= Сообщение: 3962 из 12549 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 28 Jun 16 22:48:51 Кому : Robert Bashe 28 Jun 16 22:48:51 Тема : Brexit FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+5772e42c На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:2448/44+57728497 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+5772f13a ============================================================================== Hello Robert,
On Tuesday June 28 2016 15:41, you wrote to me:
MV>> That is not what Juncker/Merkel/Hollande say. They do not want MV>> revenge, but they do want a swift divorce.
RB> No, they try to "demand" an Article 50 invocation "by Tuesday of this RB> week".
I do not know where you got that info, but it is wrong.
RB> Which is not only impossible for lack of time, but totally RB> unrealistic,
It /is/ what Cameron siad that he would do before the election. So why would it be impossible or unrealistic?
RB> a crude effort to put pressure on the UK. Revenge is RB> still revenge by any other word.
Those are your words. The act is that the UK will be given some time to get its act straight. But as Merkel said "Es muß kein Hängeparty werden".
RB>>> I figure that will backfire and bolster the position of those who RB>>> voted to leave.
MV>> What I think is that it will backfire on the UK if it starts MV>> dragging its feet.
RB> And just _how_ will it backfire on the UK?
The less cooperative they are in making it a swift exit, the less likely they are in getting a good deal afterwards.
RB> The immediate turbulances will settle in time, and then we'll see how RB> England fares without the EU millstone around it's neck.
"Eu millstone around its neck". That is the kind of rethorioc that created the breeding ground for Frrage et al.
Let us turn it around. We will have the opportunity to see how the EU will do without the millstone of the UK around her neck.
RB> Incidentally, something I didn't know: in the news, it's being stated RB> that England is the second largest ecopnomy in the EU, behind Germany. RB> I wouldn't really worry about the UK at the moment.
Size and strength are two different things. That it is big does not mean it is resiliant or strong. And it is not doing all that well at the moment and it has not even left.
RB>>> As for the "demands" of the German-led EU on the UK that Article RB>>> 50 be "immediately" invoked: the EU, and in particularly Germany, RB>>> can stand on it's collective head. And the UK can collectively RB>>> ignore that with impunity.
MV>> If the UK refuses to cooperate in a clean and swift divorce, the MV>> 27 will find ways to "entice" the UK to cooperate anyway. And if MV>> the politicians won't move, the money will...
RB> The "27"? Not the "3" (France, Germany, Netherlands) that are foaming RB> at the mouth about the referendum?
I meant 27. And they are not foaming at the mouth, but they have every reason to urge the UK to get going. The UK has choosen to let what she perceives as her own interest to take prevalence. Then they should not be suprised of the others do the same. It is not in the interest of the 27 to let this drag on too long.
RB> Don't forget that up to now, _any_ agreement, be it ever so minor, has RB> hardly been achieved by all the EU members together.
In the end a compromise was always negotiated. And it will be easier without the millstone of the UK around the EU's neck.
RB> The migrant crisis is the most recent example of "European RB> solidarity".
How many refugees has the UK agreed to take?
MV>> The UK has overplayed its hand.
RB> By allowing the people affected to decide for themselves?
No, by asking for too many exceptions. By always wanting the benefit, but not the liabilities.
RB> I think not. What happened in England would be replayed many times RB> over if other governments were to allow their populations to decide. RB> But as we all know, the "people" are stupid
I do not say people are stupid, but many complex issues are too complicated to summarise in a simple yes/no question. Especially with people like Faraga and Wilders around.
RB> and only their "betters" know what's good for them - and particularly RB> for themselves, in the form of high and largely unearned salaries and RB> perks, plus a golden opportunity to get rid of unsuccessful political RB> friends in well-paying jobs requiring a minimum of effort.
Ah, that hobby horse of yours again.
MV>> Do not forget that they have been denmanding exceptionss and MV>> special conditions for decades. They do not want the Euro,
RB> So far, so good. Neither does Sweden or Denmark.
Which I count as a malus point on their CV.
MV>> they do not want Schengen,
RB> Which is not a requirement for EU membership - and anyway has proved RB> unworkable in a crisis.
So you say. But you can't have it both. You can't let the trucks with the goods for trading cross unhinderded but have a fence for the unwanted.
MV>> they do not want an EU army and Europol.
RB> Where has there ever been talk of an "EU army"?
It is what our minister of defence has been advocating. The Dutch and German armies already have combined units. Having a common defence makes sense in a union.
RB> As for Europol, that's a matter unconnected with any EU membership. It RB> existed before the EU and will exist long afterwards.
But we do not have a police that has the authority to chase criminals across borders.
MV>> The list of what they do not want is long. They were only half way MV>> in anyway. Or always half way out, depending on from what side MV>> yoiu look at it. People are now startingto say what unti now they MV>> onlt thought: The UK was never a loyal member. They were only in MV>> it for the money...
RB> Sour grapes. I assume you know the expression.
Call it what you want. It does not change the fact that the UK was never more than half in. MV>> The UK will not be punished by the EU. The UK is already doing MV>> that herself. But Merkel has made it clear that the UK will not be MV>> allowed to have only the benefits and not the liabilities of MV>> membership. She will not be punished, but she will loose the MV>> priviliges. (Which if I may say so, she should never have had in MV>> the first place).
RB> Merkel is NOT the EU, although she would like to think so, and the RB> Germans dominate it economically.
To bad not every one can be not he biggest.
MV>> On the contrary. If the others see the consequences of a Brexit, MV>> they will think twice before following the UK's example.
RB> Assumine they're net receivers, I don't doubt that. The question is RB> how long the net givers are going to keep donating their population's RB> hard-earned wealth.
Ah that old net contributor myth again. The fakkacy in your reasoning is that net contributors are better of without the EU.
I am not going to try to convince you. That would be a waste of time. We will see how the UK fares without the EU....
