Posted on 12/20/2019 7:51:02 AM PST by goldstategop
What continued financial support are you talking about???
Actually it’s the opposite, the UK was in an economic slump in the 60s when it was part of the efta, the European free trade association with Norway etc. But the “ever closer political union “ EC was booming economically so the UK begged to join, THRICE.
It was rejected twice by de Gaulle but got in in 1972.
The UK dumped it’s free trade partners to join the ever closer political union.
Its economy then boomed.
It was booming also until the recession
You say that like I don't know how sharing sovereignty with the Soviets worked out for Poland.
That was conquest, not sharing some sovereignty
Is the EU still a benefit to the UK or a hindrance? Bureaucracies start out small and with good intentions and devolve into all consuming monstrosities.
Let’s see:
1. It basically keeps the 4 freedoms - freedom of goods, services, capital and citizens to move between countries, so encourages trade between countries.
2. By this there are no borders for parts to flow across the border between say England and the Netherlands, so there is one giant Supply chain across the channel and into western germany
3. it also gave the UK a free reign to sell financial products across the continent - until 2018 the EU clearing houses were in the UK
4. It standardized products and services rules, so you knew when you bought a product or service from within the EU, the guarantees were all in place.
5. The standards and regulations can be onerous.
6. The UK having the international language meant more Bulgarians or Poles would travel to the UK to work, so depressing British salaries. It’s less likely for them to move to say Germany (though that seems to be changing)
Once the UK is out she can start negotiating deals with anyone. Let’s take a UK deal with China.
The UK has less “cards” against China then a UK+france+germany+italy EU common negotiating versus China.
So trade deals will be a bit more difficult
The UK won’t HAVE to follow all the rules and regulations of the EU - or of the USA, but if it wants to sell parts or services it would need to follow the rules of the EU and of the USA - with no input into the making of those rules.
Going by these, it seems being a part of the EU is currently a benefit to the UK economically.
However in case of other aspects - as I pointed out, over a million Poles and probable 1.5 million other EU citizens (Bulgarians, Italians etc.) have moved to the UK, depressing salaries and changing the culture, so that has hit people.
Also, the British governments used to “goldplate” EU regulations — EU regulations are to be “interpreted by individual countries” - the UK parliament added stuff to each and then blamed the eu, so now that will so , so more accountable government.
The Brits will also have to stand up and realize that the UK’s education system since the 60s has decayed heavily and modern Brits are unable to compete with the rest of Europe, leave alone the rest of the world (that’s on average - there are of course exceptions). They could coast along on imported talent, now they will HAVE to change.
Overall they need to have a hard brexit - then one can see the true effects one way or the other.
To also add in, one can’t use a comparison with the USA. The USA is a continent-sized power that has all of the resources needed to be completely isolationist.
If tomorrow the USA cut itself off from the rest of the world - including Canada and Mexico, the USA would not only survive but thrive - and that’s not jingoism.
The UK on the other hand is a mid-sized country -bigger than most, but not self-sufficient in food or raw materials. That’s NOT a bad thing - it’s how one plays with the cards one has — Singapore is the same, if not worse, and so it deeply integrates itself with all powers as a trading post. Plus it is also tightly regulated.
The UK boomed in the 1700s because France committed national suicide with the revolution, because the Brits also had a compromise church (the Anglican church took Catholicism and Calvinism and merged it together) and they also were open at a time the French were closed.
The other big stroke of luck was the implosion of the Mughals. Before the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 no European power could go up against the Great Moghuls. After 1707 that power collapsed and the Indian confederation that replaced it, the Marathas, were horribly disunited. Perfect conditions.
The UK took advantage of those once in a millenia conditions and did it well. It deserved its time as a glorious empire.
It can still do well while not being part of a union of countries, but it will need to change
They want continued support for EU programs - to the sum of $50B!
I get that there were agreements made while being a member of the EU but if you’re no longer a member of the EU (cartel!) why should they continue to finance it without the ‘benefits’ of being in the EU? The EU seems to believe they have a right to continue to receive these payments even though the UK won’t be part of it. It’s called the ‘divorce bill’ and is complete BS.
These agreements only make sense if you continue to be part of the EU - otherwise they’re null and void.
I guess that it doesn’t help that the UK is an island. As you mention, Singapore and I’ll add to the list Japan.
We have also had the advantage of not being in the thick of the WWII. Huge advantages being separated from the action by a bunch of water.
What are its major industries? Bet that there aren’t any natural resources such as fossil fuels. Well there might be coal. There simply isn’t enough land mass.
Either way, I hope that the US see the value of helping a important ally with a common history and language.
But they don’t want that.
The 44 billion usd is
1. Money for programs the UK agreed to pay in the 7 year budget (2013-2020) that end on 31. Dec. 2020
2. Retirement money for British citizens who worked in eu institutions like Nigel Farages retirement fund
The USA will prop it up, but like New York state can’t thrive cut off from the rest of the USA, even if it got super deals with China and Russia, in the same way, England Wales would need its hinterland
hmm.. it depends - the USA is definitely in charge of USMCA, thanks to TRump.
I like the term lend lease. Of all the countries in the UK is the closest to the US. We also have a stake in proving the globalists weong.
Kindly explain. You have previously agreed the price of USMCA would be sharing some sovereignty. That does not place the USA definitely in charge of USMCA. Unless you mean one or the other political party will be holding the reins or the handle to the trapdoor to tyranny which doesn't measure up to what real Americans expect.
Trapdoor to tyranny is a concern because ten or fifteen years ago HRC and other democrats mentioned they'll have to take some of our stuff from US so others can share our happiness. Or words to that effect.
The phrase you used, "sharing sovereignty", reminded me of evil democrats but I thank you for doing that. I looked it up and learned that's how Europeans see their place in the globalist scheme of rejecting Westphalian type authority
American libertarians most likely hold EUpers in high esteem. I'm sure the Oligarchs love them, too, but this paper, https://www.academia.edu/2763366/Shared_Sovereignty_and_the_European_Union_The_Transition_to_Post-Westphalian_Sovereignty by one Gabriel Reznick clarified things for me with his conclusion:
This essay explored the transition from Westphalian Sovereignty to post-Westphalian
Sovereignty. In order to do so I looked at the EU as a supranational state, and through analyzing the treaties,
we can see the creation of this supranational state. One of the main elements that is stressed in this essay is the
importance of shared sovereignty relating to the EU. In order to belong to the EU the member states had to
give up some of their sovereignty, which would be transferred to the different EU institutions. But the member
states still have some sovereignty and in order to create new laws compromise has to be made between the EU
member states and the EU institutions. In order to explain the transition from Westphalian to post-Westphalian
sovereignty,this paper used security as a case study. By looking at the new threats in this global world, we can
see that transition, security is changing from territorial security to more global security, worrying less about their
borders and more about terrorism. The EU challenges the Westphalian model because it shows an alternate
route, that has proved affective in this global world.
There lies the rub. Who says security is changing from territorial to global? Who is worrying less about their borders being insecure and more about terrorism? The citizens who have gotten used to living peacefully until family members are shot, stabbed, crashed into, raped, enslaved or stolen by cretins from another world?
Whoa, whoa, whoa you say, this is a trade treaty. Why yes, yes it is. And this is a WTO paragraph that https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588074/ says:
Measures
Trade rules apply only to government actions. In trade treaties these actions are called measures, a term that includes legislation, regulations, rules, procedures, decisions, and administrative actions. WTO rules for government measures span the entire field of public health, including inter alia:
•surveillance and control of infectious disease
•regulation of hazardous products
•control of environmental health risks
•provision of food security and nutrition
•regulation of the health risks of biotechnology and emerging technologies
•provision of access to health services and essential medicines
•measures to prevent chronic disease.
The WTO has a partner, a silent one judging by the lack of mention most everywhere in the current news stories.
Like I quoted a couple of days ago...
…Section 102 of the implementing legislation states: “No provision of the USMCA, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any law of the United States, shall have effect.” However, the whole purpose of the bill is in fact to change U.S. law in order to be in compliance with the USMCA, once the bill is enacted into law. Section 102 of H.R. 5430 read, in part: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed … to amend or modify any law of the United States, or … to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, unless specifically provided for in this Act.”
Regarding State law, Section 102 goes on to state, “No State law, or the application thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or circumstance on the ground that the provision or application is inconsistent with the USMCA, except in an action brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring such law or application invalid.”
In other words, this empowers the federal government to sue states to overturn their laws that conflict with the USMCA. Turning federalism upside down, this language would virtually transform the federal government into an enforcer against the States on behalf of the regional integration scheme…
Again, Donald Trump is not going to be our President forever nor are the democrats going to go away.
“So Brexit happens at the end of January 2020.”
Thanks for clearing that up. I was beginning to get a little worried once again for our British friends.
Thank you for the civil conversation - that is rare in FR these days :)
Ok, what I mean is this - the USMCA IS sharing some sovereignty, but the USA does set the terms. under NAFTA the USA had the heaviest “weight” but it didn’t set the terms.
In the case of the USMCA, if the USA wants a certain set of rules, it can now more or less push this through
In the case of smaller countries it always was - and let me explain this - territorial
Take Luxembourg for instance - it's territorial borders with France, Germany, Belgium are not the source of problems -- the source of problems are at the borders of the EU
So Muslims need to be kept out of the borders of the EU, but within the EU, if a Bulgarian wants to sell goods or services or travel across to Belgium, he should.
the cretins from the other world are from outside the external borders of the eu. And Aunty Merkel was bloody wrong to invite them to Germany, so she can keep 'em.
well, Brexit, i.e. the ending of the club membership is at the end of January 31, 2020.
It is the beginning - after that the UK needs to start negotiating trade deals with countries across the world. As of 1 January 2021 latest, the shared deals it has with India, Canada etc. expire and it will need to have replaced them with new deals
I hope Poland continues to prove me wrong that ‘Shared Sovereignty’ is a dangerous oxymoron. For the USA, the only thing we have in common with Canada is our language, barely, and definitely not culture, history or socialist politics. Mexico - nothing in common with the USA except constant battles over the border - no common language, heritage, run by fascist oligarchs (which USA is devolving rapidly towards). The plan has been on the books for a long time to end national sovereignty and promote open borders and free migration (unimpeded trafficking of all kinds). I want conditions to be better in the other countries so that people can stay in their home peacefully, make a living and not worry about being murdered. Unfortunately, the USA/NATO appear to be the aggressors in the world starting wars at the behest of the Really Big Money Bags. This isn’t just a different world view we are fighting. It is Satanic, Evil, whatever you want to call it. There is money in Peace and Prosperity and Productivity where individuals work for themselves and not the State. Rapidly, I see the Agenda revealed for all of us as Serfs or worse in the NWO. Christians are compelled to fight this, not roll over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.