Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» CONGRATS! HIP HIP HOORAY! "EU and Britain struck a Brexit trade deal"! A long time coming BUT SUCCESS AT LAST! What's not to like about it?
I think it quite odd that you ask that question E. Must everything you consider or talk about have an effect on YOU or you're not interested? I find that sad if in fact that is what you are implying here. I ask questions that occur to me because I can. Why do you answer them? Thank you for your reply. Carry on as you must needs do.
The question..."Why do you answer them?" Your reply. "I included you". That does not compute. Apologies. It must be my brain that cannot comprehend. SIGH. Not the first time nor the last. One of many.
The UK leaving the EU won't itself affect America, but what may be of concern in your country are any consequent effects on international agreements and protocols involving the USA and either or both of the UK and EU.
One thing that probably won't happen will be significant changes to things like product safety and quality described by EU legislation, even if the letter-headings on the paperwork change, because the EU and UK still need to trade with each other. So that ought not affect trading goods already covered by such standards.
However, what actually will happen, or won't, is buried in the 1000+ pages of the agreement, and remains to be seen.
The sheer complexity of it all, re-inforced by the EU's intransigence, is largely due two aspects of the EU. Firstly it is an extremely secretive, undemocratic and bureaucratic tangle whose regulations permeate almost every aspect of life, particularly commerce. Further, it and its predecessor European Economic Community* has always harboured lofty federal dreams and has never wanted any country to leave, especially any country that profits it by paying more tax-payers' money to it than it is given back in grants and subsidies.
The UK, France, Germany and Italy were the organisation's main sources of income, I think roughly equally, so it's easy to see why it keeps plaintively saying, "We don't want Britain to leave".
'
*Great Britain joined the E.E.C. , not the "Common Market" we were told it was. That was UK Prime Minister, Edward Heath's name for it, along with his claim that it was simply a trading and mutual assistance association. He knew and supported, but publicly denied, its long-term federal aims. He is even alleged to have been given a handsome personal cash "award" (tax-payers' cash!) for signing the accession papers; though proving or disproving that may be impossible.
The EEC / EU has never been very popular with its citizens, depending on the balance of cost and benefits they see; but anyway the citizenry are rarely if ever told much about or consulted on EU activities, and have very little say in its affairs beyond electing Members of the European Parliament. I have heard a credible suspicion that the EU made leaving as hard and nasty as it could for the UK, to deter calls for independence in other countries; but anyway some of the individuals on the EU side were also pushing their own countries', not just bloc, interests.
It has taken a few years to get accomplished and as an outsider I never did understand why. You refer to 1000 pages of whatever the agreement is. Our most recent proposed bill was something like 5500 pages! No joke. The better to hide what you slide in that benefits you. Who is going to read 1000 pages let alone 5500? It what the knaves and robbers do. I guess it's everywhere only in the US we have perfected it! The original intention was not met for the U.K. Durdle? There was not enough in it for your country and so you understandably wanted out? I don't understand my own country's political machinations so I certainly don't understand those of other countries. I do think the US has more corrupt crooked criminals in places of power than anywhere else. I'm going to ask if others agree. Think the U.K. will be better off now? Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)
Believe me, many people here don't understand why either!
I think the agreement is around 1200 pages, a good many being taken by assorted annexes. They will be, and are being read, by those paid to understand it - principally politicians, the civil-service and bodies like the Confederation of British Industries; but the BBC has told us all, "it has obtained a copy". Interesting phrase: it could be all innocent or could suggest subterfuge to find whatever the EU is trying to hide. The EU has consistently been secretive, but in any case has been so poorly reported by the Press and broadcasters, and never investigated; that it is almost impossible for we tax-payers supporting it to know much about its actions.
W are not out of the woods yet though as the EU is determined to let no-one leave without a fight, and I don't think many people in Britain appreciate that.
It acts as a de facto State, complete with internally-selected Presidents of the European Commission (EC) and of the EU itself; a "Parliament" of publicly-elected Members but "parliament" in name only (just a single-chamber, single-sided talking-shop), and the central EC.
The EC is supposedly the EU's administrative civil-service but in practice creates most of the unstoppable river of rules and regulations. It issues them as 'Directives' to the "parliament" for rubber-stamping for national governments to transcribe into their own legal systems, usually without material change.
There are two further bodies: - The Council of Ministers is of each nation's governmental representatives, and they too are responsible for policy and law-making, but I do not know how or to what extent. - The European Court of Justice - not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights. The ECJ deals with disputes between member-countries and the EU, or with each other. The ECHR is an entirely separate organisation.
To be fair the EU has brought a few good things, though ones that any modern democracy should establish for itself anyway. The "open-borders" and "single-market" policies do facilitate international trade, travel, technical, educational and security exchanges and co-operation - but only within the bloc, not with the rest of the world. Two smaller examples: the Working Time Directive attempts to prevent exploitative, enforced over-time. The tachographs fitted to all large lorries and buses help road safety by logging drivers' hours at the wheel, and vehicle speeds, to support compliance with the respective legal limits.
The EU is also a powerful voice internationally, though regimes like Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Turkey ignore or refute any criticism from anyone anyway. (The EU refused Turkey's requests to join, due to President Erdoghan's increasing tyranny. Unfortunately that encouraged Turkey to ally herself more closely with Putin's Russian Federation.)
' Yet, the Commission was also ruthlessly responsible for the annual auditors having to admit being unable to balance the EU's books year after year: a combination of bad financial systems, waste, mis-management, corruption - and the EC actively preventing investigations.
A de facto State; and a very acquisitive, protectionist one at that. Hence the four years of political battle and brinkmanship.
'
Even before this though, the United Kingdom and the earlier European Economic Community were never a good marriage. France's former President, Charles de Gaulle, consistently objected to Britain joining because he knew it would not work properly for either side and he feared Britain having too much say - perhaps he thought that was France's role. On the other hand the USA wanted Britain to join, to reduce Britain's international influence. Heath lied about its nature, so talked Britain into voting for joining, in a referendum. (Years later, the EU has been known to demanded countries' referenda that rejected consolidation treaties, be repeated to return the correct acceptance.)
The whole thing sprang from a small group of continental European countries of roughly similar economies, societies and legal principles, forming an alliance of mutual trading co-operation and significantly, hoping that deeper co-operation would put an end to the centuries of fractiousness that culminated in the two World Wars.
So laudable aims, and all it ever needed was a simple set of treaties; but it went well beyond that and became an unstoppable force of its own. The most common effect on most people's lives is that businesses and voluntary bodies alike have become saddled with well-meaning but increasingly expensive, bureaucratic regulations (for balance, often "gold-plated" beyond the Directive's intentions and texts by nervous national politicians, local administrators and insurers); and with the Byzantine complexities of Value Added Tax on sales of goods and services. Britain also had to abandon its currency in favour of a decimal system - precursor to the Euro we luckily rejected - and weights and measures had to go metric. The latter was probably inevitable anyway, and the USA is now virtually the only country not enforcing the SI system of units for everyday as well as technical purposes.
Among the various fears raised around Europe, not only in the UK, are the losses of national sovereignity and identity. The EU's full title is the European Union of the Cities and Regions - no mention of nations. One fear crucial for Britain, would be of eventual, uniform adherence to the Napoleonic Code already common in Europe, under which jury trials would be abolished and the burden of proof transferred from prosecutor to defendant - you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. Whether the EU ever intended that officially, I have no idea, but it would not surprise me.
' So you are by no means alone in not understanding Brexit "machinations"... Nor do most of us, not properly anyway.
' There is a further "EU" - but happily it has nothing to do with the political entity. It is the EBU - the European Broadcasting Union; a live-broadcast exchange scheme set up by the BBC with its parallels in other countries some 50 years ago. Though mainly of British, Irish, continental European and Icelandic sharing, it does also facilitate such events as relaying an annual season of weekly, live matinee performances in the Metropolitan Opera House, New York. X
Oh my goodness Durdle. Thank you so much for sharing an extremely comprehensive sketch of what is involved. You do know that it is very DENSE information wise and so one reading is not enough. My head is spinning and I don't know what hit me figuratively. It is not good to know that things are so complicated and red tapey and secretive and sotto voce and clandestine. Government is the same everywhere? Tell us the least they can get away with as they engage in internecine warfare over the dibs and dabs of strongarming and powerplays? Geez. It seems the more you get into something the MORE COMPLEX you find it is. That is not the way it should be or is supposed to be...correct? The more you investigate the more you should understand but the deeper you go the more obfuscation you find. A shell game of sorts. We the people never win. Take care. Be of good cheer. I'd rather say that than OH MY GAWD.
They are not trying to indulge in internecine warfare but the EU's own governments will naturally try to put their own countries first. The real power-play is between the EU and any country wanting to leave it, whether the UK now or any other in future.
The whole thing is going to take a long time to settle down. Two victims of the leaving are security and science.
The first because it looks as if the UK's Police will no longer be able to share data on suspect individuals and criminal groups with their EU colleagues, at least not to the extent they could.
Science because it is so international, and British involvement in major, pan-European research projects is likely to end. It will also make it very hard for many individuals to carry out their own studies, from PhD projects upwards, because visits and meetings will become more difficult.
I think most of the obfuscation and red tape is not wilful, but results from the peculiar Law of Nature that bureaucracy begets more bureaucracy without anyone stopping to ask its need.
I have had some personal experiences of this. One of my hobbies was hit by a particular set of regulations, and the English-law version of the Directive shows that although concerned with engineering safety, that seemed secondary to making work for expensive test-laboratories and creating trade-barriers. I also once saw the Minutes of a meeting by some mystery committee that advises the Commission. It was about fork-lift truck safety, but what really showed was its anonymity, identifying delegates only by their countries, not personal names. If you see anything imported from an EU manufacturer with "CE" stamped or engraved on it, that marking hides a vast tangle of expensive testing and paper-work. If it's from China, there is some evidence of China cheating the system, especially with goods below the required technical standards.
"We the people never win". No - we don't, not in circumstances like this. Even if we are asked our opinion. The UK's vote to leave the EU was very close, something like 52 / 48, and highly-regional. It's very likely that in the 4 years since the referendum, many will reversed their views in either direction.
Much of the Leave campaign was thanks to the United Kingdom Independence Party, brave enough to expose the EU's darker deeds. It became the country's 4th largest in membership, frightening the three established and largely pro-EU ones by coming close to winning UK Parliamentary seats - it had already won European Parliamentary seats. The Conservative Party took the wind out of its sails by campaigning on a Leave ticket. UKIP though, caused itself terrible damage by being utterly unable to withstand close questioning in broadcast interviews; and having no clear post-EU policies likely to be popular. Its last straw was probably its new Chairman, Gerald Batten, appointing as "advisor" Steven Yaxley-Lennon, the self-styled "Tommy Robinson" who had led the deeply-unpleasant little British National Party. SY-L could not join UKIP as it barred extremists of Left and Right, but appointing "Robinson" even just as "advisor" played right into UKIP's hardest opponents' hands.
You showed us a very complex tapestry m'dear. The closer you get the more you can see but only in detail. To get the big picture you have to stand back. Geez Durdle is there anything simple in life or is complexity the basis? So many moving parts..so many different angles..motives...goals. A kaleidoscope of moving patterns. But boxed in very tightly. When it is all finalized over and done will it have been worth it? Joining in the first place? Anything of value that came from it for your country? Thank you for the comprehensive detail you shared. I guess every country has its burdens. :(
This post was edited by RosieG at December 29, 2020 3:15 AM MST
No, you are right , there is nothing simple in life. I don't think anyone can confidently predict what 2021 will bring from "Brexit".
At the worst time as well with a rapid increase in Covid infections in Britain, bringing most of the country now having to live under tighter restrictions that for some regions including London, amount to new lock-downs.
Being in the EU brought some benefits, apart from the spurious questions of "grants" that were never more than the EU returning for tightly-defined purposes, some of the vast sums of cash we'd paid it. The main benefit was that being with the EU meant the entire UK was within the supra-national border that granted many freedoms and accesses between EU nations at the same time as making life difficult for those outside.
On the other hand its actions as a federal State in the making, run by a remote (though non-partisan) bureaucracy accountable to no-one, suits no-one, Britain least of all.
I think it carries the seeds of its own destruction. If it carries on as it is the calls for independence will continue to increase, especially from countries not benefiting significantly from it. The many independence parties around Europe - and I do not mean the extremist ones that have appeared among them - will be watching carefully, and will be encouraged if they see Britain succeeding in independence. The EU of course will know that, and it may be why they have spent four years making things as difficult as possible.
All that was ever needed was a set of relatively simple treaties covering trade, travel, security etc. without compromising national autonomy; and overseen by a fairly small, non-secret Cabinet of respected, experienced, elected, senior politicians from each country, helped by neutral diplomats and civil-servants (translators etc.) as necessary.
The Scottish National Party still bleats about wanting an "independent Scotland at the heart of the EU". The Welsh has a similar lot. They don't see the contradiction. The SNP is undeniably popular in Scotland, led by Nicola Sturgeon who has only thinly-veiled contempt for England, the UK and the UK Government centred about 400 miles from Edinburgh - yet wants to be ruled by an international body in Brussels, unelected and physically twice as far away! Could be interesting that, as trade between England and Scotland would then be faced with an protectionist EU barrier that would also affect transport passing through England between Scotland and Europe; unless the Scots build major freight and passenger sea-ports for themselves; at vast cost. The country would also lose a lot of employment as British-owned establishments such as the Royal Navy bases, move out; whilst having to create and pay for its own public health, education, state pensions, road and railway provision, etc. services presently subsidised by the UK as a whole.
What is not well-known, leading to jibes about "isolationist" from pro-EU people, is that the UK is also a member of or signatory to nearly 100 separate, international treaties and organisations. A newly-independent Scotland or Wales would have to negotiate their own memberships anew, at their own expense.
Strange and interesting times ahead, for both of our countries, and for everyone else's....
I can only wish you a healthier and happier New Year than 2020 has been.
Element 99 