Re:HSBC CEO Says Bankers Generating 20% of London Revenue Ma...
by alkonaut on Thursday January 19, 2017 @02:40PM
(#13438823)
> the EU is a project to try and force people to accept ideas they think are bad ideas by artificially tying them to cooperation and trade.
That's pretty subjective. But it's at least a way of tying cooperation on difficult areas (migration, environment, aid, other regulation) to positive effects (trade, peace). I'm not saying it's a perfect or necessary setup - but it's a way of arranging things that countries have voted to be part of.
> EU leaders like to paint people who reject this approach as shirking their "responsibilities", or "cherry picking", or whatever other dubious analogy they came up with today.
I think cherry picking is a reasonable description, since with the setup as it currently is (like it or not) member states accept the negative consequences in migration/aid/regulation in order to achieve the benefits. In order to e.g. have all the trade benefits but but accept the environmental benefits or help with migration - you'd be cherry picking. Of course you could argue that these things are independent. They should be tried on their own merit. That it's government overreach to combine. I'm not even going to gave that discussion now (I don't even necessarily disagree) but that's not the situation.
> And nowadays I am convinced the EU is doomed. It is a concept so flawed it cannot be fixed. [...] It should be abolished and replaced with numerous multi-lateral treaties between whoever wishes to make them
> Europe would be happier, healthier and experiencing deeper cooperation if the EU had never been invented at all.
Sure. But a whole different discussion. In such a future or alternative reality we wouldn't need to discuss what the EU does when Britain leaves because there is no EU. It might be the case that the EU is doomed. Or that it is dismantled. But it won't be this year, or the next. So the debate about what kind of agreement will be struck between the EU and the UK is still a real one. These negotiations will take place between the actual, flawed, mega-package-deal EU, and the UK. It's those negotiations I'm talking about, not whether the EU is actually a good idea, can survive long term etc. Interesting, but separate topics.
Verhoofstadt today:
"it is an illusion to suggest that the UK will be permitted to leave the EU but
then be free to opt back into the best parts of the European project,
for instance by asking for zero tariffs from the single market without
accepting the obligations that come with it."
but also
"The EU must use the UK’s departure to reform and move forward."
That's pretty subjective. But it's at least a way of tying cooperation on difficult areas (migration, environment, aid, other regulation) to positive effects (trade, peace). I'm not saying it's a perfect or necessary setup - but it's a way of arranging things that countries have voted to be part of.
> EU leaders like to paint people who reject this approach as shirking their "responsibilities", or "cherry picking", or whatever other dubious analogy they came up with today.
I think cherry picking is a reasonable description, since with the setup as it currently is (like it or not) member states accept the negative consequences in migration/aid/regulation in order to achieve the benefits. In order to e.g. have all the trade benefits but but accept the environmental benefits or help with migration - you'd be cherry picking. Of course you could argue that these things are independent. They should be tried on their own merit. That it's government overreach to combine. I'm not even going to gave that discussion now (I don't even necessarily disagree) but that's not the situation.
> And nowadays I am convinced the EU is doomed. It is a concept so flawed it cannot be fixed. [...] It should be abolished and replaced with numerous multi-lateral treaties between whoever wishes to make them > Europe would be happier, healthier and experiencing deeper cooperation if the EU had never been invented at all.
Sure. But a whole different discussion. In such a future or alternative reality we wouldn't need to discuss what the EU does when Britain leaves because there is no EU. It might be the case that the EU is doomed. Or that it is dismantled. But it won't be this year, or the next. So the debate about what kind of agreement will be struck between the EU and the UK is still a real one. These negotiations will take place between the actual, flawed, mega-package-deal EU, and the UK. It's those negotiations I'm talking about, not whether the EU is actually a good idea, can survive long term etc. Interesting, but separate topics.
Verhoofstadt today:
but also https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/not-pu...