MV> Holland (in the sense of the merger of Noord Holland and Zuid Holland) MV> is a net contributor to The Netherlands. As is Nordrehein-Westfalen to MV> the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. So according to your logic it would be MV> just as realistic.
MV>>> Yes, it will be missed. For a while. And then we will move on. The MV>>> EU will survive without the UK and I do not believe it will MV>>> encourage others to follow. They will think twice before they give MV>>> up the benefits of membership.
RB>> Depends on whether they're net payers or net recipients. In the RB>> latter case, there would be more hesitation.
MV> Here we go again with that "net contributors, net benificiaries" MV> mantra.
Yep. And you shouldn't think I'm alone in thuinking of such things.
MV> Bob, there are no "net contributors". /Everyone is a net benficiary. MV> Those who believe they are net contributor use the wrong method of MV> calculation.
In other words, you'll call elections until you get the result you want? Your method of calculation being "naturally" the _only_ really _correct_ one. There have been other people who thought similarly, but in the end found that there are many roads to Rome.
MV>>> Yes we will have to pay more. We will survive and in the long run MV>>> the EU may be better off without having to drag the UK along by MV>>> their feet.
RB>> Oh? Then try to drag the Poles by their feet in their current crisis. RB>> And do the same for the Hungarians. Force the Danes to adhere to all RB>> EU directives. Foce the Swedes to adopt the Euro or get out.
MV> None of those is demanding a bettr deal and threatening to leave if MV> they don't get their way.
No, they got their way without any of that. Otherwise they wouldn't have joined in the first place. But times change and some of those who originally thought the EU was a great idea are becoming a bit skeptical about having their internal affairs dictated from external, non-elected bureaucracies. That's the crux of the matter.
RB>> And a few other things. You see only the rosebeds, but ignore the RB>> thorns.
MV> You only see the thorns and even refuse to acknowledge that there are MV> rosebuds.
I try to take an even path. You seem to be a bit one-sided, and I try to balance things by presenting arguments on the other side.
RB>>>> We already had enough crises - just think of the Greeks and the RB>>>> migrant crisis,
MV>>> We survived.
RB>> Did we? And just how do you figure that? The problems still exist, RB>> and can come to a boil again at any time.
MV> Greece does not want to leave the EU and the problem is manageble.
Is it? The IMF appears to have doubts, and the only reason the EU still pours good money after bad is that it fears a domino effect if Greece goes bust.
[Turkey] RB>> But it seems to me that Austria is the only EU member taking such a RB>> hard stance. The rest seem to be muddling through.
MV> Only a couple of weeks ago our government expelled a Turkish minister MV> who tried to meddle into our affaires.
True. Sorry I forgot that. But on the other hand, elections were coming up in the Netherlands and a soft stance with an opponent like Geert Wilders would have been political suicide.
MV>>> About a year ago, when it was decided there would be a referendum, I MV>>> already wrote "if they want to go, let them go". The UK had never MV>>> been a loyal member of the club. Always wanting the benefits but not MV>>> the liabilities. So, now that they HAVE decided they will go, I say MV>>> again: "let them go". I see a future for the EU without the UK. Now MV>>> we can move on.
RB>> To what?
MV> To a better Europe.
Unfortunately very naive. All you mean is thatr we sacrifice still more personal freedom for the questionalbe benefit of (perhaps, but not necessarily) more security.
MV> When the bad guys can cross the borders just like that, we need police MV> that can also cross the borders just like that to chase them. Closing MV> borders is no longer an option. We can't stop ever truck at the MV> border for inspection as we did 50 years ago. The would also set back MV> our economy by 50 years. So we need a police that can chase the MV> criminals across borders. Something like the FBI in the US. The UK has MV> always blocked that. Now ee can go ahaed.
You're talking about a "United States of Europe", which is exactly what many of the EU members rabidly reject. In the USA, "states rights" has been a major and sometimes violent political iussue since 1798 (the constitution), and there, most people came from one culture and spoke the same language.
How on earth do you think such a union could possibly succeed with many different cultures (some countries even have multiple cultures inside their own borders, like Belgium) and multiple languages? Hungary and Poland are only the beginning.
RB>> This attitude of revenge is certainly not going to get us anywhere RB>> desirable.
MV> It is not revenge. It is looking after our own interest.
And trying to "punish" the UK for it's unrequited love. And making an example of the UK to scare off any imitators. "Unions" based on force and coersion are rarely lasting.
RB>> Keep that up, and you'll have to push Denmark and Sweden to give up RB>> their special privileges - and start playing hardball with Poland and RB>> Hungary to force them into the EU line.
MV> None of them is threatening to leave...
Not YET.
RB>> A kindly, peaceful separation, like an uncontested divorce,
MV> There is no such thing as an uncontested divorce.
You're dreaming. They happen every day.
RB>> is always better than a knock-down, drag-out fight that poisons all RB>> future dealings.
MV> The situation is already poisoned. It can't get much worse.
Want to bet?
RB>> Just keep up the hard feelings regarding the UK, and force them even RB>> closer to the USA than they already are. Is that really an advantage RB>> for the EU?
MV> It may be the lesser of two evils.
And the other would have been to realize that the UK had a problem and try to fix it within the framework of the EU. But nobody really tried that.
RB>>>> What we have to look forward to is certainly not pleasant, but I RB>>>> hope it won't be as bad as some people fear.
MV>>> It will be bad for the people of the UK, I do not envy them. But for MV>>> the EU, I am optimistic. I see problems, but I also see MV>>> opportunities.
RB>> Good for you. And they are?...
MV> I already mentioned an EU equivalent of the FBI.
;-) What do you call Europol? And the EU arrest warrent that has kept Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for the past 4 years? The English have nothing against him, and even the Swedes have never charged him (but are surely under masssive pressure from the USA to extradite him as soon as he touches Swedish soil). But they issued a warrent and that was that. That's the disadvantage to such things: you can be arrested on a, EU warrent for something that not a crime where you are, but is in some other EU state. And some people call that "justice" :-/
MV> Presently London is the financial centre of Europe. That probably will MV> change. Many institutions prepare to leave London because based in MV> London they will be cut off from the EU market. Good looking places MV> are Dublin, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Antwerp. Ireland, Germany, The MV> Netherlands and Belgium will benefit from that.
And London. What you describe is the setting up of branches in EU cities, through which business can continue as usual.
MV> Also we can stop making cars that can easely be converted for driving MV> on the left side of the road. ;-)
;-) Can they? Anyway, I never really got used to shifting with my left hand when I was in Sough Africa.
