Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

'Forced to'. He would say that wouldn't he?

Norwegians refused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS_foreign_volunteers_and_conscripts#Norway

 

[Information Analyst]

'Forced to'. He would say that wouldn't he?

Norwegians refused.

Norwegians were not considered German, and were not conscripted into the Wehrmacht.

 

[fagin]

I think I see Vixen's train of thought here.

If he was a real hero man he could have refused. Then they would have shot him.
Jean Claude would never have been born.
He wouldn't be negotiating with May.
The UK would have got everything they wanted.
So it's all daddy's fault, the wimp.

 

[Information Analyst]

They were his fellows in that they were equally Luxembourgers, entitled to live their lives in peace and free from persecution and assault, just as much as he was.

No, he was 17 or 18 years old when the Germans started conscripting over 10,000 of his fellow Luxembourgers into the Wehrmacht. When workers struck in protest at this conscription, twenty of their leaders were summarily executed, and thousands more were arrested and tortured. Around a third of conscripts managed to desert, but similarly faced execution if caught, as would anyone sheltering them.

 

[Information Analyst]

Juncker likely grew up in a household and education environment that resented the Brit, just like Brits of the Baby Boomer generation seeing the Germans as baddies, as depicted in comics and popular culture.

Your baseless speculation is not fact.

Juncker should come clean and own up to exactly what his dad did in the war. Come clean and we can all get over it.

Do you seriously think that Juncker knows something that a hostile British media has never been able to uncover?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Probably no deal at is would be the closest to it. Although that would still have the Ireland question unresolved. I'm not sure what portion of the Brexiteers would have an issue with that

Nonsense it resolves the Ireland question. It is called a hard border with checkpoints.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Meanwhile

The cabinet is discussing whether to ramp up preparations for a no-deal Brexit amid uncertainty over the fate of Theresa May's proposed EU exit deal.

Ministers will set out how much money each department is being given to prepare, should the UK leave the EU on 29 March without a formal agreement.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46600850

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So when you said "fellow Jews", you actually meant to say "fellow Luxemburgers who, unlike him, were Jews"? Because that is definitely not what "fellow Jews" means.

And I'd add: when you said "that's how Juncker's father got to join the German army", you actually meant to say "that's why Juncker's father was conscripted into the German army"? Because that is definitely not what "got to join" means.

A pattern may be emerging.

We have an initial claim the man was an officer in the SS, doubling down with speculation that he must have been an ardent Nazi volunteer, and the reaction to being told over and over that the original claim is emphatically false is "He should come clean".

 

[Mojo]

Highlight mine.

So, what do you think Jean-Claude Juncker (b.1954) did in the war then?

Wrong. He was born 1950.

 

[Mid]

It has to be said if we're going to start throwing around what peoples ancestors did then it's probably not a game the British should be playing especially in relation to Ireland.

 

[Michel H]

The EEA observes the same rules as the EU on free movement of people, which seems to be one of the main things the Brixiteers object to. I'm not aware that he UK has at any time expressed any official wish to remain in the EEA, so "kicked out" is not an accurate way to represent the UK's projected status with regard to the EEA.

Dave

Regarding free movement of people, Sudarshan said in "Understanding the Brexit Vote: The Impact of Polish Immigrants on Euroscepticism":

... there are nearly one million Poles in the United Kingdom (UK) that benefit greatly from the EU and its subsequent easing of immigration to the UK and other European nations. ... Since Poland’s accession to the EU in 2004, Polish-born residents now account for well over 800,000 people, an addition of close to 750,000 people. As a result, Poland has overtaken India as the most common non-UK country of birth among UK residents.

(https://www.humanityinaction.org/kn...impact-of-polish-immigrants-on-euroscepticism )
It is possible that some native British people have been concerned about the large Polish immigration, and that this has been a factor in choosing Leave in the 2016 referendum.

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).
The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.
- Member countries will get a right to limit immigration from other European countries if they so desire. The UK, in particular, will be able limit European immigration to a maximum of 10,000 people annually.

Would such a proposal be useful to both parties (the UK and the EU)? Would it justify a second referendum, in which most current Brexiteers would now recommend a "yes" vote, in view of the known advantages of the single market and its four freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital and people) for growth and economic prosperity both in the UK and Europe (this is nicely explained here: https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ )?

 

[Amazer]

Would such a proposal be useful to both parties (the UK and the EU)? Would it justify a second referendum, in which most current Brexiteers would now recommend a "yes" vote, in view of the known advantages of the single market and its four freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital and people) for growth and economic prosperity both in the UK and Europe (this is nicely explained here: https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ )?

No, such a proposal would not be useful to both parties. I don't think it's particularly useful to expand on the reasons why it isn't useful because that would seem to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Mojo]

Erm, the war finished in 1945.

GRYTPYPE-THYNNE: “Sir, we are fleeing from the advancing German army.”
SEAGOON: “What? They gave in in 1945!”
GRYTPYPE-THYNNE: “Yes, but we are made of sterner stuff.”

Spike Milligan: “The One Million Pound Penny” (1958)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Regarding free movement of people, Sudarshan said in "Understanding the Brexit Vote: The Impact of Polish Immigrants on Euroscepticism":

(https://www.humanityinaction.org/kn...impact-of-polish-immigrants-on-euroscepticism )
It is possible that some native British people have been concerned about the large Polish immigration, and that this has been a factor in choosing Leave in the 2016 referendum.

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).
The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.
- Member countries will get a right to limit immigration from other European countries if they so desire. The UK, in particular, will be able limit European immigration to a maximum of 10,000 people annually.

Would such a proposal be useful to both parties (the UK and the EU)? Would it justify a second referendum, in which most current Brexiteers would now recommend a "yes" vote, in view of the known advantages of the single market and its four freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital and people) for growth and economic prosperity both in the UK and Europe (this is nicely explained here: https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ )?

You propose scrapping one of the four freedoms so that people can benefit from the four freedoms?

 

[Amazer]

You propose scrapping one of the four freedoms so that people can benefit from the four freedoms?

That was one of the reasons that I didn't think it very useful to explain why it wasn't useful.

 

[Olmstead]

Regarding free movement of people, Sudarshan said in "Understanding the Brexit Vote: The Impact of Polish Immigrants on Euroscepticism":

(https://www.humanityinaction.org/kn...impact-of-polish-immigrants-on-euroscepticism )
It is possible that some native British people have been concerned about the large Polish immigration, and that this has been a factor in choosing Leave in the 2016 referendum.

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).
The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.
- Member countries will get a right to limit immigration from other European countries if they so desire. The UK, in particular, will be able limit European immigration to a maximum of 10,000 people annually.

Would such a proposal be useful to both parties (the UK and the EU)? Would it justify a second referendum, in which most current Brexiteers would now recommend a "yes" vote, in view of the known advantages of the single market and its four freedoms (free movement of goods, services, capital and people) for growth and economic prosperity both in the UK and Europe (this is nicely explained here: https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/28/frictionless-trade-is-not-the-same-as-free-trade/ )?

Why would the EU agree to any of that? The UK never had the strong negotiation position Brexiters thought it had. That's why no one there likes the only deal they were able to get. It also lost any power to influence EU policies once it decided to leave. Giving in to such demeands would set a terrible precedent of countries threatening to leave the EU unless their demands are met. If the UK decides to remain, they will get the same deal as before or probably a deal that is a little worse.

 

[Michel H]

You propose scrapping one of the four freedoms so that people can benefit from the four freedoms?

No, not scrapping one of the four freedoms (free movement of people), just limiting it to a maximum of 10,000 people annually (for the UK, unless it agrees to more).

 

[Amazer]

No, not scrapping one of the four freedoms (free movement of people), just limiting it to a maximum of 10,000 people annually (for the UK).

Limiting it to a maximum = scrapping free movement

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now, let's assume the EU makes a new proposal to the UK, according to which:
- The British contribution to the European budget will be greatly reduced, from about 13 billion pounds each year (with rebate taken into account) to about 4 billion, so that the UK pays approximately what it gets from the EU (see https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/ ).
The European budget has to remain balanced, so this means the European "cohesion policy" (whose goal is to reduce regional disparity within the EU, using the European Regional Development Fund and other funds, see https://www.euronews.com/2018/03/06...d-poor-countries-eu-cohesion-policy-explained) will be greatly downsized.
- Member countries will get a right to limit immigration from other European countries if they so desire. The UK, in particular, will be able limit European immigration to a maximum of 10,000 people annually.

Would such a proposal be useful to both parties (the UK and the EU)?

I can see at a glance that it would be neither useful nor acceptable to the EU. It would involve a reduction in budget and a limitation on one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU, in direct violation of its founding principles, in order to accommodate a single dissident nation. The immediate outcome would be that 27 other countries would immediately demand the same concessions, the EU budget would be drastically curtailed, and freedom of movement would effectively end; and the benefit to the EU would be the remote possibility that the UK, whose initial choice to leave shows no sign of having been taken on rational grounds, would choose rationally to change its mind.

Dave

 

[Michel H]

Why would the EU agree to any of that? The UK never had the strong negotiation position Brexiters thought it had. That's why no one there likes the only deal they were able to get. It also lost any power to influence EU policies once it decided to leave. Giving in to such demeands would set a terrible precedent of countries threatening to leave the EU unless their demands are met. If the UK decides to remain, they will get the same deal as before or probably a deal that is a little worse.

I think that, if other countries have demands which are similar to those of the UK (the Netherlands, for example), they should get the same level of attention and concessions.