Eurozone Sovereign Debt Crisis part 2 - Ireland

[Jason]

Presumably we can at last say that Chequers is dead. Tusk has basically slung it out. This is the outcome of Salzburg I thought most likely, and I'm pleased it's a clear outcome. I think it is essential to get rid of Chequers as a prelude to a free trade deal talk.

Sterling seems to think I'm right. It's well up today (against the US$) and the punters are bullish.

May must now "pivot". The idea seems to be that she must chuck Chequers and get through a decent exit deal. This can be done by May, so it doesn't need a change of PM. Basically it will be Canada+++ or nothing. I think there is more chance of Canada+++ than many punters imagine, but I agree it is no better than 50/50. We have progress!

(News from about 2am last night is that Ian Paisley survived the recall petition that would have triggered a by-election. This would have been messy, and meant the government would be one MP down through the autumn. It's a little bit of good news among the general muddles.)

 

[eurotop40]

Did you listen to Junkers speech, vetoes are going to be a thing of the past, by hook or by crook this will be done

Do you think you are still a superpower? Nope, sorry for you!

 

[dandelion]

The idea seems to be that she must chuck Chequers and get through a decent exit deal. This can be done by May, so it doesn't need a change of PM. Basically it will be Canada+++ or nothing

Hmm. I heard someone on the radio discussing the canada deal today. Never mind adding any plusses to it, they observed that in order to accept a similar deal the Uk would have to accept the supremacy of EU law

As this is supposedly a british red line, it has much the same problems as the chequers deal.

The problem, of course, is that any sort of trade deal requires giving up sovereignty. The more powerful your partner, the more you have to give up. It seems Canada is already in thrall to the EU in a way leavers cannot accept.

But I would agre with you Jason, what May has been doing is going through all options for Brxit and rejecting them one by one. Once there are none left, then she will anounce we must remain.

 

[Jason]

...they observed that in order to accept a similar deal the Uk would have to accept the supremacy of EU law....

People say some fool things, including whomever it is you've been listening to here. The trick is to call out fools as fools.

Canada is a sovereign state. The laws of the nation and of the provinces of Canada are subject to the Constitution of Canada. There is a limited role for aboriginal law. Canada emphatically has not accepted the supremacy of EU law.

 

[southeastone]

Do you think you are still a superpower? Nope, sorry for you!

What the hell are you talking about, do you actually speak English, troll

 

[eurotop40]

What the hell are you talking about, do you actually speak English, troll

Another one who has no idea how the EU works.

 

[798686]

Do you think you are still a superpower? Nope, sorry for you!

We haven't thought that since, WW2 - if we even did then.

The last time we were a superpower was back in the 20s, nearly a hundred years ago when we passed the mantle on to the States.

The mantle may now pass on - or be wrested away by the EU.

I do feel the US has lost its way lately. However, the EU taking its place - which I do feel will happen, sooner or later - is not necessarily a good thing, and may actually be very bad.

Whatever you think of the US and Britain, when in power, they tend to be fairly benign, and fairly generous. I categorically think this is untrue of the EU now, and nor is it likely to be at any time in the future.

 

[Drifterwood]

We haven't thought that since, WW2 - if we even did then.

The last time we were a superpower was back in the 20s, nearly a hundred years ago when we passed the mantle on to the States.

The mantle may now pass on - or be wrested away by the EU.

I do feel the US has lost its way lately. However, the EU taking its place - which I do feel will happen, sooner or later - is not necessarily a good thing, and may actually be very bad.

Whatever you think of the US and Britain, when in power, they tend to be fairly benign, and fairly generous. I categorically think this is untrue of the EU now, and nor is it likely to be at any time in the future.

My default is that the EU will not be a superpower in the traditional sense. However it may be in a new sense, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. Juncker would not be there if we had a serious President a la US, China and Russia.

The Anglo Saxon Supremacists have this as their real agenda. I.e they want to stop it. I consider this a very dangerous position, and one reason I oppose the forces that are really behind Brexit.

 

[eurotop40]

We haven't thought that since, WW2 - if we even did then.
The last time we were a superpower was back in the 20s, nearly a hundred years ago when we passed the mantle on to the States.
The mantle may now pass on - or be wrested away by the EU.
I do feel the US has lost its way lately. However, the EU taking its place - which I do feel will happen, sooner or later - is not necessarily a good thing, and may actually be very bad.
Whatever you think of the US and Britain, when in power, they tend to be fairly benign, and fairly generous. I categorically think this is untrue of the EU now, and nor is it likely to be at any time in the future.

Hum, do you believe all this propaganda?

 

[dandelion]

People say some fool things, including whomever it is you've been listening to here. The trick is to call out fools as fools.

Canada is a sovereign state. The laws of the nation and of the provinces of Canada are subject to the Constitution of Canada. There is a limited role for aboriginal law. Canada emphatically has not accepted the supremacy of EU law.

The Uk is a sovereign state. It is subject to the constitution of the UK (er, very little, but what there is). This is unaffected by our membership of the EU any more than is Canada.The Uk has emphatically not accepted the supremacy of EU law.

The situation of canada with regard to its EU trade deal is just the same as ours now as members of the EU.

The huge lie at the heart of brexit is that it is possible to have any trade deal without sharing sovereignty. The bigger the deal, the more power sharing has to happen. The EU is a trade deal between 28 nations. In order for everyone to have a fair say in how it works the members set up an independent civil service and arbitration court. The commission and ECJ. It tacked on a parliament, because people wanted more voter input into how it worked and changed in the future, rather than just being agreed by the governments of the nations involved.

The EU is the biggest international trade organisation in the world. If leavers want the biggest trade deal in the world, then they have to be wiling to give up as much independence as we do now. Whether those deals are with the EU or with some other trade group.

Canada deal is smaller, but basically the Canadians accept certain areas of EU law where they apply to things in the deal. If we want a Canada type deal, then we have to accept EU law.

People muddle sovereignty and delegation. All leavers do. The Uk is absolutely sovereign, but has delegated certain powers to the EU. The definition of sovereignty is that we have the right to take that back. Scotland is not sovereign because any powers exercised in scotland by eg the scottish government are simply loaned to it by westminster. It is exactly the same with the EU.

 

[dandelion]

We haven't thought that since, WW2 - if we even did then.

Of course we thought we were a superpower in ww2. We were a superpower in ww2.

The last time we were a superpower was back in the 20s, nearly a hundred years ago when we passed the mantle on to the States.

No. WW2 was the killer blow. We could not have fought ww2 unless we had still been a superpower.

However, it is pretty plain many people still think we are a superpower, and in some ways we are. We have a large economy, and more control is exerted around the world today financially than militarily. The USSR was brought down by economics, not guns. But leaving the EU would immediately reduce our world status because we would lose out power to direct a block 10x bigger than us. It is also to be expected our economy will shrink relative to the rest of the world.

I do feel the US has lost its way lately.

Indeed it has. Free trade has passed its sell by date as a net benefit to the US. So they will dismantle it. And at just this moment people are saying we should leave the trade block we belong to with nothing to replace it.

Whatever you think of the US and Britain, when in power, they tend to be fairly benign,

Gosh, no. The arab world is in flames because of our meddling. We trashed Africa. We set back Indian development 200 years.

The EU is remarkably benign as a world power block. It interferes little with other nations, and even gives preferential terms to poor developing countries. It has concentrated on developing the european economy and thereby maintaining the status of all its members in the world economy.

 

[Jason]

@dandelion EU law has primacy over national law. This is the ruling of the ECJ. Nation states have laws which are supreme for the purposes of leaving the EU - they may leave according to their constitutional requirements. In all other areas the EU legal structures trump the national structures. Nation state laws are around the manner of implementation of EU laws within local areas.

The EU doesn't have a written constitution. It does have Treaties, which are in effect a constitution. The intersection between national and EU constitutional issues is developing. The EU has demonstrated that it can topple a referendum result (Greece), can topple a government (Italy), can sanction a nation (Hungary). It is now trying to topple the UK's Brexit referendum.

The old USSR in theory gave self-government to its constituent republics. It even had the concept that they could succeed from the USSR, and noted that every one had an external border. This is the sort of self-government the EU gives. The nations of the USSR only escaped when the USSR fell. The UK is attempting to leave the EU while the EU still stands. The difficulties involved demonstrate just how powerful the EU is.

 

[dandelion]

@dandelion EU law has primacy over national law. This is the ruling of the ECJ.

That is only the case because an act of the Uk parliament gives the DCJ the right to speak -in effect as an english court empowered by the english parliament - on all matters relating to the EU treaty.

The EU doesn't have a written constitution. It does have Treaties, which are in effect a constitution.

So what? The Un similarly has a constitution defined by treaty. The UK has made treaties - a form of power sharing - throughout its history.

The EU has demonstrated that it can topple a referendum result (Greece),

I really dont know what you are arguing Jason. greece could leave the EU any time, and you have repeatedly argued it should over the years. It is sovereign. It is in a bad situation. But Britain has similarly had to accept outside control, such as from the world bank or when accepting US loans in WW2.

The greeks bankrupted themselves on foreign loans. There are lots of examples of this in history. We have seen examples of nations reneging on international agreements, and it often ends badly with a failed state. The Greeks screwed themselves, just as British leavers are trying to screw the UK.

 

[Jason]

That is only the case because an act of the Uk parliament gives the ECJ the right to speak -in effect as an english court empowered by the english parliament - on all matters relating to the EU treaty.

This is sophistry.

Actions of the UK parliament have indeed been necessary to give the EU supremacy in ALL aspects of law save those relating to leaving the EU. However they cannot in any practical way be reversed.

If the EU passes a new law saying that 10% of widgets must be painted blue then the UK has two options:
* it can agree and pass the enabling legislation in the UK.
* it can leave the EU.
This is the choice presented for every single law. It's also the choice presented by judgments in the courts of EU nations, where subsidiarity means that the judgment in any one has effect in all. In particular codified law - civil law - is intruding on common law.

What is left for the UK (and every EU nation state) is the minutiae of how EU laws are to be enacted in the relevant jurisdictions. The EU is all powerful. The EU parliament can pass laws but - wait for it - cannot repeal laws. The whole system works to establish a dictatorship.

 

[eurotop40]

@dandelion EU law has primacy over national law. This is the ruling of the ECJ. Nation states have laws which are supreme for the purposes of leaving the EU - they may leave according to their constitutional requirements. In all other areas the EU legal structures trump the national structures. Nation state laws are around the manner of implementation of EU laws within local areas.

The EU doesn't have a written constitution. It does have Treaties, which are in effect a constitution. The intersection between national and EU constitutional issues is developing. The EU has demonstrated that it can topple a referendum result (Greece), can topple a government (Italy), can sanction a nation (Hungary). It is now trying to topple the UK's Brexit referendum.

The old USSR in theory gave self-government to its constituent republics. It even had the concept that they could succeed from the USSR, and noted that every one had an external border. This is the sort of self-government the EU gives. The nations of the USSR only escaped when the USSR fell. The UK is attempting to leave the EU while the EU still stands. The difficulties involved demonstrate just how powerful the EU is.

Oh come on, stop this propaganda bullshit by Putin.

 

[dandelion]

This is sophistry. Actions of the UK parliament have indeed been necessary to give the EU supremacy in ALL aspects of law save those relating to leaving the EU. However they cannot in any practical way be reversed.

No, it is not sophistry. The rules could be changed tomorrow by another act of parliament. In fact, you may not have heard, but right now a rather more sophisticated package aimed at stripping the ECJ of its powers is going through parliament!

It is absolutely no different in principle to your local council having been given powers to fine people whose dogs foul in their local park.

If the EU passes a new law saying that 10% of widgets must be painted blue then the UK has two options:
* it can agree and pass the enabling legislation in the UK.
* it can leave the EU.

If the local council warden fines you over you dog, you have two options. You can pay the fine. Or you can lobby pariament to change the law. Its the same. Maybe you heard of Nigel Farage? He lobbied parliament to get the EU law changed.....


The Eu is no different to the UN or any other international treaty. Any country can join if it agrees to follow the rules. It can try to negotiate to change the rules. But if the others say they like the rules as they are, then every country has a simple right to exercise its sovereignty to join or not to join. The Uk must choose if it wants to be in this group, or not. What is so difficult or strange about that?

If you dont like the local council's policy on dogs, maybe best not to use that park, eh? But it is your sovereign right to choose.

 

[Jason]

Theresa May has just made a speech outside Downing Street. My first thought is relief that she hasn't called an election, which was the announcement last made in this way. Phew!

I think I need to eat umbles pie! I've been very critical of May. However I've agreed with what she has said here. She has addressed the issue of the lack of respect from Tusk and some other EU leaders.She has pointed out that Brexit means leaving single market and customs union and with the integrity of the UK intact. And she has pointed out that at this stage in negotiations it is up to the EU negotiators to set out what they think is wrong with Chequers and what their alternative proposal is - it is not acceptable for them to just reject everything.

I think the background is that the EU had led May to think Chequers would be accepted. She has taken an enormous political risk to push for it.

 

[Jason]

No, it is not sophistry. The rules could be changed tomorrow by another act of parliament. In fact, you may not have heard, but right now a rather more sophisticated package aimed at stripping the ECJ of its powers is going through parliament!

It is absolutely no different in principle to your local council having been given powers to fine people whose dogs foul in their local park.

If the local council warden fines you over you dog, you have two options. You can pay the fine. Or you can lobby pariament to change the law. Its the same. Maybe you heard of Nigel Farage? He lobbied parliament to get the EU law changed.....

Your analogy does actually stand up. The nation states in the EU have powers comparable to local authorities. This is clearest in Greece where the parliament has acknowledged the loss of power, but it is fast coming throughout all EU nations.

 

[Jason]

It seems to me that the probability has moved firmly in the direction of a no deal Brexit.

Polls on how people think about Brexit are inconsistent. There have been four proper ones, two supporting Remain and two supporting Leave. All four are close to 50/50. All political parties and focus groups are using focus groups to inform their own thinking. Results are consistent: there is a clear majority for Leave, and it is firming. This of course conflicts with the social media Remoaners.

Strictly the UK needs to do nothing for Brexit to happen with no deal. In practice there will be some sort of parliamentary challenge, and it will come down to a vote. Right now May very probably has the votes to get no deal through. Most Conservative MPs will do what the whip suggests. There is a Conservative Remoaner fringe, maybe 12MPs. If they voted against in a block it would make it tight. However there are a few Labour Leavers. Probably No Deal would go through parliament.Certainly MPs' realisation that this is what the nation wants will help.

We're therefore looking at a No Deal Brexit. This includes:
* UK guaranteeing residence of EU nationals presently in UK (and negotiating for reciprocity from foreign nations).
* No divorce payment.
* Northern Ireland border completely open. (Indeed UK-EU border completely open.)
* Immediate trade deals between UK and other nations.

Even No Deal probably has an element of transition.

In political terms this is interesting. I think a No Deal Brexit will unite the Conservative Party. After March 2019 we're looking therefore at a united Conservative Party+DUP facing an increasingly fractured opposition. The arithmetic is tight but it is a majority. The government can get all ordinary legislation through. The obvious scenario is for Con+DUP to agree a formal pact (stressing the solidity of the government) and for the government to go full-term, to 2022.

 

[dandelion]

she has pointed out that at this stage in negotiations it is up to the EU negotiators to set out what they think is wrong with Chequers and what their alternative proposal is - it is not acceptable for them to just reject everything.

Seriously Jason? off the top of my head... the EU requires all disputes will be resolved by binding judgement of ECJ. May says impossible. EU will expect agreement NI will permanently adhere to EU regulations. DUP says whatever happens in N Ireland must happen In mainland. May says cannot have all EU rules in mainland. Uk side rules out chequers or anything else where NI and EU have different setups.

I think the background is that the EU had led May to think Chequers would be accepted. She has taken an enormous political risk to push for it.

I think the background is May needed the EU to show it was resolute and could not change its offer. So May went along with an offer both sides knew was a non starter, and they kindly obliged her efforts to prove she is really really trying by rejecting it.