'provocative' in the context of a country which wishes to keep them in some sort of vassalage. Given the history of Russia's treatment of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, and its actions in this one, what you suggest is morally dubious to say the least.
Further news from Witney - the Lib Dems are now saying that Theresa May, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn will all be campaigning in the constituency tomorrow. I assume not together.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
[Snipped]
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
And what is the problem with that, exactly?
Such a resurgence of protectionism and beggar thy neighbour policies would end up making everyone poorer
Free movement is not really compatible with democracy.
Now, one can argue that democracy should be sacrificed in favour of free movement, but it's not an argument I sympathise with.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
How about the EU-SSR?
I'm agreeing with many of my adversaries tonight....ultimately Brexit's a continuation of the 30 year War War in Europe (1418-48) when the modern fault lines were drawn and we've been squabbling ever since. We've had peace since 1945, sort of......now let's just kick it all off again.....it's been long coming...
Chatted socially this week (independently) with a senior judge and a well-known lawyer, and both mentioned the Article 50 case as legally interesting (neither is involved in the case, of course). Their view was both that on a pure point of law the case was very strong, but the reluctance of courts to interfere with the Executive would probably lead them to reject it.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Although I do believe, as we are proving, that you can leave the EU. Leaving the Russian "sphere of influence" is somewhat harder.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
:
Russia's stance on Syria has nothing to do with the attitude of Europeans. Russia will only keep its air and port bases in Syria (now designated permanent by the Russian puppet parliament) if Assad survives.
I really do believe that Russia has taken such a strident position in Syria to piss off the West. I think Assad is an excuse....we have humiliated Russia, and taken it for granted since the end of the Cold War.
The strategic importance of Syria does not warrant the kind of political and military investment the Russians have given it. Russia has plenty of places to exploit for oil and energy.
I'm sorry, but pissing off the Russians is just bad politics.
It's not oil and energy, it's the Mediterranean port.
To a certain extent it is about Russia's self interest - Syria under Assad was "their" client state. The way that many Russians see it, the West is on their turf.
Remember how before the first Gulf War, Bush I carefully asked Gorbachev to try and make Saddam see sense. Iraq was in Russia's zone of influence. Under cold war rules, that made it... rude to jump on them unless Russia said OK.
Saddam pretty much insulted Gorbachev, when Gorby told him to give Kuwait back. Gorby promptly and quite publicly washed his hands of the matter. *Then* the US started down the road to military action
Think of it like this - which is easier? Reform the socio-economic structure of a medium sized country by removing/reducing the "system" which benefits everyone who has power in that state... or watch as a bunch of young people get jobs abroad.
One of the most interesting, totally counter intuitive, bits of economic research I've seen in the last five years looked at economic growth and emigration. It turned out that the best thing for incomes and per capita economic growth was for people to leave. Those EU countries - whether Ireland in the 1970s or Estonia and Poland more latterly - with the highest emigration rates performed best in the subsequent decade.
While I tried to pick holes in the methodology, because it seemed so counterintuitive, I couldn't. Which suggests, at the very least, that the evidence does not back your theory.
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
Free movement makes Europe economically richer, as free trade generally does, by allowing more efficient use of resources. Free movement makes Europe culturally richer, by encouraging interaction. And finally, that I think it is generally better for people to have more freedom rather than less.
I'd also suggest that free movement of capital and not people risks further advantaging capital at the expense of people.
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
While you have given strong arguments for the benefits of freedom of movement (all of which I agree with - I am an immigrant in the US - but all of which I think you can still achieve with a modicum of limits on freedom of movement), you still have not answered why freedom of movement is inseparable from a single market of goods, or of goods and services.
Again, you have simply asserted that it is the case ("the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market").
Freedom of movement isn't inseparable from the other freedoms. But its necessary for them to all add up to a single market, because it concerns such a fundamental part of the operation of the market.
As I said, you could have a free trade area without free movement, it would just be worse than what currently exists
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Except it was the Eastern European nations themselves which pushed for NATO membership, and that can really only be seen as 'provocative' in the context of a country which wishes to keep them in some sort of vassalage. Given the history of Russia's treatment of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, and its actions in this one, what you suggest is morally dubious to say the least.
Given the history of small countries dragging much more powerful military alliances into serious conflicts we should have been much more reticent about accepting them. What matters in the long run is a stable balance of power.
Devolved parliaments within member countries of the EU can choose to accept or reject extranational trade deals? What's one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world capable of?
Bear in mind that the Dutch as a whole country voted to reject the Ukraine deal - which still went ahead anyway.
Also according to EU law trade deals are by QMV - something that is decided by countries not regions. So even if the Belgian Government were forced to accept this as a direction from the people to reject the deal it doesn't mean the deal is dead. That will depend on enough countries across the EU supporting that position.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
How about the EU-SSR?
I'm agreeing with many of my adversaries tonight....ultimately Brexit's a continuation of the 30 year War War in Europe (1418-48) when the modern fault lines were drawn and we've been squabbling ever since. We've had peace since 1945, sort of......now let's just kick it all off again.....it's been long coming...
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
How about the EU-SSR?
I'm agreeing with many of my adversaries tonight....ultimately Brexit's a continuation of the 30 year War War in Europe (1418-48) when the modern fault lines were drawn and we've been squabbling ever since. We've had peace since 1945, sort of......now let's just kick it all off again.....it's been long coming...
Without free movement of labour, the single market isn't the single market any more. You might as well ask why the single market must mean that you can't put protectionist barriers against german cars or british banks
I think Cyclefree is suggesting that you should ask those questions, too. And if the answers to those are because barriers do x, y and z damage for no concomitant gain, so we don't want them, good.
But there is no particular reason why the four freedoms need to come as a quantum package, unless you can answer the question why they must, which you haven't. Merely stating it to be true is not an argument as to why it is true.
My point is that the question is misleading, because it paints freedom of movement as something separate and extraneous from the single market
Now if the question is why the Single Market should not be abolished and replaced by a "free trade area" that doesn't include people, then I would say that:
[Snipped]
If the question is why Britain should not be given an opt out on People in order to preserve the other aspects which are beneficial by themselves, then I would say that the EU needs to maintain its negotiating position. Once it allows one nation to simply pick what it wants "off the menu" then it becomes a lot more difficult to stop everyone else from doing the same.
And what is the problem with that, exactly?
Such a resurgence of protectionism and beggar thy neighbour policies would end up making everyone poorer
Free movement is not really compatible with democracy.
Now, one can argue that democracy should be sacrificed in favour of free movement, but it's not an argument I sympathise with.
Free movement of people is extremely compatible with democracy
Free movement of capital is more problematic, but we've muddled through.
I don't think we should sacrifice the rights of smaller countries to be self-governing and independent just because larger more powerful ones feel entitled to dominate them.
It is not about sacrificing anyone's rights and it is clearly not the case that we could or should now reverse any of those decisions.
But that doesn't change the fact that in the rush to induct the former Eastern bloc states into the EU - and more particularly into NATO - we did great harm to our relationship with Russia and clearly sowed the seeds for the current crisis. It was not well done and could have been done far, far better if we had not been so arrogant.
I agree one thousand percent..it was a massive strategic blunder to push for the enlargement of NATO across Eastern European; states that had only been part of the Soviet Union a matter of a few years before. It was provocative and perhaps even vindictive and at the very least pushing the Russians noses into their decline.
I thought at the time those smaller countries were being used. It was done when Russia was weak...but failed to understand that Russia may want to flex it's muscles in the future. It has created distrust and disharmony at the heart of Europe and now we see the results with Syria.
Russia would have been a far more important ally to Europe to deal with Syria but we severely pissed them off. And now we have this.
Except it was the Eastern European nations themselves which pushed for NATO membership, and that can really only be seen as 'provocative' in the context of a country which wishes to keep them in some sort of vassalage. Given the history of Russia's treatment of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, and its actions in this one, what you suggest is morally dubious to say the least.
All I am saying is that we used a framework devised to fight the Cold War...NATO and the EU as the means to negotiate and manage the post War Cold War settlement, when Russia was weak.
Post 1990 presented an opportunity to think of something different, particularly in managing those countries liberated from Soviet tyranny.
And we have crisis in the Ukraine and Syria that seem to be place us at odds to the Russian regime. Maybe this could have been avoided? Hindsight and all.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Yes, but there was a better way of doing it than just making them part of us or them. We used a Cold War framework to dictate a Cold War settlement.
NATO exploited the weakness in Russia to make a land grab. And now when they retaliate because the Russians have a propensity to do so, we complain.
The West has been responsible for Ukraine and arguably Syria through ill conceived, political opportunism.
When the Baltic states joined NATO, was it because they wanted to or the existing NATO members wanted them to?
Devolved parliaments within member countries of the EU can choose to accept or reject extranational trade deals? What's one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world capable of?
Bear in mind that the Dutch as a whole country voted to reject the Ukraine deal - which still went ahead anyway.
Also according to EU law trade deals are by QMV - something that is decided by countries not regions. So even if the Belgian Government were forced to accept this as a direction from the people to reject the deal it doesn't mean the deal is dead. That will depend on enough countries across the EU supporting that position.
Although if you read the Wikipedia article, that was because the Dutch government had signed and deposited the Ukraine treaty before the referendum.
Think of it like this - which is easier? Reform the socio-economic structure of a medium sized country by removing/reducing the "system" which benefits everyone who has power in that state... or watch as a bunch of young people get jobs abroad.
One of the most interesting, totally counter intuitive, bits of economic research I've seen in the last five years looked at economic growth and emigration. It turned out that the best thing for incomes and per capita economic growth was for people to leave. Those EU countries - whether Ireland in the 1970s or Estonia and Poland more latterly - with the highest emigration rates performed best in the subsequent decade.
While I tried to pick holes in the methodology, because it seemed so counterintuitive, I couldn't. Which suggests, at the very least, that the evidence does not back your theory.
I was reading today though, that the average age of Poland's workforce will rise very rapidly, over the next 30-40 years, partly due to high emigration.
If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.
Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.
It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)
Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Although I do believe, as we are proving, that you can leave the EU. Leaving the Russian "sphere of influence" is somewhat harder.
There was a clause in the constitution of the USSR which allowed states to leave, which technically (only *very* technically!) made it more democratic than the USA in that respect.
We've yet to see A50 actually get used successfully so at the moment I'm reserving judgement as to whether it works or not!
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Yes, but there was a better way of doing it than just making them part of us or them. We used a Cold War framework to dictate a Cold War settlement.
NATO exploited the weakness in Russia to make a land grab. And now when they retaliate because the Russians have a propensity to do so, we complain.
The West has been responsible for Ukraine and arguably Syria through ill conceived, political opportunism.
When the Baltic states joined NATO, was it because they wanted to or the existing NATO members wanted them to?
I severely, severely doubt that any of the East European states would have sort NATO membership without covert encouragement at the very least.
Devolved parliaments within member countries of the EU can choose to accept or reject extranational trade deals? What's one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world capable of?
Bear in mind that the Dutch as a whole country voted to reject the Ukraine deal - which still went ahead anyway.
Also according to EU law trade deals are by QMV - something that is decided by countries not regions. So even if the Belgian Government were forced to accept this as a direction from the people to reject the deal it doesn't mean the deal is dead. That will depend on enough countries across the EU supporting that position.
Although if you read the Wikipedia article, that was because the Dutch government had signed and deposited the Ukraine treaty before the referendum.
If it were purely a trade treaty as the Canada treaty is it would have made no difference. Trade decisions are made by the Council using QMV.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Although I do believe, as we are proving, that you can leave the EU. Leaving the Russian "sphere of influence" is somewhat harder.
There was a clause in the constitution of the USSR which allowed states to leave, which technically (only *very* technically!) made it more democratic than the USA in that respect.
We've yet to see A50 actually get used successfully so at the moment I'm reserving judgement as to whether it works or not!
We can rescind the European Communities Act at any time.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
Georgia, in the guise of Stalin, once had absolute power over Russia.
It is clear that the people involved in trump campaign are total morons. I thought it trump said a load of this nonsense because he just doesn't listen to advice, but this latest episode highlights they are so dense light bends around them.
No wonder the Clinton machine is eating them for breakfast.
Think of it like this - which is easier? Reform the socio-economic structure of a medium sized country by removing/reducing the "system" which benefits everyone who has power in that state... or watch as a bunch of young people get jobs abroad.
One of the most interesting, totally counter intuitive, bits of economic research I've seen in the last five years looked at economic growth and emigration. It turned out that the best thing for incomes and per capita economic growth was for people to leave. Those EU countries - whether Ireland in the 1970s or Estonia and Poland more latterly - with the highest emigration rates performed best in the subsequent decade.
While I tried to pick holes in the methodology, because it seemed so counterintuitive, I couldn't. Which suggests, at the very least, that the evidence does not back your theory.
Yes, I remember discussing this here. My opinion was that we tend to view migration simply as a one way process of people leaving one country and settling in another. I think that what actually happens is a far more dynamic process. While there may be a net flow in one direction, closer examination would show continuous two-way traffic, with many migrants leaving to seek their fortunes abroad and later returning to their homeland, bringing capital, experience, expertise and connections with them. Some end up staying, of course, but many will come and go, perhaps a number of times.
If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.
Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.
It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)
Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...
Isn't this just basis survival logic?
It's logical if you believe that cutting off your nose to spite your face is sound policy.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
They may not accept it (and the parallel with 1960's Cuba is obvious), but they should if that were the Mexican peoples choice.
Rather than expand NATO at the end of the Cold war it would have been better to dissolve it at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.
The EU signing up countries that meet the accession criteria is fine though.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Although I do believe, as we are proving, that you can leave the EU. Leaving the Russian "sphere of influence" is somewhat harder.
There was a clause in the constitution of the USSR which allowed states to leave, which technically (only *very* technically!) made it more democratic than the USA in that respect.
We've yet to see A50 actually get used successfully so at the moment I'm reserving judgement as to whether it works or not!
We can rescind the European Communities Act at any time.
Only by breaching our treaty obligations. Something I don't think we have ever done in modern history.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
You know sometimes I think that people know something I don't...there is a collective wisdom that I cannot see...... the great and the good and their networks and all that....
But then you look at Ukraine and Syria, and our relationship with Russia and the mess we are in now.
We are heading into the next Cold War at a frightening pace.
We can blame the Russian all we want, but that will not change where we are now; someone with wisdom and insight needs to change the dynamics. I doubt that is Boris Johnson frankly, or Emily Thornberry.
Sadly. Donald Trump is the only major figure willing to grapple with the enormity of the conflict with Russia....and that is saying something...
I am NOT advocating for Trump....just let that be known...
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
They may not accept it (and the parallel with 1960's Cuba is obvious), but they should if that were the Mexican peoples choice.
Rather than expand NATO at the end of the Cold war it would have been better to dissolve it at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.
The EU signing up countries that meet the accession criteria is fine though.
Ancient history isn't my strong point, but wasn't Cuba triggered by the USA wanting to station missiles in Turkey, near the Georgian border?
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
Georgia, in the guise of Stalin, once had absolute power over Russia.
IIRC, Georgia under Stalin suffered worse than the rest of the country in the purges.
As an aside, Lithuania (or Poland-Lithuania) was the dominant power in Eastern Europe in about the 15th century, at a time when 'Russia' was just a bundle of petty principalities.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
Georgia, in the guise of Stalin, once had absolute power over Russia.
IIRC, Georgia under Stalin suffered worse than the rest of the country in the purges.
As an aside, Lithuania (or Poland-Lithuania) was the dominant power in Eastern Europe in about the 15th century, at a time when 'Russia' was just a bundle of petty principalities.
There was a brief period when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth controlled Moscow.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
They may not accept it (and the parallel with 1960's Cuba is obvious), but they should if that were the Mexican peoples choice.
Rather than expand NATO at the end of the Cold war it would have been better to dissolve it at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.
The EU signing up countries that meet the accession criteria is fine though.
Yep that is a very different matter. Obviously I think the former soviet states were daft to join the EU but since that was their wish I think it would have been viewed very differently by Russia if it had not also been alongside their joining NATO. That was the crucial mistake we made.
It is clear that the people involved in trump campaign are total morons. I thought it trump said a load of this nonsense because he just doesn't listen to advice, but this latest episode highlights they are so dense light bends around them.
No wonder the Clinton machine is eating them for breakfast.
I've just put money on Dems for Texas - 6.5. Probably a loser, but this has a feel now of a utter landslide, so a value bet I reckon.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Although I do believe, as we are proving, that you can leave the EU. Leaving the Russian "sphere of influence" is somewhat harder.
There was a clause in the constitution of the USSR which allowed states to leave, which technically (only *very* technically!) made it more democratic than the USA in that respect.
We've yet to see A50 actually get used successfully so at the moment I'm reserving judgement as to whether it works or not!
We can rescind the European Communities Act at any time.
Only by breaching our treaty obligations. Something I don't think we have ever done in modern history.
I was addressing GeoffM's suggestion that we might not be able to leave the EU via Article 59.
Think of it like this - which is easier? Reform the socio-economic structure of a medium sized country by removing/reducing the "system" which benefits everyone who has power in that state... or watch as a bunch of young people get jobs abroad.
One of the most interesting, totally counter intuitive, bits of economic research I've seen in the last five years looked at economic growth and emigration. It turned out that the best thing for incomes and per capita economic growth was for people to leave. Those EU countries - whether Ireland in the 1970s or Estonia and Poland more latterly - with the highest emigration rates performed best in the subsequent decade.
While I tried to pick holes in the methodology, because it seemed so counterintuitive, I couldn't. Which suggests, at the very least, that the evidence does not back your theory.
Yes, I remember discussing this here. My opinion was that we tend to view migration simply as a one way process of people leaving one country and settling in another. I think that what actually happens is a far more dynamic process. While there may be a net flow in one direction, closer examination would show continuous two-way traffic, with many migrants leaving to seek their fortunes abroad and later returning to their homeland, bringing capital, experience, expertise and connections with them. Some end up staying, of course, but many will come and go, perhaps a number of times.
The other side of it is the diaspora. It establishes both markets and demand in the new countries, as is obvious in Britain, and this creates exports for the old country, and often develols the tastes of non diaspora citizens.
Freedom of mvement is the workers counterbalance to the rights of capitalists. Jezza is right on this, albeit unpopular for saying so, at least at present.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Yes, but there was a better way of doing it than just making them part of us or them. We used a Cold War framework to dictate a Cold War settlement.
NATO exploited the weakness in Russia to make a land grab. And now when they retaliate because the Russians have a propensity to do so, we complain.
The West has been responsible for Ukraine and arguably Syria through ill conceived, political opportunism.
When the Baltic states joined NATO, was it because they wanted to or the existing NATO members wanted them to?
I severely, severely doubt that any of the East European states would have sort NATO membership without covert encouragement at the very least.
I'm afraid you are wrong. The Baltics never wanted to be part of the USSR, declared their independence as soon as it was safe to do so and made it stick, and then inevitably sought protection against the Russian expansionism they'd suffered in the past.
If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.
Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.
It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)
Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...
Isn't this just basis survival logic?
It's logical if you believe that cutting off your nose to spite your face is sound policy.
But how is such a course of action "cutting off their nose to spite their face?" as you put it?
"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.
For the EU, it is the only course of action they can take to ensure their survive. How, from their point of view, can such a route be "needlessly self-destructive" ? It's their only option, surely, other than suicide? It wouldn't be an act of revenge, or pique, or anger, it would be the sensible, rational calculated option to ensure survival.
If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.
Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.
It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)
Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...
Isn't this just basis survival logic?
Only if you believe in the billiard-ball model of states.
Britain didn't choose to leave because any of the main parties changed its mind; it was forced in by UKIP encroaching on the Tory vote, and then the public going against the establishment in the referendum.
Any deal which screwed the existing members would result in those countries facing similar pressures. Already, France is likely to have a neo-fascist in the presidential run-off, Austria could well have a fascist president by Christmas, Holland has a potent right-wing populist party which has led the polls for next year's election for over a year, Germany has its biggest populist right-wing party since WWII - and the list goes on. A Europe which ignored the wishes of its citizens to the extent which you suggest it might would dissolve like it had ebola.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
They may not accept it (and the parallel with 1960's Cuba is obvious), but they should if that were the Mexican peoples choice.
Rather than expand NATO at the end of the Cold war it would have been better to dissolve it at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.
The EU signing up countries that meet the accession criteria is fine though.
Yep that is a very different matter. Obviously I think the former soviet states were daft to join the EU but since that was their wish I think it would have been viewed very differently by Russia if it had not also been alongside their joining NATO. That was the crucial mistake we made.
There is something we agree on after all.
The current state of Russia's relations with the West is tragic when you look back at the situation when Putin first came to power and all his attempts to build goodwill were met with patronising and high-handed condescension.
As several people noted in the account of Bush's actions on 9/11, the US couldn't have had a better ally than Putin on that day. Putin's address to the German parliament shortly afterwards should have become a pivotal moment:
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has told Germany's parliament that all nations are to blame for the terrorist attacks on the United States because they trust outdated security systems.
"We have failed to recognise the changes of the last 10 years. We have not learned to trust each other yet," he said.
Earlier, speaking after a meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, he said terrorists should be forced into "complete political and ideological isolation".
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
You really think the US would accept if Mexico joined a Russian military pact and had Russian troops stationed on the US border?
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
You know sometimes I think that people know something I don't...there is a collective wisdom that I cannot see...... the great and the good and their networks and all that....
But then you look at Ukraine and Syria, and our relationship with Russia and the mess we are in now.
We are heading into the next Cold War at a frightening pace.
We can blame the Russian all we want, but that will not change where we are now; someone with wisdom and insight needs to change the dynamics. I doubt that is Boris Johnson frankly, or Emily Thornberry.
Sadly. Donald Trump is the only major figure willing to grapple with the enormity of the conflict with Russia....and that is saying something...
I am NOT advocating for Trump....just let that be known...
Trump is turning into a Putin appeaser as Putin takes lumps of Volks-Russians off other states. That is unacceptable appeasement.
I understand the Russian view of warfare, that one shouldn't hold back from finishing the job. Brutality to end a siege may well be better than prolonging it indefinitely.
General Patton said that "Wars are not won by men dying for their country, they are won by making some other poor bastard die for his", and the Russians seem to be of the same mind. It is much less mealy mouthed than our ineffective hearts and minds approach.
Whether it can ever lead to a lasting peace is a different matter though.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Although I do believe, as we are proving, that you can leave the EU. Leaving the Russian "sphere of influence" is somewhat harder.
There was a clause in the constitution of the USSR which allowed states to leave, which technically (only *very* technically!) made it more democratic than the USA in that respect.
We've yet to see A50 actually get used successfully so at the moment I'm reserving judgement as to whether it works or not!
We can rescind the European Communities Act at any time.
Only by breaching our treaty obligations. Something I don't think we have ever done in modern history.
And causing a constitutional crisis, as well as a legal one!
If they are not then; be like that, WTO and a foreign policy to undermine and subvert the EU and eventually provoke its breakup.
Why it sensible for the EU to agree a good deal? If the UK gets a good deal and flourishes, the EU will go into economic meltdown and the entire institution will almost inevitably collapse as other countries join the bandwagon.
It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)
Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...
Isn't this just basis survival logic?
Only if you believe in the billiard-ball model of states.
Britain didn't choose to leave because any of the main parties changed its mind; it was forced in by UKIP encroaching on the Tory vote, and then the public going against the establishment in the referendum.
Any deal which screwed the existing members would result in those countries facing similar pressures. Already, France is likely to have a neo-fascist in the presidential run-off, Austria could well have a fascist president by Christmas, Holland has a potent right-wing populist party which has led the polls for next year's election for over a year, Germany has its biggest populist right-wing party since WWII - and the list goes on. A Europe which ignored the wishes of its citizens to the extent which you suggest it might would dissolve like it had ebola.
Absolutely agreed. Moreover, seeing the forthcoming negotiations as a zero some game where one side must win and one lose is utterly foolish. A deliberate attempt to impoverish the UK will necessarily impoverish Europe (and doubly so for Ireland). The divorce analogy is a decent one insofar as couples often do damage to one another when separating to no benefit whatsoever. Subordinating emotion to reason might not be possible, but it is certainly to be wished for.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Yes, but there was a better way of doing it than just making them part of us or them. We used a Cold War framework to dictate a Cold War settlement.
NATO exploited the weakness in Russia to make a land grab. And now when they retaliate because the Russians have a propensity to do so, we complain.
The West has been responsible for Ukraine and arguably Syria through ill conceived, political opportunism.
When the Baltic states joined NATO, was it because they wanted to or the existing NATO members wanted them to?
I severely, severely doubt that any of the East European states would have sort NATO membership without covert encouragement at the very least.
I'm afraid you are wrong. The Baltics never wanted to be part of the USSR, declared their independence as soon as it was safe to do so and made it stick, and then inevitably sought protection against the Russian expansionism they'd suffered in the past.
And the Visegrad Group was formed (back in 1991) partly to push for NATO membership against the opposition of much of NATO at the time.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
Opinion polls in Spain have about 3-to-1 agreeing with the statement "The Euro has been good for Spain." I think we tend to overestimate the unpopularity of the Euro*.
A Russia-friendly Syria would also be able to block a middle east-european gas pipe that could compete with one of Russia's core none-military exports.
'An Agence France-Presse report claimed Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas".'
Which Middle East gas are we talking about? Yemen and Saudi's Red Sea fields could go up through Egypt. Gulf fields could go through Jordan and Egypt or Iraq and Turkey. Syria or Syria and Lebanon would be shorter, but it's not a deal breaker.
Of course, Algeria and Libya, two very big gas suppliers, don't have any Syria problem.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
Wasn't that shared in the Soviet of Nationalities (later the Soviet of the Republics) chamber of the Supreme Soviet?
The other chamber, the Soviet of the Union, was per head of population.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
Opinion polls in Spain have about 3-to-1 agreeing with the statement "The Euro has been good for Spain." I think we tend to overestimate the unpopularity of the Euro*.
* With the exception of Italy.
I am sure you are right - Spain not a likely domino; Greece / Italy / Portugal in that order the most likely candidates?
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
Wasn't that shared in the Soviet of Nationalities (later the Soviet of the Republics) chamber of the Supreme Soviet?
The other chamber, the Soviet of the Union, was per head of population.
Dude, are you seriously comparing the Soviet Union, with its political prisoners, is informers and secret police, with the EU?
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
If that is the case, if the institution has nothing positive to sell and can only be held together by punishing those with the temerity to leave, who would want to belong to it? Sounds very Soviet bloc-ish to me.
"A deliberate attempt to impoverish the UK will necessarily impoverish Europe"
- Let's look at this from the EU's point of view and ignore the UK's perspective for a moment: Option a: Allow the UK a good deal, take a very minor hit to a relatively small % of exports. (very minor impoverishment to overall EU GDP) Option B: Allow the UK a generous deal and see the whole the house of cards collapse led by Greece/Italy. (Serious impoverishment/disruption for the EU. End of existence over time). Surely, option b is better than option a by a country mile? Not even a decision you need to spend much time weighing up it's so obvious. The relative impact on the UK of each of these two options is not something you would even waste time thinking about it would be so unimportant to making your judgement.
I do not accept that the non-Russian countries that were in the USSR should have their sovereignty permenantly controlled by the Russians. Between the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and the Caucuses we are talking about nearly a 100 million people, who should have self determination. Ditto for the former East bloc states in Central Europe, who number nearly as many.
This is not the 19th Century, we should accept this no more.
Having sovereignty permanently controlled from Brussels is fine though?
Pooling sovereignty is different to ceding it to another country. We had a share in Euro- decisionmaking, and a veto in many areas. I don't think that Georgia or Lithuainia ever had that sort of relationship to Russia.
Wasn't that shared in the Soviet of Nationalities (later the Soviet of the Republics) chamber of the Supreme Soviet?
The other chamber, the Soviet of the Union, was per head of population.
Dude, are you seriously comparing the Soviet Union, with its political prisoners, is informers and secret police, with the EU?
Yes. Purely for trolling purposes, obviously, because it's a daft comparison - but yes.
Before and after the EU referendum I saw members of the public in Greece / Spain interviewed on TV saying they thought Britain should leave and they wished them luck, but that, unfortunately, their country could not afford the risk of leaving EU/Euro right now despite the attraction of such an option.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
If that is the case, if the institution has nothing positive to sell and can only be held together by punishing those with the temerity to leave, who would want to belong to it? Sounds very Soviet bloc-ish to me.
Keep up with the thread!
It is fine and dandy to control other countries with threats and invasion (UK and USA excepted - where it is obviously not a good thing).
Trump is turning into a Putin appeaser as Putin takes lumps of Volks-Russians off other states. That is unacceptable appeasement.
In the spirit of the thread header, why is it anathema to question whether state borders are in the right place?
The Russians only move them one way.
See Chechnya or Dagestan for details.
Russia peacefully gave up control of more territory after the dissolution of the USSR than any state in history has ever done.
I don't think so. We must have given up more with the end of Empire surely? The territory of Australia and Canada combined, both of which we have peacefully given up control over, is surely more than the former Soviet territories? Let alone the rest of the peacefully relinquished former Empire.
Trump is turning into a Putin appeaser as Putin takes lumps of Volks-Russians off other states. That is unacceptable appeasement.
In the spirit of the thread header, why is it anathema to question whether state borders are in the right place?
The Russians only move them one way.
See Chechnya or Dagestan for details.
Russia peacefully gave up control of more territory after the dissolution of the USSR than any state in history has ever done.
I don't think so. We must have given up more with the end of Empire surely? The territory of Australia and Canada combined, both of which we have peacefully given up control over, is surely more than the former Soviet territories? Let alone the rest of the peacefully relinquished former Empire.
Comments
The strategic importance of Syria does not warrant the kind of political and military investment the Russians have given it. Russia has plenty of places to exploit for oil and energy.
I'm sorry, but pissing off the Russians is just bad politics.
NATO exploited the weakness in Russia to make a land grab. And now when they retaliate because the Russians have a propensity to do so, we complain.
The West has been responsible for Ukraine and arguably Syria through ill conceived, political opportunism.
Asking for a friend
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
Given the history of Russia's treatment of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, and its actions in this one, what you suggest is morally dubious to say the least.
Now, one can argue that democracy should be sacrificed in favour of free movement, but it's not an argument I sympathise with.
Remember how before the first Gulf War, Bush I carefully asked Gorbachev to try and make Saddam see sense. Iraq was in Russia's zone of influence. Under cold war rules, that made it... rude to jump on them unless Russia said OK.
Saddam pretty much insulted Gorbachev, when Gorby told him to give Kuwait back. Gorby promptly and quite publicly washed his hands of the matter. *Then* the US started down the road to military action
While I tried to pick holes in the methodology, because it seemed so counterintuitive, I couldn't. Which suggests, at the very least, that the evidence does not back your theory.
As I said, you could have a free trade area without free movement, it would just be worse than what currently exists
https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/787041157775777792
Also according to EU law trade deals are by QMV - something that is decided by countries not regions. So even if the Belgian Government were forced to accept this as a direction from the people to reject the deal it doesn't mean the deal is dead. That will depend on enough countries across the EU supporting that position.
Free movement of capital is more problematic, but we've muddled through.
Post 1990 presented an opportunity to think of something different, particularly in managing those countries liberated from Soviet tyranny.
And we have crisis in the Ukraine and Syria that seem to be place us at odds to the Russian regime. Maybe this could have been avoided? Hindsight and all.
It is surely in the EU's interest to give us an absolutely appalling deal, and screw us into the ground, even if this comes at a considerable economic cost to other EU members. (ie screwing their own car manufacturers)
Any deal that allows the UK to flourish or even just survive rather than be crucified would bring the biggest existential crisis down on the EU it has ever faced. The "sensible" thing for the EU to do is therefore surely to crucify the UK and make sure it seen to be crucified, even if this involves some limited self-harm to other EU members, in order to prevenet the bigger threat of EU armageddon...
Isn't this just basis survival logic?
We've yet to see A50 actually get used successfully so at the moment I'm reserving judgement as to whether it works or not!
Well Trump might as it would be more effective than a wall. But any sane US president would consider it an act of extreme aggression.
No wonder the Clinton machine is eating them for breakfast.
https://twitter.com/jonathanfryer/status/787047435906473984
Rather than expand NATO at the end of the Cold war it would have been better to dissolve it at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.
The EU signing up countries that meet the accession criteria is fine though.
Presumably he'll be standing as an Independent?
I would be outraged if Con allow him to stand as their candidate again - given his actions can only damage the Con party.
But then you look at Ukraine and Syria, and our relationship with Russia and the mess we are in now.
We are heading into the next Cold War at a frightening pace.
We can blame the Russian all we want, but that will not change where we are now; someone with wisdom and insight needs to change the dynamics. I doubt that is Boris Johnson frankly, or Emily Thornberry.
Sadly. Donald Trump is the only major figure willing to grapple with the enormity of the conflict with Russia....and that is saying something...
I am NOT advocating for Trump....just let that be known...
As an aside, Lithuania (or Poland-Lithuania) was the dominant power in Eastern Europe in about the 15th century, at a time when 'Russia' was just a bundle of petty principalities.
Freedom of mvement is the workers counterbalance to the rights of capitalists. Jezza is right on this, albeit unpopular for saying so, at least at present.
Suppose you applied for a job and said "If the company does X I'll do my best to damage the company".
Would you expect to be hired?
But how is such a course of action "cutting off their nose to spite their face?" as you put it?
"Cutting off the nose to spite the face" is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face" is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one's anger.
For the EU, it is the only course of action they can take to ensure their survive. How, from their point of view, can such a route be "needlessly self-destructive" ? It's their only option, surely, other than suicide? It wouldn't be an act of revenge, or pique, or anger, it would be the sensible, rational calculated option to ensure survival.
Britain didn't choose to leave because any of the main parties changed its mind; it was forced in by UKIP encroaching on the Tory vote, and then the public going against the establishment in the referendum.
Any deal which screwed the existing members would result in those countries facing similar pressures. Already, France is likely to have a neo-fascist in the presidential run-off, Austria could well have a fascist president by Christmas, Holland has a potent right-wing populist party which has led the polls for next year's election for over a year, Germany has its biggest populist right-wing party since WWII - and the list goes on. A Europe which ignored the wishes of its citizens to the extent which you suggest it might would dissolve like it had ebola.
The current state of Russia's relations with the West is tragic when you look back at the situation when Putin first came to power and all his attempts to build goodwill were met with patronising and high-handed condescension.
As several people noted in the account of Bush's actions on 9/11, the US couldn't have had a better ally than Putin on that day. Putin's address to the German parliament shortly afterwards should have become a pivotal moment:
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has told Germany's parliament that all nations are to blame for the terrorist attacks on the United States because they trust outdated security systems.
"We have failed to recognise the changes of the last 10 years. We have not learned to trust each other yet," he said.
Earlier, speaking after a meeting with Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, he said terrorists should be forced into "complete political and ideological isolation".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1562315.stm
I understand the Russian view of warfare, that one shouldn't hold back from finishing the job. Brutality to end a siege may well be better than prolonging it indefinitely.
General Patton said that "Wars are not won by men dying for their country, they are won by making some other poor bastard die for his", and the Russians seem to be of the same mind. It is much less mealy mouthed than our ineffective hearts and minds approach.
Whether it can ever lead to a lasting peace is a different matter though.
How long do you think the house of cards would hold together if the UK was seen to be booming/flourishing post brexit, reaping the rewards of a devalued currency and its new found freedom from EU rules etc?
The EU surely needs to extract a deeply, deeply painful pound of flesh form Britain to have any hope of keeping the project on the road.
A deliberate attempt to impoverish the UK will necessarily impoverish Europe (and doubly so for Ireland). The divorce analogy is a decent one insofar as couples often do damage to one another when separating to no benefit whatsoever. Subordinating emotion to reason might not be possible, but it is certainly to be wished for.
See Chechnya or Dagestan for details.
* With the exception of Italy.
Of course, Algeria and Libya, two very big gas suppliers, don't have any Syria problem.
The other chamber, the Soviet of the Union, was per head of population.
And now they are trying to re-establish their empire. It is lime us annexing the Irish republic or the West Indies again.
It is fine and dandy to control other countries with threats and invasion (UK and USA excepted - where it is obviously not a good thing).