Enda

Again, I'm asking you name me one "extreme consequence" from the EU if the UK lowered its corporate tax rate to 0%. Just one will do.

Because we Europeans would like to continue having the UK as part of the open skies agreement so we can all fly to each other without much hassle, but we need to make sure you're not going to privatise air traffic control first. And we'd like to have free trade in poultry with you too, but need to make sure you're not using chlorine to wash your chickens. And we'd like to figure out how we can avoid a border in Northern Ireland, but need to make sure you're not going to use that as a round-about way to get your Chinese TVs you got in that hypothetical free trade deal into the single market via Dublin.

This is evasive nonsense. Yes, the EU has a tax policy. It's called VAT of at least 15%. Nothing on corporate or income taxes. That's the competence of the member states. Again, I'm asking you name me one "extreme consequence" from the EU if the UK lowered its corporate tax rate to 0%. Just one will do.

Hungary is preventing the free movement of people within the union, and shutting down universities that are critical of the current government. Getting shouted down by a strong bloc of democratically elected people. Heaven forbid.

"Extreme consequences". Like what? Name one extreme consequence. Just one. You can't, because the EU has *absolutely zero* power over member-states' corporate tax regimes. None. Your prose is eloquent but your post is full of hot air and just ranting.

Your problem is that people are electing politicians you don't like. That's not an argument for reform. Your arguments about Luxembourg's tax rates are interesting. Are you willing to go so far as to say Europe should be allowed to bully countries with low tax rates? Is that the sort of reform you'd like? Again, what sort of EU do you want? One with more power over member-states or less? This is wrong. We voted 67% Yes to Lisbon after Ireland-specific assurances about abortion and military neutrality were added onto the end of it. A dictator (who was PM of another country at the time, not in EP) who convinces 67% of the Irish electorate to vote for Lisbon is a very democratically minded dictator. Again, what do you want the EU to do about this? How member-states hold their elections is up to.... member-states.

Yes yes, by Cameron I meant heads of the member-states. So nominated by other democratically mandated people. Yes, the Tories left the EPP (the largest European Parliament grouping) a few years ago and there's been hostility since.

Verhofstadt is a democratically elected MEP, put there by the people of Belgium directly, having previously been their Prime Minister. Juncker, having previously served as Prime Minister of his country, was appointed/elected/confirmed by a vote of the European Parliament to lead the Commission, after being nominated by people like David Cameron --- who based their decision on the 2014 European elections. Both of these men have served as PM of their respective countries, so we can't claim they're just the faceless neoliberal technocrats we sometimes hear about. And both them have some form of democratic mandate from the people of Europe. Yet you're against directly elected Verhofstadt, and also against indirectly elected Juncker. You want them replaced, and you want reform... exactly what sort of reform have you got in mind?

SF's entire political philosophy is that British occupation of the six counties is immoral. This goes right back to 1922 when SF refused to take the Irish Free State's oath of fidelity (not even allegiance) to the Crown. We had a Civil War over it. Sure SF only started to recognize the legitimacy of the Irish government around 1987! No way would they surrender that for what will likely be a short lived parliamentary term. They would only surrender that if something like a vote on NI's independence/reunification was on the table. (Which will never happen, since it is now exclusively the people of Ireland (North and south), not the House of Commons, that decides NI's future.) So it's really, really just an academic matter.

I'd suggest everyone read this: http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2017/02/16/brexit-customs-unions-and-borders/ Short version: stay in the customs union and maybe something can be worked out; but if the UK insists on leaving the customs union (to strike promising free trade deals with the likes of Ghana and Bhutan) then the border is a certainty.

"Loyalist leader Jackie McDonald declares support for Arlene Foster's leadership" - who's Jackie McDonald? Of course McDonald would support Foster. She had no problems hanging out with him last week, days after the UDA murdered someone. The UDA is listed as a terrorist organisation by both the UK and the USA. I'm from Dublin, and I was visiting a pal in Belfast a few months back. While walking me to the train station, he said "This road is a good shortcut, just don't talk for a couple minutes." Yep, it wasn't safe for my accent to be heard. These are the people propping up your government.

Now that you lot appear stuck with the DUP (good luck with that!) it's worth pointing out that the entire border is represented by abstentionist Irish republican MPs. "Territorial integrity."

Don't forget 7 Swansea swimming.

A mod saying I'm endangered? That's assault. Blandy out.

I think you got a bad bunch. As of six months ago, only 18% of people in Hungary have a negative view of the EU, which is better than average, and less angry than even Germany.

1. How on earth is it democratic for a Belgian province to veto a trade deal the majority of the 500m people in the EU want? People bandy the term "democratic deficit" around a lot, but it does not mean Swindon gets a veto on everything London decides. An actually democratic EU would give the likes of Ireland no veto powers at all. 2. The ECJ ruled that the EU has exclusive competence on issues like tariffs, but not issues like judicial enforcement of trade deals or anything not directly related to buying and selling. That's not a controversial decision, and a good example of the ECJ ensuring the rights of member states are respected. But as the Brexit deal is a lot more than the customs union (rights of people to stay etc) the relevance of this case to Brexit is very limited.

Nobody denies the UK could produce a decent car (or whatever else) if you set your minds to it. Rather, it's that nobody can specialize in everything. Shifting resources to start building cars would necessarily detract from something else that you lot are already good at.

I know the British public have had enough of experts, especially those with foreign names, but this academic paper is of interest. And, no, before anyone says "but but but but economists predicted a recession!", these are not short-term forecasts based on assumptions about what happens to consumer sentiment. These forecasts are based on how firms reacted to previous changes in prices/taxes/tariffs, assuming that their sensitivity to price remains roughly the same, and teasing out the implications for hard versus soft Brexit, etc.

You're not going to be part of the EU-Aus FTA anyway. Pram/toys.

In Ireland we hear this a lot too, but it always seems to be more a point of principle rather than anything that "substantive". The only EU laws that have really mattered in Ireland I can think of are the four freedoms, but they are fundamental economic concepts we all signed up to, not the creeping laws in the sense people usually mean them. Can you name your top three ECJ cases/Commission decisions you feel most adversely impacted the lives of British people, please?

Sure, which is why crying "but but but but the loss of jurisdiction!" when I mention ECJ as an potential arbiter of trade disputes is particularly dumb. But I won't be surprised if hardened Brexiteers complain about the inevitable bureaucracy (and loss of sovereignty) that comes with a FTA.

Fair analogy, but the difference is that the ECJ will of course have the incentive to not rule harshly on the UK or else the deal falls apart. It's not like a one-off rights dispute. All moot of course, because any tribunal/dispute mechanism implies sacrificing a little sovereignty. Fair point that you might trust an independent court than the ECJ, but there's no getting away from the fact "take back control" is misleading the second you sign a trade agreement.

Nice piece in the FT about what life is like inside the customs union but outside the single market. Hopefully those regulation-loving bureaucrats in Brussels will bend over backwards for the UK - I actually mean that. But that sort of thing will be more difficult if the UK e.g. haggles on the exit bill, or kicks up a fuss with Spain over a rock.

Thanks for proving my point.

The nationalistic frenzy that the UK has worked itself into will make "no deal" more likely. Here's a sketch of what I think everyone here would agree would be a reasonable deal: (i) UK to pay the amount that they've previously committed to the EU; (ii) remain in the customs union; (iii) retain financial passporting rights under ECB financial rules; and (iv) get a FTA with free movement of labour (not people, labour). How's the Mail going to spin that? "EU rip off; a hindrance to the exciting new trade deals with Cambodia; bloody European bureaucracy for the banks; and loss of sovereignty". There are plenty of naive Brexiteers, the extent of whose thought processes so far have been "sovereignty, blue passports, and little Union Jacks." They will rather inflict economic self-harm than accept a fair compromise. As the EU will inevitably demand some oversight over any trading agreement, there's not going to be a deal that will please these hardline/naive Brexiteers. Thus for for a deal that actually suits both the EU and the UK to pass, you will need forward-thinking politicians who will take the electoral thumping that will follow. Will Theresa and Boris be those forward-thinking politicians? Maybe, but I'm starting to doubt it.