Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[AdrienIer]

and Marcon is at 27%

Everyone uses that number to mean that Macron is toast and has little power. That's not true at all. He has full control over the assembly, and his party is leading the polls for the european elections with ~22%. The fractured opposition and his central position in french politics mean that he's likely to win reelection in 2022.
And he's acting like it too. He still talks like everyone else is a child who doesn't understand our society, and still wants to lead Europe now that Germany is less politically unified and the UK is out of the picture.

[MJW (ya that one)]

and Marcon is at 27%

Everyone uses that number to mean that Macron is toast and has little power. That's not true at all. He has full control over the assembly, and his party is leading the polls for the european elections with ~22%. The fractured opposition and his central position in french politics mean that he's likely to win reelection in 2022.
And he's acting like it too. He still talks like everyone else is a child who doesn't understand our society, and still wants to lead Europe now that Germany is less politically unified and the UK is out of the picture.

22% is unimpressive because that's less than 27% and still 88% against. I agree that the fractured opposition will likely hand him the win in 2022 because Le Pen is the only person in her "lane". I'm also saying the EU could lose, not will lose. Victory is not guaranteed when your best leader is at 27%. I feel the only way the EU losses if their leaders totally botch it when the next rescission hits.

[ipecac]

The EU is falling apart

Quite the opposite : this mess has proven that the EU is far more united than everyone thought. The fact that it has spoken with only one voice throughout the Brexit negotiations (the voice of Michel Barnier), that even the most unruly members like Hungary and Poland stayed in line, and that literally no other country is seriously speaking of leaving the EU (despite the fears that brexit would make others follow suit) are very good signs for the stability and strength of the union.

The 'unity' you describe is an illusion. Everyone is waiting to see how Brexit turns out. Besides that, there is an obvious temporary ceasefire between the EU, and Poland, Hungary and Italy. In return for not seriously moving against them for not taking in economic migrants, they're not making any serious attempt to interfere with the Brexit negotiations.

But this relative peace can't and won't last.

[ipecac]

She wants to reduce the numbers of people coming into the UK both from inside and outside the EU. The consequence was always obvious: Once you end that, you can't have free movement of goods, services and capital. So you have to leave the single market. And if you want a fully autonomous trade policy, you cannot stay in the customs union either.

Some countries have opened their borders to hordes of migrants while others have closed them. This is untenable with the ideal of free movement of people within the single market, so the inevitable logical conclusion of the situation as per Rogers is Leaving. This is one major reason why the EU will fall apart.

[Krill]

Interesting interview with former UK ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers in the German news magazine "Der Spiegel":

DER SPIEGEL: Would a different prime minister have done better than Theresa May?

Rogers: They would have had different priorities. Immigration and the free movement of people is the central question for Theresa May. She wants to reduce the numbers of people coming into the UK both from inside and outside the EU. The consequence was always obvious: Once you end that, you can't have free movement of goods, services and capital. So you have to leave the single market. And if you want a fully autonomous trade policy, you cannot stay in the customs union either.

DER SPIEGEL: What is your view of the role the EU has played in the negotiations. Do you think they trying to "punish" the UK as many Brexiteers claim?

Rogers: I don't. If you deliberately leave the club, it has automatic consequences, and some of them are unpleasant. Of course there is a risk: For the British public, who has no reason to understand every detail, it looks as if the Europeans have set up a process to maximize the British pain. I don't think they have.

DER SPIEGEL: Have the Europeans done everything right?

Rogers: They have set up a very well-structured technocratic process which delivers legal text. But I think that European leaders spent too little time thinking about how the future of the continent should look after Brexit. That is a mistake.

Whole interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...55789.html

Interesting reading. I think he misses a critical point that those red lines of hers aren't necessarily personal: they are what would be needed to get a good chunk of the Tory party together, like the ERG. Anything less than that she probably judged as unworkable to get through parliament, especially after the GE. As much as I think May is an idiot and should never have been PM, I suspect she's had this route to a no deal/deal scenario planned out ever since the GE.

Anyway, the ERG have thrown down the gauntlet, and if they get what they want then I can see the amended withdrawal agreement passing. I just don't see Ireland agreeing to it without the arms being twisted by Germany and Italy. Which probably leads to a no deal and the most destabilising scenario for the EU: leave an open border into the EU or cut Ireland out of the common market for goods and huge arguments.

This isn't a negotiation between the UK government and the EU. It is a negotiation between the UK parliament and the 27 EU members heads of state with the two aforementioned parties as the negotiators.

[Krill]

The EU is falling apart

Quite the opposite : this mess has proven that the EU is far more united than everyone thought. The fact that it has spoken with only one voice throughout the Brexit negotiations (the voice of Michel Barnier), that even the most unruly members like Hungary and Poland stayed in line, and that literally no other country is seriously speaking of leaving the EU (despite the fears that brexit would make others follow suit) are very good signs for the stability and strength of the union.

There is a difference between unity in Brexit negotiations and the actual functioning of the EU as a whole entity. I think we have to wait and see what happens now: Ireland is almost certainly not going to get the backstop it wants, if this causes a no deal Brexit then RoI has to choose between the Belfast agreement and the EU common market, unless something unexpected occurs. Then there is the lack of a counter balance to Germany, and how that will affect internal politics.

Hungary is basically shitting on EU policy regarding immigrants. What happens when Brexit isn't at the forefront of everyone's minds I watching with interest.

[Gavagai]

In resepect to Ireland, I just want to humbly point out that this precedent exists: https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/treaty_establ...ae37f.html

While Germany was split into two countries, Western Germany was a member of proto-EU, while Eastern one wasn't. Somehow, it did not prevent them from having an open (well, semi-open) border between each other at all. There is no reason why a similar solution cannot be adopted for the border between UK and Ireland. Also, this precedent shows, how much full of shit are EU apologists, when they try to construct a narrative that humiliating conditions, being forced upon the UK, are somehow a legal inevitability.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Spain would veto any sensible deal because they don't want to give special treatment to NI because it's an endorsement of them and therefore an endorsement of Catalan. So it's ether my ignore border mandate idea (which lets Spain off the hook) or a non-Brexit Brexit. EU won't tolerate it forever but ignore border mandate passes the heat to Ireland and causing the Belfast agreement to collapse isn't that bad anymore because the IRA is crippled by 9/11.

[AdrienIer]

Spain is tempted to veto a deal that isn't good for them because they want Gibraltar back, and they think they might get it back if there's no deal (Gibraltar can't survive without free access to Spain, where they get most of their goods).

As for Gavagai's example, either the WTO rules have changed since the early 90s or the WTO countries didn't sue at the time because they accepted the situation. There's no way that none of the WTO countries neighboring the EU sues if the Irish border gets a pass.

Edit : scratch that, the WTO didn't exist before 1995, hence why the German situation could exist back then. Do you mind looking things up before you post Gavagai ?

Edit : Only West Germany was a member of GATT, the WTO's predecessor

[MJW (ya that one)]

WTO gives you an out if there's a "national security" issue. Due to the IRA it would be a shoe-in. EU would put too much pressure on Ireland through.