EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Howardh]

One of only two business leaders in favour of Brexit (the other one being that Wetherspoons bloke). The EU have just signed a trade deal with, guess where, Singapore.

You would have thought, if you supported Brexit, that you could guarantee a couple of thousand new jobs from one of your own just to rub it into remainer's faces. Ah, well.

 

[simonw]

My point was that Ireland was partitioned for a reason, not simple because England fancied doing it. That reason was sectarian division.

it was pretty much down to England wanting to retain a foothold on the island for strategic reasons. Reasons which at the time of the the GFA, the British Government conceded are no longer that important.

 

[AlterEgo]

it was pretty much down to England wanting to retain a foothold on the island for strategic reasons. Reasons which at the time of the the GFA, the British Government conceded are no longer that important.

Ireland has not had any strategic purpose for Britain beyond the era of plantation. It contributed substantially less to the exchequer per capita than any other part of these islands, and was not geographically convenient to stage military posts to guard against foreign enemies (which came exclusively from the east and south, not the west).

It’s important to remember the actual act of partition kept - at that time - both states within the United Kingdom, though self-governing with dominion status.

The main reasons for partition were to end and act as settlement for the Irish War of Independence (though Home Rule had been mooted for some time before any violence), satisfy (unionist) violent paramilitary demands in the north, avoid the threat of army mutiny, and to break the deadlock of various Home Rule questions which had been swirling for decades.

The Government of Ireland Act 1920 (which created the original partition) was written with reunification in mind. Partition was not intended, at least in Britain in 1920, to be a permanent solution.

The GFA was not a concession by Britain to any strategic interest, but rather as a way of proving to republicans being asked to vote for it that the myth of “Britain is in Ireland for selfish interests” was just that - a myth.

The reality is the Government of Ireland Act 1920 always actively provided for, and envisaged, reunification.

 

[SteveP29]

In related news Dyson have announced they will build their new cars in Singapore not Britain because they need to build the cars where there are skills and talent.

You mean where its cheaper and maximises profit

 

[furnessvale]

No surprise. Sir James is a Leaver, and doesn't manufacture anything in the UK anymore.

It is notable that the choice was between the UK and the Far east. Another EU country didn't enter into the equation so Brexit is irrelevant in this case.

 

[Howardh]

It is notable that the choice was between the UK and the Far east. Another EU country didn't enter into the equation so Brexit is irrelevant in this case.

Apart from that he gets tariff-free access to the EU whereas if he were in the UK he wouldn't unless there's a deal. Anyhow, he WAS supposed to set up the factory in Wiltshire. He didn't. bet the unemployed leave-voters down there are dead chuffed.

 

[northwichcat]

It is notable that the choice was between the UK and the Far east. Another EU country didn't enter into the equation so Brexit is irrelevant in this case.

Brexit is very relevant as Dyson's rivals build and export between the UK and the EU so it could put them at a disadvantage.

 

[northwichcat]

So what? It’s not a sovereign country.

London has devolved powers too. So what?

The UK isn’t a devolved part of the EU.

You object to me making a comparison between Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU but yet in a later post you object to the UK still having power over Northern Ireland.

The UK may be a country while the EU isn't but the EU didn't force us to join and it's been mutually agreed that we do and don't do certain things, just like the relation between the UK and Scotland. However, if you don't like that comparison perhaps you think it's more like the UK being a member of the UN or do you want UN membership but not EU membership because you agree with one and not the other?

 

[AlterEgo]

You object to me making a comparison between Scotland in the UK and the UK in the EU but yet in a later post you object to the UK still having power over Northern Ireland.

I support the independence movements of both nations, as long as they are democratic. I’d like them to peaceably move away from British rule. That however is a non-sequitur and a distraction from the point I made which you haven’t addressed.

My point is that it is a lie for anyone to suggest that the European Commission is doing anything but interfering in Italy’s sovereignty. Italy is a sovereign country. The other examples you gave are not. This is the fundamental difference.

The UK may be a country while the EU isn't but the EU didn't force us to join and it's been mutually agreed that we do and don't do certain things, just like the relation between the UK and Scotland.

Do you agree that the European Commission, by making Italy resubmit its national budget for their approval, is removing some of Italy’s sovereignty or not?

An admission is all I’d like to hear, or a rebuttal.

However, if you don't like that comparison perhaps you think it's more like the UK being a member of the UN or do you want UN membership but not EU membership because you agree with one and not the other?

Not really sure what the UN has to do with anything other than distract the point.

Please answer the question in bold.

 

[northwichcat]

Do you agree that the European Commission, by making Italy resubmit its national budget for their approval, is removing some of Italy’s sovereignty or not?

Please answer the question in bold.

First provide a reputable source for the claim which states exactly what happened with Italy and why it happened. You've stated an unverified claim and then asked a leading question in an attempt to get me to agree with something, so I am not in a position to say whether your question is a valid one, never mind answer it. For instance, did the EU say to Italy resubmit your budget or we'll see you in the European court or was it a non-binding recommendation? Also weren't the Brexiteers using the fact Greece was refusing to listen to the EU over its' anti-austerity budget as an excuse for leaving?

 

[SWTCommuter]

First provide a reputable source for the claim which states exactly what happened with Italy and why it happened. You've stated an unverified claim and then asked a leading question in an attempt to get me to agree with something, so I am not in a position to say whether your question is a valid one, never mind answer it. For instance, did the EU say to Italy resubmit your budget or we'll see you in the European court or was it a non-binding recommendation? Also weren't the Brexiteers using the fact Greece was refusing to listen to the EU over its' anti-austerity budget as an excuse for leaving?

Does this help?

Italy has put itself on a collision course with the EU. The dispute takes the eurozone into uncharted waters.

The authorities in Brussels have the right to reject a budget and demand new proposals - and to impose fines - if its requests are ignored.

This is the first time they've gone as far as this down that road and the EU has to weigh the prospect of taking firm measures to discourage other eurozone states from breaking the rules against the prospect of a drawn-out conflict with one of its largest member states at a time when its political energies are already absorbed by Brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45954022

 

[AlterEgo]

First provide a reputable source for the claim which states exactly what happened with Italy and why it happened. You've stated an unverified claim and then asked a leading question in an attempt to get me to agree with something, so I am not in a position to say whether your question is a valid one, never mind answer it. For instance, did the EU say to Italy resubmit your budget or we'll see you in the European court or was it a non-binding recommendation? Also weren't the Brexiteers using the fact Greece was refusing to listen to the EU over its' anti-austerity budget as an excuse for leaving?

It is a binding recommendation and certainly not voluntary.

Are you casting doubt on the BBC article, which states:

The European Commission has told Italy to revise its budget, an unprecedented move with regard to an EU member state.

The Commission is worried about the impact of higher spending on already high levels of debt in Italy, the eurozone's third-biggest economy.

Italy's governing populist parties have vowed to push ahead with campaign promises including a minimum income for the unemployed.

The country now has three weeks to submit a new, draft budget to Brussels.

The Commission said the first draft represented a "particularly serious non-compliance" with its recommendations.

The authorities in Brussels have the right to reject a budget and demand new proposals - and to impose fines - if its requests are ignored.



Could you let me know if you agree that Italy, by having to resubmit and revise its budget to the satisfaction of the European Commission, is ceding financial sovereignty in this way? If it is not, then what is it?

 

[Groningen]

Dyson is makers of cars? I thought they were a vacuumcleaner company!

 

[northwichcat]

It is a binding recommendation and certainly not voluntary.

Are you casting doubt on the BBC article, which states:

The European Commission has told Italy to revise its budget, an unprecedented move with regard to an EU member state.

The Commission is worried about the impact of higher spending on already high levels of debt in Italy, the eurozone's third-biggest economy.

Italy's governing populist parties have vowed to push ahead with campaign promises including a minimum income for the unemployed.

The country now has three weeks to submit a new, draft budget to Brussels.

The Commission said the first draft represented a "particularly serious non-compliance" with its recommendations.

The authorities in Brussels have the right to reject a budget and demand new proposals - and to impose fines - if its requests are ignored.

Could you let me know if you agree that Italy, by having to resubmit and revise its budget to the satisfaction of the European Commission, is ceding financial sovereignty in this way? If it is not, then what is it?

I missed the link in your previous post. Obviously a moderator hasn't seen it or you'd have received a message reminding you posting links and not quoting the relevant part is against the forum rules. The analysis on the BBC article is slightly confusing because it quotes someone from the EC saying they can't choose which rules they follow and ignore at the same time as saying that their budget deficit is within the rules. This article makes things clearer

EU countries have to follow a set of fiscal rules spelled out in what's called the Stability and Growth Pact. Focusing on deficit and debt, the rules are designed to force members to maintain sound public finances and co-ordinate their spending policies. Monetary policy is the responsibility of the European Central Bank, and matters such as taxation are up to each country. But the EU expects its 28 members to heed the economic stability of the region as a whole.

No country should have a budget deficit larger than 3pc of GDP or debt above 60pc of output, and governments must set annual targets to show they're moving in the right direction. The EU made the rules for eurozone countries stricter in 2013 following the sovereign debt crisis. The updated rules require nations to pursue a balanced budget by law, aimed at keeping mounting public debt in check.

So the percentage level is within the rules but the 60% of output figure target is missed by a huge amount.

And the most relevant bit

While Brussels ultimately has no real power over national budgets, governments are expected to take the commission's opinion into account and avoid a reprimand that could affect financial markets.

https://www.independent.ie/business...les-sparked-showdown-with-italy-37443682.html

As well as the fact that the former Italian head of state/government agreed to the new rules, along with the head of state/governments of the other 27 EU countries: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-244_en.htm

So given Italy has committed to the stricter rules and now no longer wants to follow them it should follow the correct process of pulling out prior to introducing a budget which doesn't comply with what it signed up to. Yes I accept there's an issue that a pro-austerity party might agree to something and it's difficult for the anti-austerity party to pull out, unless other EU members are on their side. However, your earlier claim about it being set by unelected people in the EC is untrue.

 

[thejuggler]

Dyson is a technology company.

James Dyson started out making wheelbarrows.

 

[AlterEgo]

I missed the link in your previous post. Obviously a moderator hasn't seen it or you'd have received a message reminding you posting links and not quoting the relevant part is against the forum rules. The analysis on the BBC article is slightly confusing because it quotes someone from the EC saying they can't choose which rules they follow and ignore at the same time as saying that their budget deficit is within the rules. This article makes things clearer



So the percentage level is within the rules but the 60% of output figure target is missed by a huge amount.

And the most relevant bit



https://www.independent.ie/business...les-sparked-showdown-with-italy-37443682.html

As well as the fact that the former Italian head of state/government agreed to the new rules, along with the head of state/governments of the other 27 EU countries: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-244_en.htm

So given Italy has committed to the stricter rules and now no longer wants to follow them it should follow the correct process of pulling out prior to introducing a budget which doesn't comply with what it signed up to. Yes I accept there's an issue that a pro-austerity party might agree to something and it's difficult for the anti-austerity party to pull out, unless other EU members are on their side. However, your earlier claim about it being set by unelected people in the EC is untrue.

Could you just answer the question? Does Italy’s requirement to adhere to revise and resubmit its budget to satisfy the EC to avoid sanctions and fines mean it has ceded some sovereignty to it?

 

[northwichcat]

Could you just answer the question? Does Italy’s requirement to adhere to revise and resubmit its budget to satisfy the EC to avoid sanctions and fines mean it has ceded some sovereignty to it?

No because Italy agreed to the rules in order to protect the single market and the Euro and however many times you write the word sovereignty doesn't change that. You do realise we won't have complete sovereignty post-Brexit even if we leave with no deal as trade deals come with compromises.

 

[AlterEgo]

No because Italy agreed to the rules in order to protect the single market and the Euro and however many times you write the word sovereignty doesn't change that. You do realise we won't have complete sovereignty post-Brexit even if we leave with no deal as trade deals come with compromises.

So for the sole reason that Italy agrees to it, it isn’t a loss of sovereignty?

 

[northwichcat]

Dyson is makers of cars? I thought they were a vacuumcleaner company!

They don't currently have cars for sale but it's a new market they are starting. Very convenient for them to take advantage of the fact many voted for Brexit to protect British jobs and the decision to make Dyson cars in Singapore will take advantage of a EU trade deal, Britain will almost certainly get a trade deal with Singapore, while the multinational car makers based in the UK will move jobs to the continent and without freedom of movement it'll be hard for British workers to move with the jobs.

 

[northwichcat]

So for the sole reason that Italy agrees to it, it isn’t a loss of sovereignty?

If Britain agrees to support the United States in military action does that cede some of our sovereignty? If Britain backs UN set sanctions against Russia does that cede some of our sovereignty? Or does sovereignty only apply when the EC/EU are involved?

 

[AlterEgo]

If Britain agrees to support the United States in military action does that cede some of our sovereignty? If Britain backs UN set sanctions against Russia does that cede some of our sovereignty? Or does sovereignty only apply when the EC/EU are involved?

Which of Britain’s sovereign powers are being given up in your examples? Sovereign powers being the ability to govern yourself, exercise control over your own territory and people.

 

[northwichcat]

Which of Britain’s sovereign powers are being given up in your examples? Sovereign powers being the ability to govern yourself, exercise control over your own territory and people.

Because we're not taking our own action based on what our own country needs/wants.

You do know there's no blanket definition of sovereignty. We don't have 'absolute sovereignty' in the UK - the EU is one reason for that, another is bishops being allowed to influence the governing of the country through unelected bishops being placed in the House of Lords and there's other reasons as well. However, as most countries don't have 'absolute sovereignty' there's various other categories of sovereignty.

 

[greyman42]

" if the UK and republic want an open border ".

Slightly more serious than wanting it. The UK and Ireland already have an internationally agreed and recognised agreement that there will always be an open border.

But according to R4 this morning the European Reform Group have experts know one else knows about or have contact with who know how to sort it all. I wonder where they have been for 2 years?

The UK will never agree to a closed border.
Ireland will never agree to a closed border.
Neither country would allow the EU to man the border.
If the EU insists on a closed border, Ireland will leave the EU.
The answer will be technology to check goods. That will take some time, and in the meantime, the EU will just have to put up with the open border.

 

[simonw]

Ireland has not had any strategic purpose for Britain beyond the era of plantation. It contributed substantially less to the exchequer per capita than any other part of these islands, and was not geographically convenient to stage military posts to guard against foreign enemies (which came exclusively from the east and south, not the west).

It’s important to remember the actual act of partition kept - at that time - both states within the United Kingdom, though self-governing with dominion status.

The main reasons for partition were to end and act as settlement for the Irish War of Independence (though Home Rule had been mooted for some time before any violence), satisfy (unionist) violent paramilitary demands in the north, avoid the threat of army mutiny, and to break the deadlock of various Home Rule questions which had been swirling for decades.

The Government of Ireland Act 1920 (which created the original partition) was written with reunification in mind. Partition was not intended, at least in Britain in 1920, to be a permanent solution.

The GFA was not a concession by Britain to any strategic interest, but rather as a way of proving to republicans being asked to vote for it that the myth of “Britain is in Ireland for selfish interests” was just that - a myth.

The reality is the Government of Ireland Act 1920 always actively provided for, and envisaged, reunification.

Not correct, Britain had several strategic reasons for wanting to maintain a foothold on the Island, including but limited to ensuring security of sea lanes and a foothold from which to launch an attack should the South have formed an alliance with an enemy of ours or been invaded by one.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not correct, Britain had several strategic reasons for wanting to maintain a foothold on the Island, including but limited to ensuring security of sea lanes and a foothold from which to launch an attack should the South have formed an alliance with an enemy of ours or been invaded by one.

This makes no sense, because the point of partition was actually to keep both entities inside the United Kingdom, not for a “watchful” north to guard against a foreign south.

I’ve never seen any pre-partition press cuttings or mentions in Hansard about this and I’ve studied the partition of Ireland extensively. Where did you read this?

 

[simonw]

This makes no sense, because the point of partition was actually to keep both entities inside the United Kingdom, not for a “watchful” north to guard against a foreign south.

I’ve never seen any pre-partition press cuttings or mentions in Hansard about this and I’ve studied the partition of Ireland extensively. Where did you read this?

We are not talking about partition but Irish independance. Whilst one followed the other it does not mean the same reasons apply to both. Strategic reasons are unlikely to be discussed in Hansard but no i can't point to a written document but it is the only explanation that fits the facts - the British could not really have cared about a few protestants in Ireland if strategically withdrawal from the whole island made strategic sense.

 

[bramling]

Because we're not taking our own action based on what our own country needs/wants.

You do know there's no blanket definition of sovereignty. We don't have 'absolute sovereignty' in the UK - the EU is one reason for that, another is bishops being allowed to influence the governing of the country through unelected bishops being placed in the House of Lords and there's other reasons as well. However, as most countries don't have 'absolute sovereignty' there's various other categories of sovereignty.

The Parliament Act goes some way to addressing that issue.

 

[SteveP29]

If the EU insists on a closed border, Ireland will leave the EU.

Will they?
When was this stated? I genuinely don't know, so enlightenment would be good.
Do the Irish people agree with it and would they vote for it in a referendum?

 

[northwichcat]

If the EU insists on a closed border, Ireland will leave the EU.

Why? Ireland wants Northern Ireland to be absorbed in to the Republic of Ireland, so surely the first thing that will happen is Sinn Fein will call for a referendum in Northern Ireland on remaining part of the UK. Even the option of an independent Northern Ireland being an EU member is better for ROI than NI out of the EU and in the UK.

 

[Clip]

Brexit just gets better and better - so good even arch-supporter Dyson won't build his new electric cars in the UK (as discussed above). No sir...he want to build them in a country which conveniently has a no-tariff deal with the EU. Who'd have thought??

Erm if you had bothered to read the post by jcollins you will see its not because of brexit but due to the lack of skills needed to make the damn things

In related news Dyson have announced they will build their new cars in Singapore not Britain because they need to build the cars where there are skills and talent.

And lets not forget Dysons £200 million investment in Britain https://www.theguardian.com/technol...n-wiltshire-facility-boost-electric-car-tests

One of only two business leaders in favour of Brexit (the other one being that Wetherspoons bloke). The EU have just signed a trade deal with, guess where, Singapore.

Thats a lie that you just made up havent you?

Anthony Bamford? Sir James Ratcliffe? Dame Helena Morrisey?

You would think you would possibly have a little bit of research behind your profound statements but i guess not eh?

Dyson is makers of cars? I thought they were a vacuumcleaner company!

They make many things from hand dryers to hairdryers and other rather expensive kit.

They don't currently have cars for sale but it's a new market they are starting. Very convenient for them to take advantage of the fact many voted for Brexit to protect British jobs and the decision to make Dyson cars in Singapore will take advantage of a EU trade deal, Britain will almost certainly get a trade deal with Singapore, while the multinational car makers based in the UK will move jobs to the continent and without freedom of movement it'll be hard for British workers to move with the jobs.

Citation needed for these car makers to move to the EU and close their plants here please