UKC

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been re-elected for a fourth term while nationalists have made a historic surge in federal elections, exit polls show. Her conservative CDU/CSU bloc has seen its worst result in almost 70 years but will remain the largest in parliament. Its current coalition partner, the social democratic SPD, says it will go into opposition after historic losses.

The nationalist AfD has won its first seats and is set to be the third party, a result that sparked some protests.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41376577

Political upheaval in Germany, has lots of ramifications for the rest of the EU. The 5 Star movement in Italy has elected a charismatic young leader, making it more credible in the forthcoming election too.

In reply to Big Ger:
Hi,
Yep, Does it mean they are not heading for the 27 states of Europe becoming more United and integrated - or will Junker's vision of a United States of Europe continue?

I am sure this ultimate status of the Rest of eu must affect the UK relationship to mainland Europe and maybe condition the talks ahead in some way. Slower transition rather than quicker transition to Brexit seems in order in these circumstances because we don't really know what we in the UK are dealing with as yet as regards the EU bloc.

Looks like the Syrian crisis not only reconfigured the Middle east but put Europe into a changeable state.
And Syria hasn't finished as this chimera of a war threatens to reconfigure into another conflict with the Kurdish element creating conditions for a new state and maybe another wave of displacement of people.

In reply to Big Ger:

Upheaval? Merkel will form a government for the fourth time albeit with a reduced mandate and some jiggery-pokery with other parties.

The presence of the racist AfD is worrying but seems to be the pattern in western democracies at the moment. One analysis shows that AfD voters tend to vote against all other parties rather for the AfD. Hopefully they will see through them now they have some power in parliament.

I presume this is Merkel's last term which will make the next four years interesting.

In reply to pasbury:
I presume Merkel will also be the pragmatic politician . She has always reflected the changes of public opinion which has made her a long term leader, continually voted in. Now reflecting public opinion is more complex and she would also like to leave office eventually without creating the circumstances for the very hard right to increase their appeal. I'm sure she has that long term view at heart but what it bodes is a shift in the european vision....
It is a more dramatic election than France and very unexpected.

In reply to MargieB:

Nigel FaRage must be delighted, a new axis forged

In reply to pasbury:


It's a protest vote against Germany's and the eu's handling of the migrant crisis. Afd will probably lose these votes next time if a strong centrist candidate emerges.

In reply to wercat:

Zenophobic Little Britain only managed 1 UKIP MP, the EU poster boys have 90 BNP equivalents in the Bundestag

Schandenfreude anyone?

In reply to Big Ger:

Don't really think so. Merkel will govern with a "Jamaica" coalition consisting of her conservatives (black), the liberals (yellow), and the Greens. This model has been tested as a dry run in the state of Schleswig-Holstein, where it seems to run rather trouble free. Don't forget that coalition governments are the norm for the federal government, rather than the exception, given our proportional representation system. And no, Merkel is not my fault.....

Also, the AfD Nazis are self destructing already: Frauke Petry, the main face of the party and one of the three directly elected AfD constituency MPs (in the Elbsandstein area just South of Dresden), declined joining the parliamentary faction and will sit as an independent.

CB

In reply to MargieB:


Do you think this means a move way from federalism and a some tightening of immigration controls for non-EU migrants?

In reply to cb294:

"Also, the AfD Nazis ..."

What were the alternatives for Germans to vote for an anti EU party? I ask because if the AfD was the main or only choice, then referring to them as nazis is probably not helpful. There is a big difference to being anti mass immigration and genocide.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Nice little silver lining to the dark cloud of our undemocratic FPTP electoral system.

In reply to john arran:

A silver lining of a referendum on EU membership that was won by leave? (they didn't need any MPs and are now totally irrelevant)

In reply to john arran:


I agree, but I see it as less of a silver lining and more of an incintenance pad...

In reply to pasbury:
I don't really know what some Germans are voting against and Merkel has to figure that out too. It could range from a skepticism about the eventual trajectory of the European Union/ total integration versus sovereign state{ and a war like Syria has brought that into sharp relief}. Then it must range at the furthest end into pure racism which would nastily take advantage of the instability of the political scene.
The other parties will have to figure it out too to prevent a political void for extreme parties to fill.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The AfD started as an anti EU, anti Euro, hardcore neoliberal party. They then opened up to the right, the founders were kicked out, and the Nazi wing took over, usurping the neonazi slot in the political spectrum previously occupied by the NPD (who were close to being banned but were let off by the Supreme court on the technicality of being too irrelevant to be worth banning). They are full blown xenophobes and racists, especially in their East German regional parties. I am too sick of listing all the dog whistle politics and blatant racist utterances. Thank god I am leaving Saxony in a few weeks and don't have to see the Pegida and AfD scum anymore on a daily basis.

As for which options anti EU voters had, I could not give a shit, as I do not agree with them. Their problem. What I do know, though, is that an urge to "protest" does not justify voting AfD. Common decency should tell you that.

CB

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


That's a direct result of different voting systems, not a reflection of support in the population.

In reply to StefanB:

Very true. In 2015 UKIP would have got 83 seats in a PR model. Nothing like that today for obvious reasons (their raison d'etre having been and gone and apparently won) Will AfD have a similar demise? The situations are different so harder to tell.

In reply to MargieB:


I thought it was mainly about the amount of Syrian (and other?) refugees they had taken in ?

In reply to StefanB:


The AfD would appear to be far closer to the BNP than Ukip. It may be a protest vote, (just like Brexit), but AfD are much further right party.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:
A decision she made in the wider belief of a wider european collective united states response to the whole issue? So it also highlighted the idea of a collective europeanism which then seems to have come into question? Did Syrian crisis test this out ?Didn't some mainland EU states start going back to national borders,if I recall. It threw the whole collectivization of europe up into the air. It must now be a big point of discussion.

I don't really know if this is driving this election result in Germany as I don't live there but am interested in their europeanism as europe has been a part of my living in the UK. Europeanism { and defining it} has been an issue since the second world war..I was really surprised but enlightened by the post of cb249.

In reply to Ridge:


I'm not so sure

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/08/nigel-farage-backs-far-rig...

Farage was pretty savvy in the few years before Brexit, he appeared less right wing than he is, and dominated headlines so the numerous far right views regularly aired by the members didn't harm the party too much.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

One might ask "What were the alternatives in 1933 for Germans to vote for an anti Communist Party?"

Being Anti EU does not excuse you from blame if you say "oh, I had no alternative but to vote for the far right bully boys"


Further, do you think that Farage had no alternative but to lend intimate fire support to AfD?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Different voting system.

Plus, it could be argued, that Britain has enough candidates sufficiently to the right that there is little need for a UKIP/BNP vote. Germany may by and large have fewer options on the right so when volk do vote in that direction they maybe end up voting for an extreme. Just a guess however.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Of course not, otherwise the CSU who are insisting on keeping the borders closed, a limit on the number of refugees allowed in and reducing the state aid to them wouldn´ t have produced their worst ever election result.
The AfD don´ t care where the foreigners come from or how they get into Europe, anyone´ s fair game especially if they are a bit dark.
That part of the AfD´ s voters was always there, just in the NPD, Bayern Partei, Reichsburger and various other relatively meaningless movements before BUT they hoovered up a large number of extra supporters as (as has been mentioned earlier) none of the other parties even pretended to have a slightly Eurosceptic view. 50% of Germans support the EU but 80% think it needs reforming. Under Frau Merkel there was little chance of substantial improvements and with Martin Schulz leading the SPD the chances were that the position was going to get worse not better.
While the sympathy for the AfD in Saxony and thereabouts have often their basis in economic disparity and old-established racism from the communist period that the stinking rich area where I live (near Munich) decided that the AfD should be the second strongest party is obviously not simply explained by a few Syrians wandering around.

In reply to Mike Stretford:



Good points. Ukip certainly did 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink' racism for the benefit of mad cat ladies, but AfD appear to be more at the overt 'burn down immigration hostel' level of popular support.

In reply to jimtitt:
Thank you for the view from Munich, although not sure why it should be all so obvious here in the UK -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41376577

"The result is a verdict, perhaps, on Mrs Merkel's decision to open Germany's doors to one million refugees."

Did the CSU have no say on the original refugee decision or are they 'shutting the stable door..' ? In any case you seem to be saying it's more to do with anti EU sentiment.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:




The CSU opposed it but as part of the coalition couldn´ t do anything, either politically or practically as they were the smallest party.
The reasons for the AfD success are many, not simply the refugees. 70% or the people who voted AfD did so not because they supported the party but as a protest vote against the other parties.

In reply to pasbury:


No way of escaping the fact that she has acheieved her party's worst electoral performance since 1949.

In reply to Big Ger:

worst electoral performance for a comparable 4th term? It's pretty common for in democracies for the electorate to become discontented with the incumbent leader/party over time

In reply to jimtitt:

The Bavarian AfD slogan of "vote CSU, get Merkel" was incredibly catchy, and managed to mobilize a large fraction of those who abstained in the last elections. More importantly, it managed to convince many voters who as usual supported their CSU constituency candidate (the CSU won all constituencies in Bavaria) to give their list vote, which determines the eventual proportions in the Bundestag, to the AfD.

Refugees definitely are not the only thing these core conservative voters are pissed off about. Merkel, after an initial lurch to the right (Leipzig programme) dragged her entire party towards centre ground, in many respects almost into social democrat territory.

If you can get your hands on today's Süddeutsche Zeitung, they have a full supplement of party by party and regional analysis, highly interesting!

CB

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

The refugees are not really the issue, at least not to the extent as it would have been had the election been a year ago. General dissatisfaction with the large parties (especially when governing in a grand coalition which makes effective opposition impossible), and a general loss of decency / anti-PC groundswell that emboldend people to publicly act out their petty racism (where traditionally people may have held such views but would be embarrassed and afraid of social sanctions) were probably more important. I blame the latter squarely on the East Germans, especially here in Saxony

CB

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


A proper electoral system more like. Not a good result but at least it's representative and doesn't just foment more anger by disenfranchising minority groups (even when we might prefer they didn't exist).
jk

In reply to cb294:


Still don't understand what the protest was against, if not the refugees -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41094785

"So why did people vote AfD?

They simply addressed the concerns of voters worried about the influx of migrants and refugees."

In reply to Jim Hamilton:





Things like:-
European central bank policy designed to help the poorer economies of Europe while destroying the savings value of the normally careful German population/pensioners etc which Frau Merkel tells us in in the interests of European solidarity when our neighbours ride roughshod over any concept of solidarity.
The inability of the EU to do anything about upholding previous agreements when it doesn´ t suit some countries (the refugee issue primarily).
The way the coalition rolled over and let the car industry screw them every way possible.
Ditto the banks.
Taxation of multi-national companies, the EU and it´ s members various ideas of what is fair and reasonable (Luxembourg for example) and the apparent lack of will in the EU to do anything about it.
The solidarity tax.
The complete shambles which is the drive to renewable energy.
A lack of "firmness" from the coalition with respect to megalomaniac´ s in certain countries.
The massive increase in state control over data etc in the "fight against terrorism".
etc, etc.

Having three major parties in a coalition, all with similar political positions and enjoying an enormous majority was guaranteed to produce a backlash on both the left and the right (the main far left party also did well in the election).

In reply to jimtitt:

+1, thanks for saving me the effort typing a detailed response. Refugees were one issue, but by no means the main one. As I said somewhere above, that would have been different a year ago. Now, ennui after a zillion years of Merkel, and being generally fed up with a broad coalition (which will always mean internal blockade) will have been more important.

That, and of course blatant racism, especially in the East.

CB

In reply to cb294:
I left out the motorway tolls we are "never" going to have, the Euro transport aircraft project that can´ t get off the ground, the anti-submarine helicopters that aren´ t allowed to fly over the sea, Berlin Airport and the rest before it depressed me
At least in Bavaria the weather is better, we are all rich, we´ ve the best climbing and the beer is drinkable!

In reply to jimtitt:

Munich airport was the last big infrastructure project in Germany that was delivered before schedule and under budget. Berlin airport is just a monument to Berlin/East German systemic incompetence in running any large scale project.

I will be moving back west in a few weeks time, unfortunately not home to Bavaria but to Hesse. No appreciable climbing, drinkable beer but excellent wine...

CB

In reply to cb294:

So how will Brussels and Junker react to this? reaction to Brexit is not the only reaction they now need to take since this election has shown cracks from within. Will they ignore it, bury head in sand and is that a good idea?

In reply to MargieB:

No idea, Merkel is playing dead as usual. Wait and the problems my go away. Actually, this is a bit unfair: There is another state election coming up, followed by the party conference season. Nothing official will happen before then, as the position of the CSU (the Bavarian conservatives that are formally a separate party) is severely weakened (and has been for a while, with infighting between different factions hindering the actual business of governing).

The overall picture has become more Euro friendly, though, as the anti-Europeans now have a platform they share with an assorted bunch of protest voting losers, racists and outright neonazis. Noone will deal with them, and the other parties, especially the Greens and Liberals, are decidedly pro-EU, albeit with some differences with respect to e.g. financial integration / Eurobonds. Within the large parties (SPD, CDU, and to a lesser extent CSU) that means that they have to care less about the EU sceptics withing their own ranks.

CB

In reply to cb294:
So that suggests Germany is still into the concept of the European Union but that concept is more fluid in its definition and subject discussion as to its final trajectory after this German election.

From the British perspective it seemed wise to slow down the Brexit timetable by May- and Corbyn was wise to not discuss and produce hard lines as yet on this subject until we know what is going on in Mainland Europe.

In reply to MargieB:
Native speakers (ie not me) will have far better understanding but on the post election panel discussion the SPD leader said that Brexit is a UK internal affair and the EU position on Brexit is fixed by the 27. None of the rest of the panel which included Merkel contradicted him. There was a general commitment to the EU which is not fluid and nor is the view on the EU27 negotiating position.

So far the EU27 position is not fluid because fluidity would require re-opening negotiations within the 27.

What's going on in Europe is that Brexit is a done deal and it will happen in March 2019. That's because they take us at our word.

Since they take us at our word, clever words, slogans, point scoring and prevarication which might work in English and in parliament don't work in negotiations. They don't provide the hard positions ticking the boxes that say points A, B, C must be agreed before the EU27 will move on to points D, E, F etc. In the absence of hard positions producing substantive progress so far they don't see any reason for fluidity.

The sequential EU27 approach may not suit the UK but we don't negotiate with the EU27 that suits us. We negotiate with an EU27 that suits them.

There's no point waiting until the post-election hiatus dies down because another election somewhere or something more interesting than future external relations of the EU27 will be along soon.

A done deal is not high in domestic political priorities of those we're negotiating with - it would be interesting to hear from those actually based in the EU27 if that and the rest of this post is broadly correct or complete rubbish!

In reply to MargieB:

As elsewhere has said, there is no chance (even if the government in Germany wanted to which is not the case) that the negotiating conditions would or even could be changed. They are a unanimous decision by the 27 states and the EU itself. The possibility that they could be changed anyway with the agreement of all parties before the deadline passed is practically zero.
At least in Germany Brexit is of little real interest to the general public or the politicians, it´ s something the British are doing and might have some vague effect on industry but it´ s not as important as Bayern München getting trashed last night!

In reply to elsewhere:

Pretty close. Brexit is essentially a non-issue in the German political discussion, and definitely of less importance than the new initiative by Macron for an increased integration of the rEU. In a way, dealing with Brexit is seen as of little importance for the future issues. A negotiation team has been assembled and issued with a specific mandate, and that is all there is for dealing with the legacy issue of UK membership. New rEU initiatives clearly have priority.

As for the rEU internal process, Merkels's CDU is in principle for increased collaboration of at least a core of Eurozone countries, but is somewhat hamstrung by the recent election results: They still have to make up their mind about how they want to counteract the loss of voters towards the AfD (who actually gained most by mobilizing non-voters, then from the CDU, and then from the ex-communist party Die Linke). Merkel would like to offer support to Macron, but here party leadership is not sure yet whether this makes sense tactically, at least not for the two weeks until the Niedersachsen election.

In contrast, the two likely coalition partners, liberals and greens, are much more pro-EU integration, with certain reservations against a common financial policy on the side of the liberals.

Any apparent hope of the UK negotiators that having the German elections out of the way would increase flexibility on the rEU side had IMO always been mistaken. This is not only because the Merkel government is now in a weakened position as well, but would have been true even if the CDU had been the clear winner.

CB

In reply to elsewhere:

I watched the discussion that I think you're referring to (on the night of the election), and one of the things that struck me was that Brexit was only mentioned once, briefly at the end of what was probably a good hour-long show.

As you say, it was really uncontentious - no exasperation, no political point scoring, and it really showed me how it's seen by politicians in Germany - something of a fairly insignificant sideshow. I'm not sure that every political leader even bothered to comment on it, and from memory, it didn't come across remotely as Schultz saying "we'd love to change the position of the EU27, but we're stuck with it", or anything of that sort. It's hard to describe - we're all used to politicians playing stuff down, and we know that if politicians make out that they are relaxed about an issue, or that something is small and insignificant, then that's doubtless something huge and important that they're terrified of. But that's not what happened, it was much more like Schultz was saying what he thought he would have for dinner tomorrow night. It's also worth noting that he wasn't on top form on the night either, he got pretty worked up earlier on in the discussion too (sort of lost control of his emotions), so it's not like he was master of his own emotions either.

For me, it really highlighted how uncontentious Brexit is in Germany. They think it's a shame, they would have liked to have had the UK remain, and they don't think it'll work out well for the UK... but they're not interested in judging or punishing the UK; they're just not that interested in Brexit. They have a strong negotiating position and a process to follow. They're happy with it, and they know that a lack of progress is much worse for the UK than for the rest of the EU, so why would they worry?

In reply to cb294 and jimtitt:

What they said ^^^ more eloquently than I did

In reply to Green Porridge:
Mr Barnier has just said that there is absolutely no link between what takes place in the 'divorce' negotiations and what happens in the second half of the talks.
So why are we even having these negotiations?
Keep all our contributions and crack on with the trade talks.
Doesn't sound like the Germans are too bothered either.

In reply to baron:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

In reply to elsewhere:

There is no EU27 position because no one asked member states about it. Our Czech Eurocommissioner even admitted (by mistake) they did not vote about it inside the Commision. It´ s pretty clear the posotion of certain countries is quite different. Czech is generaly inclined to good agreement with UK without any previous conditions. For Poland, Slovakia and some Balcan coutries is British labour market open what matters.

In reply to jimtitt:


It seems to be coming clear that the only deal that the EU27 are willing to do is one that is highly unfavourable to the UK.

That means that perhaps the best thing to do (other than call off Brexit) is to just come out of the EU without any deal, and then take things bit by bit from there.

In reply to pavelk:

27 Heads of State or Government decided the EU27 negotiating position see http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29-euco-brex...

You can read the public position documents yourself at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-a...


That might be because elected national leaders such as the Czech PM on the European Council tell the un-elected commissioners what to do. Would you want it the other way round?


In other breaking news, bear shits in woods.

In reply to Green Porridge:
Mr Barnier said there is no link to the deal reached in the present negotiations i.e. Citizens rights, Ireland, money and what takes place afterwards, as in the trade talks.
So why are we junping through hoops to make 'sufficient progress', when it won't affect what happens next?

In reply to baron:



It does affect what happens next because the EU27 position is there will be no trade talks until after the present negotiations you mention (Citizens rights, Ireland, money).

In reply to baron:



There is no link between the first set of negotiations and the second. The first must be making "satisfactory progress" in the opinion of the European Council before preparatory talks begin on the second set. That is there won´ t be any discussion on other issues before the first lot are cut and dried.
Which undoubtedly makes things very difficult from the British point of view as, apart from the rights of citizens etc the rights of companies both in the UK and Europe have to be guaranteed before any talks on the future position of the UK in Europe begin (i.e tax, customs, tarifs etc) as these can only take place AFTER the UK has left.

All this was known before the UK invoked Article 50 so should come as no suprise.

In reply to elsewhere:


The commision don´ t seem to read it. There is nothing about divorce bill as the condition for further negotiations, for example


They must not take instructions from elected leaders.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-union/organisational-structure/pol...

In reply to pavelk:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/article-50-triggered/

"Mrs May signed the most important document of her career - informing the European Council of Britain's intention to leave the European Union"

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/05/22-brexit-ne...

"The Council, meeting in an EU27 format, adopted a decision authorising the opening of Brexit negotiations with the UK and formally nominating the Commission as EU negotiator. The Council also adopted negotiating directives for the talks."

Note how article 50 triggered by informing European Council of elected national leaders.

Note how the council told the commision to start negotiating.

It's funny how the elected national leaders who have armies and taxation powers to pay the bills made the decisions.

In reply to pavelk:


Clearly you don´ t even read the items you link to:-

"To that effect, the first phase of negotiations will aim to: provide as much clarity and legal certainty as possible to citizens, businesses, stakeholders and international partners on the immediate effects of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union; settle the disentanglement of the United Kingdom from the Union and from all the rights and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State.

The European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase."

In case you have difficulty in understanding this it basically says that the "obligations" (the divorce bill) must be decided on before the next negotiations start.

The European Commission is the executive arm of the EU, that is they do the paperwork. All decisons are made by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament who both appoint and have the power to dismiss the Commission. They don´ t "have" to listen to what their masters want or say but the consequences of not doing so are obvious.

In reply to jimtitt:

Mr Junckers has just proclaimed that sufficient progress has not been made and that it would take a miracle for this to happen before October.
Who needs ministers when he can make all the decisions and announce them to the press.
Even if it's true.

In reply to jimtitt:

Perhaps perceptions by various EU countries of not being consulted are important? The fact that there is a perception of not being consulted suggests that the Eu structure and the Eu citizens are not quite on the same page of feeling part of a consensus. Is this not another example of what in effect has been highlighted in the German election..... I wish the Reu could see this. Otherwise a hardine Junker approach { which I personally blame for the Brexit vote in reacting to his authoritarian position on the day before the vote} may completely fracture the whole EU project and that I think is the danger. I really think those at the top of the Reu fail to see their internal problems. Personally I would like the Eu project to succeed at some level but fear complete fracture may be the result of top level idealistic intransigence.

As for Brexit. I want a vote on the final deal with status quo as option. I think that is pretty reasonable given the depth of detail that we are now starting to fully understand through the negotiations and political shifts within mainland Europe.

In reply to baron:




The elected national leaders who nominated the commission as EU negotiator can nominate somebody else if they're not happy with that.

In reply to jimtitt:

This is quite peculiar interpretation. There is no word about it at article 50 and there is no obligation like it writen anywhere

In reply to elsewhere:


A little less funny is how often national leader of small states (like Czech) go the Council with some very strong opinion and come back with completely different one without any relevant explanation.
Fortunately or unfortunately we still remember the same experience from the old times when we were members of the communist bloc

In reply to pavelk:

No.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obligation

Every example for legal obligation mentions payment.

‘In the absence of any promise, agreement or obligation to make the payment when he acquired, took possession of or used the money, he had given no consideration within the meaning of the Act.’
‘By imposing a retroactive child support obligation, I have also accommodated Grace's payments.’
‘The adjudicator's decision, although not finally determinative, may give rise to an immediate payment obligation.’
‘Her equalization payment obligation to her husband can then be satisfied by reducing the amount of his support arrears.’
‘Thus, if the proper law of the payment obligation is country Y, its moratorium will be given effect.’

In reply to pavelk:
Don't worry. The Czech army is bigger than the Commission's army so there'll be no repeat of 1968.

In reply to elsewhere:

Sometimes it seems like Mr Juncker is the EU's answer to Boris Johnson.
Maybe those two could sort out the whole thing between themselves.

In reply to pavelk:


Whether you think it is a peculiar intepretation is irrelevant, both the EU and the UK think ".....and obligations the United Kingdom derives from commitments undertaken as Member State." means pay the bill and complete whatever you signed up to.

In reply to MargieB:



Hard to see how much more consultation could be achieved on a policy originating from the heads of the 27 countries, ratified by the the same and also by the European Parliament made up from the elected representatives of those 27 countries.

Status quo as an option is a pipe-dream, the terms of withdrawal from Article 50 will be subject to negotiation with the same 27 countries.

In reply to jimtitt:

Whatever anyone in Czech thinks is irrelevant for EU big guys. At worst they promise sometghing and later say they did dot mean it seriously. As they did with our exception to the Lisbon Treaty

In reply to pavelk:

First, the central and eastern European countries joined an existing EU with a pre-existing set of rules and a political culture. Noone forced them to do so, but to join and then to moan about the rules and culture does not go down well in the core EU capitals and Brussels, as Hungary and Poland will presumably soon find out (that everything goes slow and tradeoffs will be made between superficially unrelated subject is another well known EU tradition). In that respect, Brexit will no doubt be used as a stick to beat the PiS government with come the next budget round.

Second, in general he who pays the piper calls the tune. Of course the large the contributors have more negotiation clout. However, the safeguards against all out economic blackmail are quite strong within the EU framework, to the extent that the net contributors are unhappy about their lack of control. If both sides are equally unhappy you are probably near a healthy middle ground.

CB

In reply to pavelk:


No, your democratically elected government leader has exactly the same vote as all others including on the conditions relating to Brexit. And he used it as he and presumably his government thought they had a mandate from the Czech population to, if this isn´ t to your taste then take the matter up with him.