Political relations between UK-EU

[Vic]

No it didnt, I actually wanted further integration and a fully federal state with single political parties that operated across the Union. An elected President and single constitution. Nobody had that vision though and the status quo was unacceptable as it is just a neo-liberal club that benefits those with wealth. A fully federated EU could have led to a fully federated Socialist state, with the likes of Labour, Portugals Bloc Esquerida and other Leftist EU parties forming one mass party to campaign for a Socialist state. When remain became the supporters of status quo i came to the conclusion I cant support that and initially i was unsure so abstained in the actual vote. I do consider myself fairly well educated but the complexity of the debate was overwhelming for me, for others it was much simple such as they wanted to end all immigration, or they wanted to carry on travelling to their holiday home in the Languedoc without a problem. The more I looked into it the more I came to realise that if i wanted a Socialist state then leaving was the only way that could be achieved. It wasn't easy though because i do still believe the EU is a source for good and i hated that i would be on the same side, albeit for different reasons as the likes of that horrible **** Farage.

All you had to do was get all the true socialists in the EU to vote for socialist MEPs. With PR you would then have had a socialist European Parliament.

You also get socialists in each member state to elect socialist governments to send socialists to the European Council and Council of ministers and appoint socialist Commissioners.

The only flaw in this procedure is that you don't have enough socialists. Maybe that isn't a problem for revolutionary socialists, but it is for socialists who support "leftist parties" that can actually get elected.

I enjoy your political education lectures, but a degree of realism about your "vision" would not go amiss. The idea that leaving the EU is going to hasten a pan-European socialist state (or a socialist England) seems a recipe for being disappointed. Even with oppressed masses (and there aren't that many people in Europe now who really understand how oppressed they are) revolution was a hard sell. Lenin might have been against, but frankly the "miserable reforms" of class collaboration (i.e. get people of all classes to vote for a leftist party) is the sum of my current political ambitions.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

It’s been rejected by people who are putting up strawmen or who believe the strawmen

Open boarders where not advocated by anyone nor did we ever have open boarders

''Borders.''
You are another simply bemoaning the fact we've left, all the points you've raised have been talked to death and beyond for over 5 years. With respect,
we don't need to hear any more about why we should have stayed, what we did or didn't understand and how upset some folk are about it.
Our current and future relations with this group is what this is now about.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

According to latest poll 73% agree with ending free movement with only 17% wanting it to continue.

Leave and Remain voters both favour end to free movement, but want to keep EU rules on firms

Voters were more likely to agree with one another after discussing issues, according to research by Sir John Curtice

inews.co.uk

Well yes, that's always been the case, which is why the arguments for it
fail, if a party advocated it, it would fail, which is why we don't have it.
Immigration is now down to the points system, and I'd suggest that's fine with
the 73%.

 

[Vic]

Yeah, I'm just flicking through this and we're still hearing the same tired
arguments about Brexit that never chimed with the electorate before the vote, and now after it. Then again, it's a thread about EU/UK relations, which
have not yet developed as we've only just started, so we wait and see I suppose. But if it remains a whinge fest about why we shouldn't have done this, that and the other, then it's pointless imo.

It's not that difficult. Future relations will focus on getting back what we had, so we need constant reminders of what we had. Sometimes the "former leavers" here say the referendum result is because these arguments "never chimed with the electorate" but sometimes it was because Remain never made those arguments but just warned about such "negative" things as a plummeting pound and damage to industry and loss of ease of travel.

If every time someone reminds people of the benefits of life in the EU it wasn't met by posts about trying to rerun the referendum - and you lost - the thread will be a lot shorter.

 

[Vic]

''Borders.''
You are another simply bemoaning the fact we've left, all the points you've raised have been talked to death and beyond for over 5 years. With respect,
we don't need to hear any more about why we should have stayed, what we did or didn't understand and how upset some folk are about it.
Our current and future relations with this group is what this is now about.

See what I mean?

 

[west didsblue]

Our current and future relations with this group is what this is now about.

Any suggestions?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Meanwhile I am willing to bet 95% of those polled who usually go abroad to holiday haven't done so and will be in for a shock when they have to queue with Americans, Brazilians, Somalians and Koreans just to get into Spain.

I'm going as soon as this covid shite permits it, I'll let you know about
the horrendous experience I'm due.

Further I'd bet near 100% of those polled who have ambitions to retire to the sun on the Costa's or in Portugal have yet to realise how cancelling free movement has made that impossible.

And I'd bet that you're 100% wrong.

 

[Saddleworth2]

The ECB will tell each country how much to raise (but not how to raise it). They'll also tell them them how much they can spend, but not necessarily how to spend it

Bit like the Barnett Formulae then?

The issue I have with free movement is economic, not because I don't like foreigners. It's pretty well the same argument Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz uses in his book on the Euro, though he puts it much more academically rigorously than I do. It's the same principal as in chemical osmosis, when you have two solutions of different density and a porous boundary. The higher density solution migrates to the lower density one until equlibirium is achieved.

People from poorer countries naturally gravitate to richer ones, as we've seen with the influx of Eastern European people from Poland and Romania. Yes, many of them contribute to our economy but they also consume resources, such as accomodation and medical services, which are finite and difficult to scale quickly. The more skilled they are (doctors, engineers, etc) the more they earn in the richer country, which is skills they deprie their home country of, as well as the tax revenue they could have contributed at home.

So the poor countries get propped up financially by those richer ones, as we've seen with the net flow of EU funds from countries like us and Germany to the likes of Poland & Romania. So it's just swings and roundabouts really. If the EU was a level-playing field, with wage levels, tax levels, opportunities & infrastructure all similar across the community, then free movement would be no issue economically. But like those chemical solutions, it isn't. There is no equilibrium. What's the incentive for countries to develop and increase their skills base if those skilled younger people just fuck off somewhere else when it suits them?

So of course people in the UK see free movement of people as a good thing because we essentially attract lots of cheap labour. But that cheap labour here isn't a good thing for the countries the workers have come from. It's one of those great liberal ideas which is the effective replacement for colonialism, except we're taking the skills from these countries rather than the raw materials.

You don't mention the fact that people also send funds back from richer to poorer countries, move back to their original country suitably enriched. Many of the young people get their education and return including doctors nurses etc. The poorer countries also seem to have a favourable view of the EU despite all the issues you outline.

The truth is that the EU is a collection of vested interests, where the Germans controlled the finances, to the detriment of most other countries (particularly in Southern Europe). The French were happy to tag along because they had the sop of the wasteful Common Agricultural Policy. It's done nothing to halt increasing authoritarianism and de-liberalisation in Poland & Hungary.

The Common Market was an excellent economic idea but the French & Germans had delusions of grandeur and wanted a vanity project involving increasing political and monetary convergence.The Euro is a sticking plaster covering up all sorts of monetary and fiscal issues. Freedom of movement was another piece of economic illiteracy, which just allowed the redistribution of scarce labour market skills (and therefore potential tax revenues) from poorer countries to richer ones.

Colin, I should have started by saying how pleased I am to see you on this thread. Your forensic analysis will be a welcome addition.

I personally feel looking forward to the new relationship on this thread is best rather than re-analysing the EU (as you can imagine, we had quite a bit of that over the last few years. And I'm sure you will recognise that many that inhabit this thread would see things a little differently). So much to go at on the new topic of our future relationship rather than bayoneting the wounded on the old stuff don't you think?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

See what I mean?

Future relations will focus on getting back what we had,

So you think we'll be spending, sorry wasting, our time arguing with the EU
about getting back what we had?
Lol.
Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Any suggestions?

As I said, the relationship is just a couple of days old, so as yet there isn't much,
so I'll go along with the usual good old days routine for the time being.