Brexit

[Irons]

There seems to be a misunderstanding.
The notion of "level playing field" refers exclusively to conditions for fair economic competition.
Of course fair competition means certain common standards on production, worker's conditions, state aid, etc.

It was the UK, including successive Tory governments, that invented the concept of the Internal Market and was its champion for decades. But now it is a bad idea?

Anyway, even if fhe UK has changed it mind on this financially beneficial concept that has earned the UK billions and billions of Pounds in the past. What EU is saying is that, if the UK wants to retain total and free access to the EU internal market - as its has been demanding right from the start of the negotiations - fair competition conditions ("level playing field") require that the UK sticks to a certain minimum of common standards.

This is not to the liking of Johnson & co. But that's pure "cakeism"...
The EU is not going to let UK companies roam freely on its internal market while they can undercut their competitors by cheaper & lower standards and government sweetners. It would destroy the Internal Market and is simply not going to happen.

Q

Which in a nutshell is why the UK is leaving without a deal. For good or ill Brexit is done and it is crazy to contemplate leaving a club whilst still abiding by the rules of said club - worst of both worlds. Workers rights for British nationals or foreigners working for British companies in the UK is not for Brussels to decide.
I do not think for a moment the UK Government believe that there is a cat in hell's chance that they will have free access to the EU marketplace. But it must not be forgotten that the boot is on the other foot, just ask Mercedes and BMW. Negotiations will proceed because the UK is a massive marketplace for EU companies and they will be desperate not to lose it. 

[Que]

But it must not be forgotten that the boot is on the other foot, just ask Mercedes and BMW. Negotiations will proceed because the UK is a massive marketplace for EU companies and they will be desperate not to lose it.

Absolutely. This is why the popular notion that the EU is playing an unfair game with the UK in the negotiations is not correct.
The EU does indeed have a big stake in the trade relation with the UK, and will agree with any deal that is (mutually) beneficial. The absence of a deal will definitely hurt the EU economically.

But the paradox is that the UK's economy is too big to allow "special favours" that would undermine fair competition ("level playing field") on the internal market. Just ask the German carmakers you mention, they have made public statements to the effect that the integrity of the internal market takes priority over any access to the UK market.

And another paradox is that hurting German carmakers by denying them easy access to the UK, will actually also hurt the UK economy. Since many of these "German" cars, or many of their parts, are actually produced in the UK. This brings us back to the high interconnectivity of the UK economy with the economies of the EU countries. As a consequence of the economic interdependence, leaving the internal market (which hasn't happened yet) is only possible if the UK is prepared to accept severe immediate and midterm damage to its economy. Can it afford to so so in the midst of a global economic recession?

My question is: the UK has left the EU, but where is the public debate on this important choice that now comes next?
It seems there is a sense in the UK that this is now a fait accompli, but it isn't. The EU is ready to sign off on any deal that will limit the economic damage. The problem is however not about the economics, but is political and lies with the UK.

My personal guess is that the UK government will continue to drag its feet untill the 30th June deadline for any extension comes around, and then make a similar turn as it did before Brexit and sign off on an extension of the transition period.
Since unleashing the economic damage of a no deal situation would be political suicide, this game could go on for a very long time - effectively keeping the UK in the internal market.

Q

[Irons]

My personal guess is that the UK government will continue to drag its feet untill the 30th June deadline for any extension comes around, and then make a similar turn as it did before Brexit and sign off on an extension of the transition period.
Since unleashing the economic damage of a no deal situation would be political suicide, this game could go on for a very long time - effectively keeping the UK in the internal market.

Q

You may be right as your guess is as good as mine. With what is going on in the world at the present time things of what was profound importance do not seem to matter anymore. When and if we get out of this the world is going to look a different place.

[Que]

You may be right as your guess is as good as mine. With what is going on in the world at the present time things of what was profound importance do not seem to matter anymore. When and if we get out of this the world is going to look a different place.

I largely agree with your sentiment...
The political significance of Brexit has been dwarfed by the pandemic.
But I have to point out that the pandemic doesn't make Brexit go away. And indeed the economic and geopolitical consequences of the pandemic will only add importance to the decisions the UK still has to make about its relationship with the EU.

Where we probably part our ways, is that I think Brexit was a typical British "folly" to begin with....
The frustrations and unease with the political aspirations of the EU are understandable. But leaving - literally - decisions on the future of Europe to others, was very unwise. It has weakened Britain's position on the global stage, without getting anything back in return. Britain will now have less control over its own destiny, instead of more.

While leaving the EU was politically unwise, severing economic ties by leaving the internal market will be practically impossible. That is, if you want to save the UK economy from collapsing. And again, there is no real upside...

Time will tell....



Broadway Tower, Worcestershire, England.

Definition of folly
1. lack of good sense or normal prudence and foresight.
2. tragically foolish actions or conduct.
3: a foolish act or idea.
4: an excessively costly or unprofitable undertaking.
5: an often extravagant picturesque building erected to suit a fanciful taste.

[Florestan]

Who is going to stop Putin?

If the only thing that can stop Putin is a common EU military, then you can start preparing the festivities for the welcoming of the Russian Army triumphantly marching through Dam Square. 

His buddy Trump??

Do you imply that the USA poses any military threat to the EU?

A common European defence is needed ASAP....

A functional NATO is more than enough. The common European defence is pure fantasy.

[Que]

If the only thing that can stop Putin is a common EU military, then you can start preparing the festivities for the welcoming of the Russian Army triumphantly marching through Dam Square. 

We might as well...  Though he'll probably start with Riga or Talinn...

Do you imply that the USA poses any military threat to the EU?

Uhhhh?    I don't think the US can be relied on, if that clears it up. 

A functional NATO is more than enough. The common European defence is pure fantasy.

It's disfunctional, I refer to the answer I gave above. Turkey, of strategic importance, has become a wildcard as well...
The writing is on the wall, Andrei! 

Q

[Florestan]

We might as well...  Though he'll probably start with Riga or Talinn...

It's disfunctional, I refer to the answer I gave above. Turkey, of strategic importance, has become a wildcard as well...

Firstly, Rego, how do you know NATO is disfunctional? It has never really been put to test, ie, no member state has ever been attacked by a third party and invoked article 5. Some people, me included, would say that this is a sign that actually NATO functions perfectly well as a deterrent, in general not only with respect to Russia.

Secondly, re: Talinn and Riga --- the fact that Putin is still enraged by the Baltic States, Poland and Romania joining NATO and still foams at the mouth about it means that he knows only too well that as long as NATO exists he has zero chances to take those countries back in Russia's sphere of influence. Some people, me included, would say that this is another sign that actually NATO functions perfectly well as a deterrent, particularly with respect to Russia.

Thirdly, what is this putative common EU military supposed to be comprised of? Most EU members are NATO members as well and a good part of their military is engaged accordingly. To form a EU military would mean either assigning different army units to it or taking the NATO units out of NATO and assigning them to the EU military. The former case is highly unlikely while the second, well the second yes it would mean by itself a weakening of NATO to the point of rendering it disfunctional; iow, it would mean disrupting the existing and functional NATO in order to create another structure which nobody knows exactly what will look like (if at all), how it will work (if at all) and how long it will take to come into being (if at all). That would actually be Putin's dream came true. There is a Romanian proverb which applies perfectly here: don't trade the sparrow in your hand for the crow on the fence.

AfaIc, NATO is very much up and running and I don't see any other structure able to take its place nor do I think it desirable in the least to experiment with that.

I don't think the US can be relied on, if that clears it up. 

Did the EU as a whole, or any particular member state which is also a NATO member, need USA military assistance and it was denied them?

[Que]

We're drifting away from the topic of Brexit... so a short reply.
A European Defense Community, something that nearly happened in the 1950's, would be perfectly compatible with NATO.
Even the Brits were prepared to join!

Q

[Florestan]

We're drifting away from the topic of Brexit... so a short reply.
A European Defense Community, something that nearly happened in the 1950's, would be perfectly compatible with NATO.
Even the Brits were prepared to join!

Let that crow sit on the fence, but nurture the sparrow just in case...

Q

Come on, Rego! Is that what's really supposed to replace NATO at European level, the putative revival of an unratified treaty from the early 1950s? Do you really think this fantasy will ever come true? My God, the crow is not even on the fence, it's been dead, buried and putrefying for almost a century. 

[Christo]

We're drifting away from the topic of Brexit... so a short reply.
A European Defense Community, something that nearly happened in the 1950's, would be perfectly compatible with NATO.
Even the Brits were prepared to join!

Q

IIRC (and I think I do), the European Defence Community was ratified in all parliaments, including the French; it only met with opposition in the French Senate (because of France's newly developed nuclear bomb they didn't want to share with their neighbours). 

[Florestan]

IIRC (and I think I do), the European Defence Community was ratified in all parliaments, including the French; it only met with opposition in the French Senate (because of France's newly developed nuclear bomb they didn't want to share with their neighbours). 

You misremember. First of all, the Senate is the upper house of the French parliament, not something different from it. Secondly, it failed in the National Assembly, the lower house (319 against, 264 for). Thirdly, the Italian parliament never debated it.

All in all, it's an obsolete plan which was not feasible even back then with only 6 countries. To revive it for 26 countries and suggest it could really take NATO's place is pure fantasy --- and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's Putin and his fifth column that actually foment such an absurd idea. I'm greatly surprised instead that Rego can seriously think about it as something desirable, let alone doable.

[Que]

[...] and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's Putin and his fifth column that actually foment such an absurd idea.

I don't think Putin's internet brigade is plugging the idea. Sofar his focus seems to sowe as much division and discord amongst European allies as possible. He absolutely loved Brexit, for instance!! It's interesting to note that Obama's public support for remaining in the EU raised suspicion amongst UK voters, while Putin's support of Brexit didn't raise any alarm.... 

I'm greatly surprised instead that Rego can seriously think about it as something desirable, let alone doable.

This is beyond desirability or possibility, my friend. It is pure and hard necessity.
Would you rather rely on the ability to defend ourselves, or on a decaying and politically estranged former superpower?

I wonder what is the crow and what is the sparrow in this story? The sparrow might have died in your hand while you were clutching it..

Q

[Florestan]

I don't think Putin's internet brigade is plugging the idea. Sofar his focus seems to sowe as much division and discord amongst European allies as possible. He absolutely loved Brexit, for instance!! It's interesting to note that Obama's public support for remaining in the EU raised suspicion amongst UK voters, while Putin's support of Brexit didn't raise any alarm.... 

This is beyond desirability or possibility, my friend. It is pure and hard necessity.
Would you rather rely on the ability to defend ourselves, or on a decaying and politically estranged former superpower?

I wonder what is the crow and what is the sparrow in this story? The sparrow might have died in your hand while you were clutching it..

Q

I thought it was clear that the sparrow in the hand is NATO and the crow on the fence is something that doesn't even have a name, let alone a body.

"The ability to defend ourselves" is a fiction* and I hope we'll never learn it the hard way. "The decaying and politically estranged formwr superpower" is still the only one able, if not to "defend" us, at least to scare our enemies away, which is actually the same thing. Rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.

*or worse; need I remind you that when on their own, the major European countries produced not security and peace but mostly conflict and war? France, Germany (or the various German States), UK, Austria, Spain, Italy (or the various Italian States), The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Russia --- all of them have for centuries been at war either with each other or in different combinations and alliances. Now, of course the prospect a (pan)European war is nil, but so is a pan-European concord and especially a pan-European common army. We have NATO and we should stick to it; everything else is wishful thinking (well-intentioned, no doubt, but naive).

EDIT: Putin can play many cards. When it suits him, he'll sow division and discord, sure; but if he (correctly) perceives all this talk about a common EU army as meaning a prospective weakening of NATO, if not downright its demise, he'll jump at every opportunity to bolster the project. I have no doubt about it.

[Irons]

Where we probably part our ways, is that I think Brexit was a typical British "folly" to begin with....
The frustrations and unease with the political aspirations of the EU are understandable. But leaving - literally - decisions on the future of Europe to others, was very unwise. It has weakened Britain's position on the global stage, without getting anything back in return. Britain will now have less control over its own destiny, instead of more.

While leaving the EU was politically unwise, severing economic ties by leaving the internal market will be practically impossible. That is, if you want to save the UK economy from collapsing. And again, there is no real upside...

I do not think Britain owns folly, far from it. Although Gordon Brown had his detractors, myself among them, the British people owe him great sense of gratitude that through his insistence we did not join the euro. I think the British will be happy to leave the future of Europe to the Europeans. I don't understand why we will have less control by making our own rules and regulations?

The upside is if the eurozone economy collapses it doesn't take us with it.

[Ratliff]

The upside is if the eurozone economy collapses it doesn't take us with it.

...and vice versa, of course.

[Que]

I do not think Britain owns folly, far from it. Although Gordon Brown had his detractors, myself among them, the British people owe him great sense of gratitude that through his insistence we did not join the euro. I think the British will be happy to leave the future of Europe to the Europeans. I don't understand why we will have less control by making our own rules and regulations?

The upside is if the Eurozone economy collapses it doesn't take us with it.

Not joining the the euro was definitely a wise decision!   
Note that Britain negiotiated an opt out.

As to Britain's destiny.... The way I see it is that these days any country's destiny is for a large part determined by outside influences, except, to some extent, if it is a country with a super power status. If you are not a superpower, belonging to a powerful bloc/alliance  is the 2nd best option. Especially if you are a major player in that bloc, like Britain was in the EU. If the bloc offers free trade on a very large consumer market, this will hugely benefit your economy. So, the benefits of membership are political as well as economical.

Outside the bloc, you're basically on your own... But you can still build occasional, case-by-case coalitions. Which will all come at a price, very much like the membership of a bloc. Many British diplomats have endlessly argued that Britain's international leverage as a EU member was much larger than in the present situation. But you don't to have take their word for it.

Q

[Florestan]

I do not think Britain owns folly, far from it.

Folly is actually the common property of mankind.

Although Gordon Brown had his detractors, myself among them, the British people owe him great sense of gratitude that through his insistence we did not join the euro.

Although Romanian politicians, right and left alike, all claim they want us to join the euro in 2021, I do hope we'll never join it.

I think the British will be happy to leave the future of Europe to the Europeans.

Are the British not Europeans? Judging by how many times during history they meddled in the continental affairs I'd say they are. 

I don't understand why we will have less control by making our own rules and regulations?

The upside is if the eurozone economy collapses it doesn't take us with it.

Two good points, honestly.

[Que]

Two good points, honestly.

No country's destiny is determined by domestic rules & policies, really....

Unless... you're on an island! 

[Florestan]

No country's destiny is determined by domestic rules & policies, really....

Irons said "control", not "destiny".

Unless... you're on an island! 

Being on an island is destiny. 

[Irons]

A good proportion of the British public are pro-European which explains why the Brexit vote was close. But feeling European as a national from the continent does is a different matter. The reasons I guess, amongst other things are language (you can speak ours but we can't speak yours - so unfair!), historical and stuck on a small island.