EU & Brexit Bunker

[PurplePenguin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some rumour about them wanting to join the EU?

Taiwan then. Or Georgia. Or Mongolia. Or Uruguay Or a lot of places

 

[briantrumpet]

Taiwan then. Or Georgia. Or Mongolia. Or Uruguay Or a lot of places

I'm sure we want to be like Mongolia or Uruguay. Very aspirational.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now, now we've discarded Ukraine as being a good advert for 'sovereignty'.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I'm sure we want to be like Mongolia or Uruguay. Very aspirational.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make now, now we've discarded Ukraine as being a good advert for 'sovereignty'.

The presence of a large neighbouring country/trading block does not mean that every country should join it.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Well there are whispers……

POLITICS Finland’s president says EU should expand to 40 states — including Canada

 

[briantrumpet]

The presence of a large neighbouring country/trading block does not mean that every country should join it.

I'm not sure then that Mongolia or Uruguay are great examples for your thesis. Unless by 'sovereignty' you mean not having any global significance or influence, and having a tiny economy. (Uruguay's entire economy is less than the projected cost of HS2 alone.)

Maybe you could find some/any that have left a successful trading bloc and improved their economy or global significance.

Taiwan, I'll admit is an outlier, though I suspect China makes it more than a little nervous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Taiwan

 

[Psamathe]

And, NATO is not the only organisation with a "mutual defence" clause. EU membership also includes mutual defence but for EU members, Article 42.7 TEU https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meet..._/sede200612mutualdefsolidarityclauses_en.pdf

If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Well there are whispers……

POLITICS Finland’s president says EU should expand to 40 states — including Canada

Empires are always looking to expand.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I'm not sure then that Mongolia or Uruguay are great examples for your thesis. Unless by 'sovereignty' you mean not having any global significance or influence, and having a tiny economy. (Uruguay's entire economy is less than the projected cost of HS2 alone.)

Maybe you could find some/any that have left a successful trading bloc and improved their economy or global significance.

Taiwan, I'll admit is an outlier, though I suspect China makes it more than a little nervous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Taiwan

I think the days of Britain building an empire have gone. I don't see the relevance of global significance, but then this discussion is like trying to make the pope question his faith.

To answer your question Hong Kong, Taiwain and Singapore all did economically better outside of their protectionist neighbours. I'd also assume that some countries did well when gaining independence from Britain.

But really, Brexit was never about economics. You just refuse to accept that.

 

[TailWindHome]

The most alarming thing is the way that some people actually believe this. The same people will become outraged over the idea of the UK deporting refugees to Rwanda whilst wildly cheering when the EU comes up with a plan to deport refugees to.. Rwanda. It must be a good idea when the EU does it.

Are they not different schemes?

 

[briantrumpet]

But really, Brexit was never about economics. You just refuse to accept that.

Obviously Brexit wasn't about economics, otherwise they'd never have been able to argue for it. It was about unicorns, not sovereignty. But neither words have any real meaning in the modern world, which you refuse to accept, I'd argue.

 

[Psamathe]

I think the days of Britain building an empire have gone. I don't see the relevance of global significance, but then this discussion is like trying to make the pope question his faith.

To answer your question Hong Kong, Taiwain and Singapore all did economically better outside of their protectionist neighbours. I'd also assume that some countries did well when gaining independence from Britain.

I found travelling in India (solo, independently, local buses, 0-1 star hotels, etc). Talking to locals getting onto more serious topics I'd tend to focus on the different religions and sects within them, etc. But sometimes Indians would raise the impact of British rule and it was interesting as they didn't focus on the atrocities committed with partition but more infrastructure. Some regarded British rule as putting them where they are today, building infrastructure, communications and considered that India from before the British would not have developed to the extent it has. Others didn't feel that way.

And mostly civil discussions, only once attacked probably for being British and that was in the street not even talking to anybody but probably related to my location - a city where the British committed a horrendous atrocity/massacre.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Obviously Brexit wasn't about economics, otherwise they'd never have been able to argue for it. It was about unicorns, not sovereignty. But neither words have any real meaning in the modern world, which you refuse to accept, I'd argue.

Not sure I have ever argued in favour of unicorns other than the rainbow variety.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Are they not different schemes?

Yes, they are a bit. The UK wanted to send all applicants there, but never had the capacity to actually do that, so was simply planning/hoping to send some applicants there. The EU wants somewhere to ship failed applicants. You can argue the EU's scheme is morally better, but you'd also need to consider that the the UK courts successfully stopped all deportations whereas I suspect the EU courts won't, or to put it another way, the EU is more likely to succeed at being bad.

 

[TailWindHome]

Yes, they are a bit.

More than a bit
The UK plan was to process applications there and for sucessful applicants to stay there
A bug bear how the Rwanda scheme only reached the meagre level of support it when was knowingly misdescribed as a processomg centre.

 

[PurplePenguin]

More than a bit
The UK plan was to process applications there and for sucessful applicants to stay there

I said this. Did I need to add some emphasis on the word failed?

In any case, the UK failed to send anyone there, so you could really call it a glorified scheme designed to be a bit off putting.