WI Britain never agrees to Masstricht treaty

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd be absolutely fascinated to learn how you managed to derive that from anything I said.

Agreed. As Thande used to be fond of saying, the best way to persuade people of the merits of Brexit is simply to put pretty much any senior EU figure in front of a microphone and allow him to talk uninterrupted for a few minutes.
The colony joke came from some part of Barnier negotiations team, which of course was blown out of proportions. Frankly I dont want to defend Juncker here, because I dont like his positions either. But that doesnt matter, because I believer you only brought Junckers remarks up to muddy the waters. I saw the same with Salvini & Orban.
Funny, isnt it? I mean Thandes comment really didnt age well. Just look back at the last years and the negotiations between the EU and the UK & tell me the performance of the EU team was not anything but meritful.
 
The colony joke came from some part of Barnier negotiations team, which of course was blown out of proportions.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I note though that the pro EU side never make the "blown out of proportion" point about Hunt's EUSSR quote forex.

Frankly I dont want to defend Juncker here, because I dont like his positions either. But that doesnt matter, because I believer you only brought Junckers remarks up to muddy the waters. I saw the same with Salvini & Orban.

I didn't bring him up, @Ingsoc did. I was responding to another poster who seemed to be implying the quotes were inventions of British eurosceptic media.

Funny, isnt it? I mean Thandes comment really didnt age well. Just look back at the last years and the negotiations between the EU and the UK & tell me the performance of the EU team was not anything but meritful.

Thande never said they were incompetent. Neither did I for that matter.
 
I agree Brexiteers are not dangerous as Antivaxxers. Probably they are "only" a great mass of misinformated people who chose to believe to some rich, opportunistic leaders who ignored a bunch of basic facts, refused all social, economic and statistical forecasts that disagree with them and decided to thrown aside the country for their political ambitions. And cover their disasters, I would add: it was not EU to hurt British people, but six years of Tory Austerity (and Blair welfare-cuts and Thatcher pro-rich policies). But it was always easy to give the responsibility to a sovranational istitutions as European Union. Oh yeah, do you know who really govern the Union? The members countries leaders, assembled in the European Council, who had power of veto over everything. So saying "European Union decided something" is mistake because are the members state who decide, as in others sovranational organizations like United Nations.

Then I want to answer to @Galba Otho Vitelius:
- there is a similar case: Denmark voted against the treaty in 1992, after a campaign similar to Cameron's one, where politicians treating with the Union and then painted a different picture to population hoping for political gains without expecting a rejection. The vote was extremely close: 50,7% vs 49,3%, something like 53 000 votes of difference. European Union had had a long and different discussion to define the Maastricht Treaty- years of negotiations, strong arguments between members states- and it was note available to kill everything because Denmark voted no. After a tense meeting, EU leaders offered some concessions to Copenhagen but made right clear that, in case of refusal, they would go ahead without Denmark, practically expelling it to default. Denmark accepted the so called Edimburgh Agreement and made a second referendum in 1993. Of course, now the politicians narrative was pretty different and Yes won with 56,7% with an higher turnout.
So, if UK decides to reject the treaty EU will go ahead with their plans telling London "Now or Never". If UK again refuses then London would exit by default. EU leaders will not cry: they were sick and tired of Thatcherites hostility, that had blocked almost every EU meeting between 1979 and 1990, greatly damaging the European integration process.
- then what? Without UK obstructionism EU could at least improve their performance, bettering their members states policies coordination.
UK had (actually has) so many privileges (as op-out option, for example) and more the access to the fundamental continental (Common) market. Without that, well, it will be hard: Commonwealth said goodbye many years before, so the best option is maybe the same of today, a trade deal (someone said NAFTA?) with US. But Mexico could offer its Agricolture products, Canada was integrated with US economy before George Washigton took his trip to Philadelphia, in United Kingdom Thatcher killed the industry and without EU London will not become a financial center as "City" is. New York is the center of NAFTA area, not London. So United Kingdom will become a sort of colony of American economy, an strange fate for the former motherland of US.
- and there is something other: without EU, it's hard that the Good Friday Agreement could be successful. Irish warfare would continue and I don't know if American public opinion will be happy with that. In HL there was a strong pro-Irish faction in United States. Maybe US could refuse to include UK in the NAFTA area? If so, UK could became like, uh, Iceland, a nice and cold island with Northern tourism, fish and, uh, ice as bases for their economy, but I don't think it could work, UK is too populated. And Scotland is mulling about devolution...

At the end a list of Prime Ministers (POD is Thatcher stays in office and refuses Maastricht Treaty. In HL Thatcher was in favor of UK inclusion in NAFTA as alternative to EU):

Margaret Thatcher (Cons) 1979-1992
Thatcher pushed UK out of EU and lost 1992 election in a landslide.
Neil Kinnock (Lab) 1992-1996
Kinnock confirmed the polls and won but economic problems plagued him while he was trying to negotiate a Norway Option for United Kingdom. Call for a fresh election to try to reinforce his position but lost.
Michael Portillo (Cons) 1996-2006
Thatcher's heir, Portillo negotiated UK adhesion to NAFTA (North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement). He won reelection with his promise that this would led to new economic grow and lost when it was clear that he failed.
Gordon Brown (Lab) 2006-2011
Brown reopen negotiation for a trade deal with EU but the Refession of 2009 destroyed his cards and his career.
George Osborne (Cons) 2011-2016
Osborne faced strong challenges from anti-free trade movement after he imposed austerity. Lost reelection.
David Milliband (Lab-with Lib support) 2016-2019
In a hung parliament Milliband formed a coalition government but it was a little too weak. Recession continued and lasted. Forced to resign when Scotland won a secession referendum.
Yvette Cooper (Lab) 2019-2021
She negotiated new Scottish independence while Irish asked a referendum too. Lost reelection in a landslide.
Nigel Farage (Anti-NAFTA Party-with conservative support) 2021-...
Farage, a populist who championed social problems for opportunism, won with an anti-trade platform. After his victory, Ulster exploded. Right now London is asking for a bailout to International Monetary Found to avoid default but there is before Argentina.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top