Does the taxation of robotics make any sense

[soldar]

Farming in California is quite productive and, yes, we provide a lot of food to other states.  But, farming uses 80% of our allocable water and produces just $54B of California's $2.5T GDP.  So, for 2% of our GDP, we give up 80% of our water.  Does that make sense?

Where does the water go?  China!  It turns out that Almond production consumes about 1 gallon of water per nut and China is the largest market for California Almonds.  So, in effect, we export our drinking water.  Does that make sense?

Yes, there's a lot of nuts in California

China buys from America and Europe much more than westerners can imagine. It is not only almonds. In food markets you can find oranges and apples from America. Really nice looking, beautifully packed and very expensive. There are many western products. Wine, Danish cookies, etc.  I once saw a street vendor selling pomegranates from Spain. I (we) asked the guy how he got them and he said at the whole sale market. Asked if he knew where they came from he didn't seem to know or care.

Regarding agriculture, both the EU and the Fed are racquets for agriculture. If it were up to me I would shut down all those programs. In Spain we have the same problems: water shortages, subsidies to maintain prices, etc. Those programs cost a fortune.  And, what is worse, they shut out of competition poorer countries who could make a living of this if it were not for the subsidized competition. And then we complain they come to our countries illegally.  Just stop subsidizing agriculture, let the market do its work, let poorer countries make a living. Yeah, it will never happen.

[apis]

Scotland will not leave the UK, because they don't want a hard boarder with the England, even if they are pissed off with Brexit. Scottish independence has many parallels with Brexit. A lot of it is down to nationalism, rather than pragmatism. Fortunately common sense prevailed and they opted to remain in the UK.

Scottish independence made a whole lot more sense imo. Scotland would still have been in the European union, so they would benefit from the common market, free movement and they would still gain autonomy regarding local issues. I suppose people in the rest of Europe didn't fully understand why independence from Westminster was so important to the Scottish people, but that has become clear now.

The reason Scotland couldn't leave before was because the UK threatened to kick them out of the EU if they voted for independence. Now that the UK is leaving there is no one preventing an Independent Scotland from staying in the union. I feel sympathy for those who voted to remain but there is no reason to drag Scotland and Northern Ireland down with you.

[soldar]

This Brexit business has gone from being a tragedy to being a farce. Deadlines come and go and UK authorities are acting like teenagers with bad excuses.

The phrase "shit or get off the pot" comes to mind.

I do not understand how or why many UK leaders are still supporting Brexit.  The only explanation I can find is that people are stubborn and will double down before admitting they were wrong. We've seen it many times in many places and countries and now in the UK.

Before the referendum the Brexit side made predictions which are just not happening:

- UK will negotiate individually with EU countries on on one where it has a stronger position. Individual EU countries will value more their exports to UK than their EU membership. Did not happen. The EU made it clear that the negotiation was with Brussels and not with individual states and all countries, including and very specially Ireland. That put UK at a disadvantage.

- UK will save 350 million GBP per week that will go directly to NHS. Ha. That was a good one.

- The turks are about to join the the EU and we don't want anything to do with them. Well, not yet.

- We will have total control over immigration and kick out many immigrants. Not so easy. UK has already guaranteed anyone who was already in the UK can stay. Any restrictions it puts on EU nationals will be reciprocated by the EU on to UK nationals. Better tread lightly here.

- UK can negotiate better commercial deals with other countries. This looks less and less likely.

- UK will be more attractive for businesses. Nope. Businesses are voting with their feet. UK economy has taken a downturn and businesses are leaving in droves. Before referendum the UK economy was growing faster than the EU's but now it's growing slower.

And yet Brexit leaders continue to push for Brexit but they can't deliver Brexit either. They are mentally constipated and can't shit nor get off the pot.

[Zero999]

Scotland will not leave the UK, because they don't want a hard boarder with the England, even if they are pissed off with Brexit. Scottish independence has many parallels with Brexit. A lot of it is down to nationalism, rather than pragmatism. Fortunately common sense prevailed and they opted to remain in the UK.

Scottish independence made a whole lot more sense imo. Scotland would still have been in the European union, so they would benefit from the common market, free movement and they would still gain autonomy regarding local issues. I suppose people in the rest of Europe didn't fully understand why independence from Westminster was so important to the Scottish people, but that has become clear now.

The reason Scotland couldn't leave before was because the UK threatened to kick them out of the EU if they voted for independence. Now that the UK is leaving there is no one preventing an Independent Scotland from staying in the union. I feel sympathy for those who voted to remain but there is no reason to drag Scotland and Northern Ireland down with you.

That's not true at all. It wasn't the UK who threatened to kick Scotland out of the EU, if they left the UK. The UK can't expel another state from the EU. Whether an independent Scotland could remain in the EU or not, would be the EU's decision. It would be unlikely Scotland would be allowed to immediately join the EU, as it would have been a new state, which would need to exist for long enough and prove it met the criteria for EU membership. Yes, Westminster did point this out in their remain campaign but it's true.

If Scotland leave the UK, the whole of the UK will be in an even worse position, with possibly another land border and more tariffs, although I hope Westminster would be more reasonable than that.

Scotland already have a reasonable amount of autonomy and aren't the only part of the UK disheartened with Westminster for many reasons, excluding Brexit. Scotland and Northern Ireland were not the only UK regions who to voted to remain: London and Cambridge also did. I resent the "dragged down with you" statement, because I also voted to remain, as I've repeatedly stated and the fact so many other people did, is the reason for this mess.

[soldar]

That's not true at all. It wasn't the UK who threatened to kick Scotland out of the EU, if they left the UK. The UK can't expel another state from the EU. Whether an independant Scotland could remain in the EU or not, would be the EU's decision. It would be unlikely Scotland would be allowed to immediately join the EU, as it would have been a new state, which would need to exist for long enough and prove it met the criteria for EU membership. Yes, Westminster did point this out in their remain campaign but it's true.

Not really. This needs clarification. The UK can't expel another state but if Scotland becomes an independent state the member states need to agree unanimously to admit the new state and the UK could block that admission if they wanted.

That is the reason Catalonia would have a hard time getting into the EU if Spain vetoed them.

Now, if the UK leaves the EU then it has no say in whether an independent Scotland can join or not. And the EU have *already* said that if the UK leaves and Scotland gains independence they would be fast-tracked into the EU so fast that England would feel dizzy.

[rstofer]

Scottish independence made a whole lot more sense imo. Scotland would still have been in the European union, so they would benefit from the common market, free movement and they would still gain autonomy regarding local issues. I suppose people in the rest of Europe didn't fully understand why independence from Westminster was so important to the Scottish people, but that has become clear now.

I thought I read where the EU told Scotland that if they became an independent country, independent of the UK, they would have to APPLY for membership like any other outside country.  Gaining admittance could take years.

Only Nicola Sturgeon believes they would gain immediate membership.  First they would have to PROVE a stable economy before the EU would even answer the phone.  And the idea that they could continue to use the Pound Sterling for stability is nonsense.  The remainder of the UK would have no interest in propping up the Scottish economy.

Scotland does 4 times as much trade with the rest of the UK as it does with the other members of the EU.

Maybe I read it wrong...

[soldar]

I thought I read where the EU told Scotland that if they became an independent country, independent of the UK, they would have to APPLY for membership like any other outside country.  Gaining admittance could take years....
Maybe I read it wrong...

You know, posting "I thought I read" BS is not right. Again, let us try to stay in this reality and not make up other realities. You post false things and then ignore everything that contradicts it or any questions put to you.

Please, check your information before you post "I thought I read" because it gets tiring.

Searching google for "Scotland fast track EU" gives a lot of links to articles where EU officials have said Scotland would get speedy admittance.

Independent.co.uk:
Scotland rejoining EU would be 'relatively speedy', says senior German MEP.  'If the political agreement would be there, then the process would be relatively speedy. Scotland is a member of the European Union and fulfils all of the conditions,' says CDU member Elmar Brok


euroactiv.com
50 MPs, MEPs support fast-track EU membership for independent Scotland


scotsman.com
An independent Scotland could be ‘fast-tracked into the EU’

Here is how it might go: If the UK brexits, if and when Scotland has a referendum on independence the EU will already have given assurances that they will be immediately admitted as soon as they apply. So it would be like: day 0, referendum, day 1 morning, Scotland applies to join EU, day 1 late morning, EU accepts and Scotland becomes a member.

[rstofer]

You know, posting "I thought I read" BS is not right. Again, let us try to stay in this reality and not make up other realities. You post false things and then ignore everything that contradicts it or any questions put to you.

Please, check your information before you post "I thought I read" because it gets tiring.

There was really no "I thought I read", I know damn well I read...

The problem is that too many people are talking and none with the authority to talk for all member states as a whole.  Even Sturgeon admits it probably won't be 'immediate'.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/14/sturgeon-independent-scotland-may-need-phased-return-to-eu

Here's an older article by the President of the European Commission saying that it would be extremely difficult for Scotland to join the EU.  If not impossible...  He was pretty high up for a while.

ETA:  This was during the Scottish referendum and the thought was that the UK would block Scotland's entry.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-26215579/extremely-difficult-for-scotland-to-join-eu-barroso

Then what should be said about Scotland adopting the Euro:

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-independent-scotland-would-have-to-adopt-euro-after-joining-eu

Again, not entirely consistent.  Is their tiny little economy going to be granted an exception?  Maybe, for a while.  As the article points out, two countries don't use the Euro and the last 3 countries joining are in the process of adopting it.  It seems reasonable to believe that Scotland will have to transition.  The Euro is the guiding principle of the EU and it would seem that Scotland would need an independent currency before converting to the Euro.

Searching google for "Scotland fast track EU" gives a lot of links to articles where EU officials have said Scotland would get speedy admittance.

Well, according to the 'experts', it could take about 4 years (from today) to gain membership:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/an-independent-scotland-could-be-fast-tracked-into-the-eu-1-4371192

They're talking 2023 but they don't really give a start date.  Hardly 'immediate' or even 'fast'.

All of this is just a guess.  Nobody of authority has put down a solid statement of fact conforming to the views of the remaining members.  I don't know why Scotland would want to threaten 80% of their trade to join up with the EU at only 20% but Sturgeon must have a plan.

I think those in Scotland looking at the sunny side of leaving the UK are being as mislead as the Brexit supporters.  It will be interesting to see how it works out.

[apis]

It's as Soldar explained.

The UK had a lot of influence in the EU. It was the UK who didn't want to let Scotland remain if they voted for independence. If the UK leave there is no one left who would keep them out. It would be both in Scotland's and the EU's best interest to let Scotland join immediately so I don't see why anyone would oppose that.

It's a bit ironic, England wants independence from EU but they wouldn't allow Scotland to become independent from the UK.

First they would have to PROVE a stable economy before the EU would even answer the phone.  And the idea that they could continue to use the Pound Sterling for stability is nonsense.  The remainder of the UK would have no interest in propping up the Scottish economy.

Maybe you are thinking of the Eurozone? I'm not so sure it would be in their best interest to adopt the Euro right now anyway, it's not exactly a great success. It's problematic having a common currency without also having the same economic policy which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Even if the UK would punish them by not letting them use the pound, they also have the option to create their own currency.

I don't know why Scotland would want to threaten 80% of their trade to join up with the EU at only 20% but Sturgeon must have a plan.

It's 60% to UK, 18% to EU and 22% to the rest of the world (source).
The situation is similar for the UK who have 50% of their trade with the EU. Brexiteers say they will solve this problem by negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU. If Scotland is independent and a member of the EU they would also benefit from the same free trade deal with the UK.

[rstofer]

It's as Soldar explained.

The UK had a lot of influence in the EU. It was the UK who didn't want to let Scotland remain if they voted for independence. If the UK leave there is no one left who would keep them out. It would be both in Scotland's and the EU's best interest to let Scotland join immediately so I don't see why anyone would oppose that.

Yes, the UK was acting a little vindictive.  I don't know that they would have actually blocked Scotland's membership but the thought was always running around.

It's a bit ironic, England wants independence from EU but they wouldn't allow Scotland to become independent from the UK.

Scotland had a referendum, the voters turned it down.  England didn't do anything to block the referendum.
Now that Theresa May has pushed toward a second referendum on Brexit, there might as well be a second Scottish referendum.

First they would have to PROVE a stable economy before the EU would even answer the phone.  And the idea that they could continue to use the Pound Sterling for stability is nonsense.  The remainder of the UK would have no interest in propping up the Scottish economy.

Maybe you are thinking of the Eurozone? I'm not so sure it would be in their best interest to adopt the Euro right now anyway, it's not exactly a great success. It's problematic having a common currency without also having the same economic policy which isn't going to happen anytime soon. Even if the UK would punish them by not letting them use the pound, they also have the option to create their own currency.

Yes, the Euro will probably damage Scotland.  Italy would be much better off if they had a currency they could devalue to increase competitiveness.  In theory, subject to the whim of the EU, Scotland would need an independent currency that was stable for 2 years before being allowed to transition to the Euro.  I certainly don't see why the EU would waive that requirement.

There are two immutable facts on the table:

Fact #1: The EU has stated they will not renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, it is cast in stone.
Fact #2:  The Parliament has voted that the Withdrawal Agreement is not satisfactory as long as the backstop is included.  By a large majority!

The Withdrawal Agreement can not be changed and the Withdrawal Agreement is not satisfactory.  What's left to talk about?  Does Parliament keep voting until members capitulate from exhaustion?  It sure seems that way.

Or perhaps the EU gets tired of unending extensions.  If a deal couldn't be done in 3 years, why does anybody expect magic in 4 years?

[SilverSolder]

Italy would be much better off if they had a currency they could devalue to increase competitiveness.

I don't know if that is true nowadays.  E.g. the British car industry imports many of the components that go into a car -  not all of it is British labour and raw materials, so the value of Sterling going down doesn't result in prices going down very much for other countries.

After the referendum Sterling dropped dramatically, but it hasn't resulted in an economic boom (Britain dropped from top performer to bottom).

[Zero999]

It's total nonsense that Scotland would be fast tracked into the EU, when the UK leaves. It's something the EU are saying to discourage the UK from leaving. The northern Irish border is perceived as an obstacle to Brexit and if it really is, then the EU would be hesitant about allowing Scotland to join, creating another one! The EU can't have it both ways. There's a lot of propaganda on both sides of the debate.

Yes, the UK did threaten to block Scotland from joining the EU, but it doesn't mean it would actually happen: we wouldn't want a land border and customs checks. I suspect many of the EU's threats to the UK are empty too.

I find it ironic how Scotland wanted freedom from Westminster, where they have a lot of influence, only to cede more power to Brussels, where they'd have less. Scotland leaving the UK would had a far greater negative impact, than the UK leaving the EU and just to be crystal clear, I don't support either.

[soldar]

IMHO a country having its own currency so it can devalue it is not sound policy because while the country might gain the ability to overcome a short bump in the economy in reality it is giving up a lot of trade and business permanently. Everything else being equal countries will prefer to trade with countries with stable exchange rate and a common currency is the best case of this. Even China controls their currency so it fluctuates within a narrow margin of the USD.

Having a common currency is a huge advantage and Euro countries recognize that. American states share the dollar and no state thinks it would be better off with its own currency. On the contrary, they know full well they are much better off with the common currency. It is the same in Europe. And it is the same in China where factories are using things that come from other factories and are selling to other factories in China. A refrigerator or a TV manufacturer are assembling components that come from dozens of manufacturers and that is made possible by having a common currency and good transportation.

Some EU countries have had problems (PIGS) and none chose to crash out of the Euro or the EU and Germany did not push them to get out, on the contrary, Germany recognizes that those countries being a part of the EU means they have a wider market for their products and cheaper suppliers for their industries.

The idea that devaluing the country's currency is going to work some miracle can be easily debunked by asking Venezuela or any other of the countries who have relied on devaluing their currency. For a country to be economically prosperous the main thing is to have high productivity, to produce value. That would be encouraged by low taxes, low bureaucracy, low cost of energy and other necessities, ease for trading, including good transportation infrastructure, banking, etc.

China's currency has been steadily increasing in value over the years and yet China's economy has been steadily growing. The important thing is to be productive.

If Scotland were to gain independence they would have no difficulty issuing their own currency and/or simultaneously adopting the Euro and beginning the transition to the Eurozone.

But all these political issues are not driven by a cool analysis of the economic consequences, rather they are mostly driven by politicians with an ax to grind appealing to the emotional side of people. If Brexit happens, especially if it is a hard Brexit, I expect the Scottish to focus a lot on "why would we want to remain with a country that forced on us something we did not want?"

You know, just like the Brexit side is doing now with respect to the EU.

[soldar]

The northern Irish boarder is perceived as an obstacle to Brexit and if it really is, then the EU would be hesitant about allowing Scotland to join, creating another one! The EU can't have it both ways. There's a lot of propaganda on both sides of the debate.

Oh, please! Come on! Really! I don't know how old you are but I am not even British and I remember the Troubles, the shootings, the bombs, the killings, the violence in Ireland. Every day the news would begin with what was going on in Vietnam and in Northern Ireland.

The EU has zero problem with putting a border (sorry but please note the correct spelling) wherever Ireland and UK want it. It is Ireland and UK who have said they would rather not have the violence return. It is Ireland and UK who signed the Good Friday agreement which stipulates no border between the two Irelands. The EU has no problem with whatever they both agree on but noting that if one side is in the EU and the other side is out of the EU there necessarily must be a border.

This could be solved by the Republic of Ireland leaving the EU but the RoI has stated forcefully and inequivocally that it is remaining and it is up to the UK to square that circle. The UK wants to be outside the EU but have no border in Ulster and that is impossible unless you get creative like the "backstop" solution or just have Ulster rejoin the rest of Ireland. This problem is entirely of UK manufacture. It is impossible to solve and that is why the UK just keeps kicking it down the road in the hopes that... what? That magic may happen?

So don't make this a EU issue because it is 100% a UK issue. They want two different things which are contradictory in nature.

The Scottish border has none of the issues so any comparison is just misplaced. Or is there a Scottish Good Saturday agreement that I am unaware of?

[Zero999]

Oh I didn't know they were different spellings of boarder and border. Thanks for pointing out my dyslexia. 

Borders have everything to do with the EU, Ireland is part of the EU and the newly independent Scotland would be seeking EU membership. Irrespective of the history, neither the UK nor Scotland would want a land border. If one country left the EU, but the other remained, not having a land border would be essential. More traffic flows between England and Scotland, than Scotland and the continent, so it would be far more disruptive.

Yes a common currency is generally a good thing. Converting from one currency to another costs time and ultimately money, so it makes sense to avoid it where possible. Just try shopping online from sites with prices in different currencies is a pain. Doing the conversions makes comparing prices more challenging, especially when the amount one pays can fluctuate widely.

The main downside I can see with a common currency is it gives less local control of the economy and instability in one region can have a greater impact on the rest, as we saw with Greece. I've always had mixed views on whether the UK should join the Euro. It would make things easier, but would mean we'd have less control. Yet again, I think the biggest mistake with the Euro was allowing the poorer countries in the EU to join, before they were really ready.

I'm all for more local autonomy. Scotland should have as much local power as possible, yet not have any trade barriers with the rest of the UK and the EU. Ideally there should be fewer politicians in Westminster and more in local government around the whole of the UK, not just Scotland.

[soldar]

This is a very interesting article well worth reading in its entirety. I have extracted a few key paragraphs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/05/brexit-eu-club-belonging-members-britain

The EU is a club worth belonging to
The past two years have shown the EU united and fighting for its members’ interests. Britain will be weaker outside it

For some, it manifests itself in making a clean break not from the EU, but from their senses. So many MPs are talking so much rubbish at the moment, it can be hard to keep up. Witness Boris Johnson, asked to name a just-in-time supply chain that did not rely on the single market, floundering before offering the example of aeronautical parts transferred from Germany to the UK – both of which are in the single market.

It may fray a little at next week’s European council, but what we have seen since Britain triggered article 50 is the extraordinary solidity, even solidarity, of the 27 countries we are leaving behind. Who would have thought that a bloc representing more than 400 million citizens, stretching from frozen Nuorgam in Finland to balmy Santa Cruz de Tenerife in Spain, would remain united, no daylight between them – while the departing country has a split parliament, split government, split opposition and split cabinet? Put 22 British cabinet ministers in a room, and they can’t agree on anything. But, despite the Brexiter predictions that the EU27 would rapidly turn on each other and look out only for themselves – Germans cutting a deal to help their carmakers, Italians breaking away for the sake of their prosecco producers – they have maintained total discipline.

That’s impressive in itself, but it says two important things about the EU that Britons might not have appreciated in 2016. First, this is why the EU tends to get its way, as it will again next week when it once more dictates extension terms. It’s a big bloc with serious clout, an equal across the table when it faces the world’s other two economic superpowers, China and the US. When Britain comes to negotiate a trade deal with Donald Trump, we’ll get eaten for breakfast – with a side dish of chlorinated chicken. But in the EU, Washington or Beijing meet their match.

If that’s what the EU can achieve as a group, look what it can do for an individual member state. The key obstacle to passage of May’s deal has been the Northern Ireland backstop. Why has that issue persisted? Because the EU has thrown its collective weight behind the border concerns of a single, small member – Ireland. For several centuries, an iron rule of any dispute between Ireland and Britain was that Britain, the bigger nation, would always win. Not any more. Because Ireland is now part of a bigger bloc. The backstop has made vivid what perhaps was abstract in the British imagination: that by pooling together with other nations, a country might give up a modicum of theoretical sovereignty, but it gains a whole lot of practical strength. Britain used to benefit from that obvious fact of geopolitics; now we are suffering from it. In an arm-wrestle with our once-weak neighbour, we are being outmuscled.

The Brexit experience has pointed up a related truth that was overlooked in 2016: the fact that both Britain and Ireland were in the EU had helped neutralise many of the tensions that had riven these islands for so long, with the border being the most obvious. The Good Friday agreement rested on scores of delicate, complex balances that, despite everything, worked in the shared context of the EU. Britain’s exit upsets that intricate geometry. In the process, it reopens wounds that had been healing for two decades, wounds some in Westminster had apparently forgotten or never understood.

[soldar]

Borders have everything to do with the EU, Ireland is part of the EU and the newly independent Scotland would be seeking EU membership.

You are missing the key point here which is that the UK and the RoI have a treaty called the Good Friday Agreement which would be in conflict with a UK outside the EU. It is not a problem of the EU and it is not even a problem of the RoI, it is a problem that the UK wants to be outside the EU and yet maintain the Good Friday Agreement in full force. This is impossible as both things are contradictory. UK authorities have painted themselves into a corner and now blaming the EU. The UK has gone full psychotic and have trouble distinguishing reality from fantasy.

Somebody has to come out and tell the people clearly that with respect to the Irish border question there are only three possibilities  (once an exit of Ireland of the EU is ruled out). In the hands of the UK are only three choices: (1) Remain in the EU, (2) Brexit and impose a border in Ireland and (3) Scotland, England and Wales exit the EU while Ulster remains (so-called "backstop").  These are the three only possible options but the UK Government, Parliament and people refuse to accept that reality and keep going around in circles.

They have said "Brexit means Brexit" so #1 is out. Abrogating the Good Friday Agreements (#2) has also been ruled out (with good sense IMHO). So the only option left is #3, the backstop. Theresa May has negotiated a deal which is based on this option but the Parliament refuses to accept it. What does Parliament want? Nobody knows. We only know what they don't want: they don't want to face reality.

They have painted themselves into a corner where they have to decide among those three choices and they just refuse to make a choice. What are they waiting for? The whole world is waiting while they just talk nonsense and refuse to face reality.  It is not like the EU or anybody else has forced this on the UK. The UK alone has created this mess and put themselves where they are. Now, please, shit or get off the pot!

ETA: Theresa May's position with respect to the EU reminds me of Monty Python's Black Knight. They won't give up no matter what.

[Zero999]

I see your point about how the border with Northern Ireland and Scotland differ: the former have a formal treaty with the UK stipulating no border shall ever exist, and the latter doesn't. If Northern Ireland leaves the EU, without a deal, the EU are mandating there shall be a border, which is in breach of the treaty. Note that the breech won't be from the UK, if the UK don't enforce any border controls from their side: whether there will be a hard border or not, will be down to the Republic of Ireland who are controlled by the EU, not the UK. Other solutions have been proposed, which don't involve a hard border or the whole of Ireland remaining or leaving the customs union, yet they've been rejected by the EU.

I can see the other side: the EU told the UK there would be a Northern Ireland border, if they leave without a deal, so don't do it.

In spite of the tone of my previous remarks. I don't think it's as simple as blaming the EU or UK for the this conflict. The EU as a whole, including the UK, drafted Article 50 and didn't consider the implications of any state leaving, because it was never seriously considered that it would happen. Blaming either party is counterproductive.

Yes the EU seem united from the outside, but it's questionable how deep it really goes, considering how there are fractions within each country, let alone the entire bloc. Having a pool of smaller nations does make them stronger, but it's also a disadvantage as implementing any change requires them to all agree and compromise. I'm pretty sure opinions range from expelling the UK, with no deal, to giving them an easier deal to protect jobs. As mentioned before, there are many other counties with similar levels of wealth and proseity as the UK, who aren't in the EU and haven't been eaten by the US, so that's nonsense and is part of project fear.

I agree the UK is more divided than Europe, but I think it's the main reason for their weakness, rather than size. The problem is no one agreed with what Brexit should consist of, because no one believed the result of the referendum would be to leave.

[soldar]

Look, you just can't have it both ways. Either you are in or you are out, You cannot be in and out at the same time.

You cannot have a Good Friday Treaty with Ireland stating there cannot be a border and another treaty with Ireland (as a EU country) stating there can be a border.  It is either one or the other.

I am beginning to understand how frustrated they must be in Brussels having to deal with the UK.

UK: We want to have control of our borders so we want out of the EU

EU: OK then but that means abrogation of Good Friday Treaty with Ireland.

UK: Well we don't really intend to have any border controls just that we could if we wanted

EU: That makes no sense but, in any case, that also goes against the Good Friday agreements. So what is it? Are you in or out?

UK: 

[Zero999]

Look, you just can't have it both ways. Either you are in or you are out, You cannot be in and out at the same time.

UK: We want to have control of our borders so we want out of the EU

EU: OK then but that means abrogation of Good Friday Treaty with Ireland.

UK: Well we don't really intend to have any border controls just that we could if we wanted

EU: That makes no sense but, in any case, that also goes against the Good Friday agreements. So what is it? Are you in or out?

UK: 

You've missed the point. If the UK leaves the EU, as they're legally entitled to do so, by invoking Article 50, whether there's a border on the Republic of Ireland's side or not, will be out of the UK's control. It will be a matter for the Irish republic and EU to decide. The UK/Northern Irish side of the border could be wide open, but if the Irish Republic's side is closed, there's nothing the UK could do about it. The Irish Republic could also keep their side border open, but without agreement from Brussels, they would be in breech of their treaty with the EU, yet if they close it, they'll be in breech of the Good Friday treaty. You can blame the UK for starting it by invoking Article 50, if you like, but it doesn't change that fact that once the UK has left, the ball is in the EU/Republic of Ireland's court.

[soldar]

Ryanair wants to remain in the EU and not in the UK... which I am satisfied to hear as I have a claim/lawsuit against them pending.

Ryanair pushes button on plan to disenfranchise UK shareholders in event of no-deal Brexit
Airline says that UK investors will be barred from voting, speaking at or attending AGMs. British citizens and institutions will also no longer be able to buy shares in the company, to ensure that it is majority owned and controlled by EU citizens


https://investor.ryanair.com/brexit/
UK shareholders may continue to hold shares post Brexit, but these shares will lose their voting rights under Article 41(J) of Ryanair’s Articles of Association.
When a UK shareholder decides to sell post a hard Brexit they will only be permitted to sell to an EU national.
The combination of these two restrictions will mean that Ryanair will continue to be majority EU owned and controlled post hard Brexit.

[soldar]

Really, UK Parliament cannot agree on anything but it is all the fault of the EU.

What would be acceptable to the UK? Nothing is acceptable to the UK. And it is all the fault of the EU.

In the meanwhile...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-01/easyjet-issues-cautious-outlook-with-demand-softened-by-brexit
EasyJet Issues ‘Cautious’ Outlook With Demand Softened by Brexit
Company issues cautious outlook as revenue falls in first half
Brexit issues add to woes for low-cost airlines in Europe



https://www.ft.com/content/4de95ff8-4419-11e9-a965-23d669740bfb
Low-cost airline easyJet is stockpiling parts for its aircraft in continental Europe, in case a no-deal Brexit severs its supply chains.
Johan Lundgren, chief executive, said easyJet had also been transferring three aircraft a week to its new Austrian subsidiary, which now had a fleet of 130.
He said the airline was “stockpiling” spare parts for the Austrian fleet, “so as part of our Brexit preparations we’re making sure we’re not reliant on spare parts . . . only in the UK”. He said easyJet had “pre-purchased a number of spare parts” and allocated them to the right facilities.

[apis]

The northern Irish border is perceived as an obstacle to Brexit and if it really is, then the EU would be hesitant about allowing Scotland to join, creating another one!

No, it's the Irish who doesn't want a border through Ireland, and Westminster has promised there would never be one again. That's not a problem with the Scottish border.

The UK said they want a border to the rest of the EU, that is the very definition of Brexit so stop trying to pin this on the EU, the UK created this mess all by themselves.

Yes, the UK did threaten to block Scotland from joining the EU, but it doesn't mean it would actually happen: we wouldn't want a land border and customs checks. I suspect many of the EU's threats to the UK are empty too.

Right, just like the UK would never vote to leave the EU. The UK tried pretty hard to get guarantees from the EU that Scotland wouldn't be allowed to remain before the Scots even had a chance to vote.

UK promising to kick Scotland out of EU if they voted for independence was indeed a threat.

I haven't heard EU making any threats. Pointing out the consequences of leaving, which the EU has no control over, isn't a threat.

I find it ironic how Scotland wanted freedom from Westminster, where they have a lot of influence, only to cede more power to Brussels, where they'd have less.

That's not true at all. One of the core principles in the EU is that EU only decides about things that affect all the member states, i.e. the subsidiarity principle:

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity#General_principle_of_European_Union_law

With Westminster it's the other way around. Scotland was forced to join the UK against their will. Scotland might be allowed to make a decision every now and then, but only if Westminster lets them.

In the next independence referendum Scotland will choose between Freedom and Westminster. They will choose between borders with England or borders with the rest of Europe. They will chose between EU's inner market (18.5T) or the UK's (2.5T).

I wouldn't bet on them choosing Westminster.

I'm all for more local autonomy. Scotland should have as much local power as possible, yet not have any trade barriers with the rest of the UK and the EU. Ideally there should be fewer politicians in Westminster and more in local government around the whole of the UK, not just Scotland.

That would have been the effect of the first Scottish independence referendum (if the UK didn't kick Scotland out of EU). They would have gained local autonomy while still being on the EU's common market and have free movement within Europe (no borders).

[rstofer]

Ryanair? 

A reasonable person would have dumped the stock back in August of 2018 at about $100 USD, down 20% from a high of $125 USD in March 2018.  OR, they rode it down to $75 USD with just the slightest recovery since a low of about $65 USD in Jan 2019.  A 40% slide is pretty breathtaking.

Disenfranchising?  Interesting idea!  I wonder how it will affect stock price.  It doesn't seem like it would be positive.

I don't know anything about retirement plans in the UK but I sure would hate to be holding Ryanair in my 401(k).  I just looked!  I don't...

Mr O'Leary is facing a lot of headwinds.

[soldar]

I have no sympathy for Ryanair and would be glad to see them go under but not before I get some compensation out of them.

But that has nothing to do with that Ryanair and many other companies are scrambling to get out of the UK and into the EU before Brexit happens.

UK can say what they want but that is not a sign that inspires confidence.

I can imagine the Cubans in 1959 when people were scrambling to get out with what they could and the Communists were confidently predicting a rosy future now that the people were in charge of their own destiny. The best laid plans of mice and men ...