What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because the EU don't want our 27 friends and allies enjoy the same freedom and sovereignty as the UK in a europe-wide free trade area.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ny trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Why on Earth should we pay £40-£50bn, that’s the equivalent of 2p on the basic rate of income tax for five years? There’s no basis for the payment, it’s a naked attempt to extract what’s little more than a massive bribe to move them on to the trade talks.
We should pay because the alternative is worse. Don’t blame me. I did not vote to put us in a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces.
Is this advert brought to us by the same people who said not joining the Euro would be a disaster, and how merely voting Leave would bring on economic disaster?
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ny trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
s.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Why on Earth should we pay £40-£50bn, that’s the equivalent of 2p on the basic rate of income tax for five years? There’s no basis for the payment, it’s a naked attempt to extract what’s little more than a massive bribe to move them on to the trade talks.
We should pay because the alternative is worse. Don’t blame me. I did not vote to put us in a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces.
And where are we going to find this money? The Magic Money Tree?
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
That's as may be. But SO moaning that it is Tory party refusing to accept something entirely unreasonable doesn't really stand, does it. The country won't accept that level of cost either, according to polling.
You're using the unreasonable word again. There's nothing unreasonable in negotiations.
It appears that Leavers haven't learned what Thucydides knew over 2000 years ago: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
The mistake the British side made was in not setting the tone in the first place. We should have made an immediate statement that all EU citizens already in the UK would have permanent right to residence, work and benefits which could not be removed and that we expected the EU to reciprocate but would not backtrack on that particular issue even if the EU refused. That would have given the UK a moral position to work from.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
How is the EU's thin air justification of the 40-50bn not unreasonable?
There is no such thing in negotiations as reasonable or unreasonable.
That's as may be. But SO moaning that it is Tory party refusing to accept something entirely unreasonable doesn't really stand, does it. The country won't accept that level of cost either, according to polling.
You're using the unreasonable word again. There's nothing unreasonable in negotiations.
It appears that Leavers haven't learned what Thucydides knew over 2000 years ago: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
The mistake the British side made was in not setting the tone in the first place. We should have made an immediate statement that all EU citizens already in the UK would have permanent right to residence, work and benefits which could not be removed and that we expected the EU to reciprocate but would not backtrack on that particular issue even if the EU refused. That would have given the UK a moral position to work from.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
Because it maximises the EU's negotiating leverage
I think it's a very short-sighted, transactional approach they are adopting. But there is some logic to it once they have adopted this position.
I agree Charles. However, that is not a good reason for a Brit to be saying that is how it needs to be.
Every Brit is also a European, and has every right to see the long-term interests of the EU as their interests. Brexit is an aberration; it is not the future.
The EU is not Europe and Europe is not the EU. The EU is an aberration. Brexit is the start of a return to normality.
So you do intend Brexit to be an existential threat to the EU? The cat's out of the bag now.
Nope. I am not one of those who believes the EU will fall apart because we leave. Indeed I think it will move towards full political union much faster without us holding it up.
It will eventually fall apart of course but not because of anything we do. Its breakup is inevitable because of the incredible stresses that are inherent in its construction. The UK leaving will probably ease those stresses and delay that breakup for a while. So in that way you should be grateful to us.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t knowill a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Never mind
Yep, it’s all about the politics, not what’s best for the country.
What is best for the country is surely what the country wants? The country voted to leave the EU to restore sovereignty and control immigration from the EU and the country does not want to pay £50 billion+ to the EU.
It is all very well you getting on your high horse and saying what is best for the country, short of staying in the EU and single market, is to pay the EU £50 billion without fuss for a trade deal (which would probably take years to finalise anyway if Canada is anything to go by) but the majority of the country has a different view even if that means going to WTO terms in the short term.
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.
That may be the EU's view, however, it does not follow that view is right for each of the member states, does it?
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
Correct!
For a more substantive answer - one draftsman is said to have said that Art. 50 was window dressing to fob off objectors who said the treaty was unleavable;
"Mr Amato told a conference in Rome, he had inserted the get-out clause specifically to prevent the British from complaining that there was no clear cut, official way for them to bail out of the Union.
He said: "I wrote Article 50, so I know it well.
"My intention was that it should be a classic safety valve that was there, but never used. It is like having a fire extinguisher that should never have to be used. Instead, the fire happened.
"When it comes to the economy they have to lose.” "
Which is all well and fine as long as everybody knows that and understands the implications before deciding to leave. Did we? Did we f*ck.
We really did jump over the cliff edge without knowing what the drop was, where we would land and what our chances of surviving were. It was the silliest thing any sovereign nation I can think of has done in my lifetime.
I couldn't agree more. The only thing I can think of as consolation is that things must have looked 100 times worse than they do now in 1945 (and indeed 1939-44 inclusive) yet here we are now.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t knowill a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Never mind
Yep, it’s all about the politics, not what’s best for the country.
What is best for the country is surely what the country wants? The country voted to leave the EU to restore sovereignty and control immigration from the EU and the country does not want to pay £50 billion to the EU.
It is all very well you getting on your high horse and saying what is best for the country is, short of staying in the EU and single market, to pay the EU £50 billion without fuss for a trade deal (which would probably take years to finalise anyway if Canada is anything to go by) but the majority of the country has a different view even if that means going to WTO terms in the short term.
The country wants to nationalise the railways and public utilities. I would have a modicum of sympathy for your argument if you supported doing those things, too.
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.
That may be the EU's view, however, it does not follow that view is right for each of the member states, does it?
The member states have evidently taken the same view individually. Their cohesiveness behind the agreed strategy has been near-complete.
It's an entirely rational line of thought. You just don't like it.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
Is that genuinely what you think or are you just cut and pasting Juncker? Why is it necessary to delay talks on trade until these other issue are resolved? Give me one good reason.
I am not Juncker. I’m merely saying it’s hardly a huge surprise the Germans want a good relationship with us.
No no. You were saying money, citizens right and NI need to be sorted before trade talks can commence. Why?
Because those are the conditions for moving to the next stage.
They are the EU's conditions. Do you agree with them?
Not particularly. But they’re in charge.
They are only in charge if the UK allows them to be. Admittedly there is a large body of Remainer opinion in the UK that wants us to roll over and accept whatever terms the UK offers on the grounds that any "deal" (or rather, in those terms, any imposition) is better than no deal.
We are where we are. I accept we’re leaving and I accept that the EU holds the whip hand in the negotiations. No Deal would be a catastrophe for the UK. We should pay the money and get onto the important stuff.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to present a bill, nor to suggest the legal basis for calculating one. They’re using this purely to buy time in the hope that we become desperate to move on to Trade we’ll sign any cheque put in front of us. 2. Citizens’ny trading relationship. 3. Northern Ireland - this is impossible to resolve until we understand the trading relationship, that’s required to look at the physical implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t know what relationship we want. That’s not the EU’s fault, it’s our government’s. The Leave campaign - led by a number of cabinet ministers - promised EU citizens’ rights would not change as a consequence of Brexit. Clearly, we are still a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Why on Earth should we pay £40-£50bn, that’s the equivalent of 2p on the basic rate of income tax for five years? There’s no basis for the payment, it’s a naked attempt to extract what’s little more than a massive bribe to move them on to the trade talks.
We should pay because the alternative is worse. Don’t blame me. I did not vote to put us in a negotiation in which the other side holds all the aces.
Is this advert brought to us by the same people who said not joining the Euro would be a disaster, and how merely voting Leave would bring on economic disaster?
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.
That may be the EU's view, however, it does not follow that view is right for each of the member states, does it?
The member states have evidently taken the same view individually. Their cohesiveness behind the agreed strategy has been near-complete.
It's an entirely rational line of thought. You just don't like it.
Well, we'll see how much the apparent cohesiveness holds, especially if it appears that no deal start to look likely. ROI in particular has much to lose if the EU overplays its hand.
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.
That may be the EU's view, however, it does not follow that view is right for each of the member states, does it?
The member states have evidently taken the same view individually. Their cohesiveness behind the agreed strategy has been near-complete.
It's an entirely rational line of thought. You just don't like it.
It is frightening isn't it? Stockholm syndrome on a pan-national scale.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
No, no, NO!
We are currently at the stage where Bond is tied down with the laser moving up to his groin. Shortly the supervillain will start to spill the beans and then we will escape miraculously at the last minute and end up with the pretty girl.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
What is so infuriating is that in the very first few days after she took over May (who I detest anyway as an authoritarian statist) actually persuaded me to say something nice about her on here because she gave the impression that she was going to do exactly that. Make an unconditional statement that all existing EU citizens would be guaranteed their rights in this country.
Then she didn't And the next time we hear about this she was saying it was all the EU's fault for not immediately agreeing to reciprocate.
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.
That may be the EU's view, however, it does not follow that view is right for each of the member states, does it?
The member states have evidently taken the same view individually. Their cohesiveness behind the agreed strategy has been near-complete.
It's an entirely rational line of thought. You just don't like it.
It is frightening isn't it? Stockholm syndrome on a pan-national scale.
The EU is simultaneously an all-powerful bully and an irrelevant house of cards. Make your mind up.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
No, no, NO!
We are currently at the stage where Bond is tied down with the laser moving up to his groin. Shortly the supervillain will start to spill the beans and then we will escape miraculously at the last minute and end up with the pretty girl.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
What is the EU's reason for not negotiating about trade exactly?
It can't be because we haven't agreed to pay an unspecified amount for no reason. So what is it?
They don't need to negotiate on trade and they certainly don't want to make it look like Britain can retain the benefits of EU free trade with none of the obligations.
That doesn't explain why they won't negotiate on trade. It is also of benefit to them too, just not as much as to us. Why not?
Because what is of benefit to them is maintaining the coherence of the EU's current framework. They take the view, rightly or wrongly, that protecting that coherence is of greater benefit than trade with any one nation.
Until that's assured, other things are secondary.
That may be the EU's view, however, it does not follow that view is right for each of the member states, does it?
The member states have evidently taken the same view individually. Their cohesiveness behind the agreed strategy has been near-complete.
It's an entirely rational line of thought. You just don't like it.
It is frightening isn't it? Stockholm syndrome on a pan-national scale.
The EU is simultaneously an all-powerful bully and an irrelevant house of cards. Make your mind up.
A bully, yes. All powerful, no. As I think we'll see as matters progress.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
Well the main thing is the difference between the EU and the rest of Britain.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
Well the main thing is the difference between the EU and the rest of Britain.
The rest of Britain aren't a bunch of wankers.
The EU is more sinned against by Leavers, who have been remarkably offensive over a remarkably long period, than sinning. But I expect you don't notice that.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
It is the need to punish to prevent any other countries leaving. If Scotland left there really isn't an existential threat to England. The EU believes (mistakenly I believe) that allowing one state to leave on good terms will cause others to want to do the same.
It does strike me that the EU is incredibly insecure if they believe this to be the case. Each country joins the EU for its own reasons and the reasons the UK want to leave are not those which would necessarily be repeated anywhere else in the EU.
It is their own insecurity that has led the EU to behave in this way and to do harm to themselves because of a false belief we are the tip of the iceberg.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
I doubt I am any more knowledgeable than you. But anyway.
Scotland didn't actually vote to leave the UK. That is the main difference.
If I remember correctly, the plan in Indyref was that there would be a two year negotiation on a deal with the UK which would then be put to a second rederendum. The Scottish government had also spent three years preparing their case for independence.
It would probably be even more complicated and consuming than Brexit, but there were no cliff edges.
SouthamObserver - hasn't it been reported by Charles that Germany and France don't intend to guarantee UK citizens rights in the EU?
There are issues affecting EU citizens who may worked all their life in the UK and only built up pension rights here - what happens if they retire home or to another EU country.
Lots of Irish and French and other EU citizens in the UK (who may also be UK citizens) who may only have built up state pension rights here and nowhere else. If they retire to Spain or Portugal in the future using their FOM rights who pays for their health care and benefits (via the current S1 form) - the UK or the Irish/French governments or no one?
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
Why was A. 50 included in the Treaty? Why not just declare that you can never Leave?
Copyright issues.
Article 50 - The Political equivalent of Hotel California.
'You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.'
We're prisoners of our own device, as the song goes. We have checked out of Hotel Europa because we think we don't like it, only to find there isn't a bed to be had in town for love or for money, except for the worst room in the hotel's annexe at £200 a night until maybe Sunday.
Welcome to the Hotel Europa. Such a lovely place ...
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
It is the need to punish to prevent any other countries leaving. If Scotland left there really isn't an existential threat to England. The EU believes (mistakenly I believe) that allowing one state to leave on good terms will cause others to want to do the same.
It does strike me that the EU is incredibly insecure if they believe this to be the case. Each country joins the EU for its own reasons and the reasons the UK want to leave are not those which would necessarily be repeated anywhere else in the EU.
It is their own insecurity that has led the EU to behave in this way and to do harm to themselves because of a false belief we are the tip of the iceberg.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
What is so infuriating is that in the very first few days after she took over May (who I detest anyway as an authoritarian statist) actually persuaded me to say something nice about her on here because she gave the impression that she was going to do exactly that. Make an unconditional statement that all existing EU citizens would be guaranteed their rights in this country.
Then she didn't And the next time we hear about this she was saying it was all the EU's fault for not immediately agreeing to reciprocate.
Teach me to go against my better judgement.
Unilaterally guaranteeing a right to reside here is fair. Unilaterally guaranteeing rights to be subject to the ECJ or immigration for spouses from outside the EU is not.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
No, no, NO!
We are currently at the stage where Bond is tied down with the laser moving up to his groin. Shortly the supervillain will start to spill the beans and then we will escape miraculously at the last minute and end up with the pretty girl.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
SouthamObserver - hasn't it been reported by Charles that Germany and France don't intend to guarantee UK citizens rights in the EU?
France, not Germany. It's worth Eur 500m a year to them in net tax gain.
The theory of that is a useful reminder that the British government are less likely to consider handing over 40-50bn acceptable, because that is money that either needs to be raised or borrowed.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
I think two main reasons.
One reason is the EU has a monopoly on relations with the main European countries. On the one hand the EU provides a useful service in herding the nation state cats in a fractured continent, which saves us having to try doing the same thing; on the other there is no alternative way of dealing with those countries except through the EU.
The second reason is that the EU operates a complex and deep system of rules and relationships not just within the EU27 but also with third parties. Access to that system is valuable.
Edit. I agree with HYUFD above, that seceding from a nation state is difficult as well, which is why it doesn't normally happen except following a crisis. I would also disagree that the complications weren't known about. I knew about them and wasn't an expert. I think it was a case of people not paying attention or not being receptive to a view different from the one they already had.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
Seceding from a sovereign state as a newly independent country is just as difficult, see Catalonia currently and I expect had Scotland voted to leave in 2014 Osborne would have ensured a tough line was taken with them too
Hmm, well next door to us in Tandridge (East Surrey), several such new towns ("garden villages") are proposed, and there are posters opposing them on virtually every street corner. With the Lib Dems leading the charge. John O might know more as he is (was?) a councillor in Surrey.
Tandridge politics is more complex as John O will tell you. There is a powerful well-funded residents group operating in Oxted and Limpsfield which is opposed to the Local Plan and is drumming up support elsewhere in the District.
The OLRP defeated the former Conservative Group leader in the 2016 local elections winning the Oxted North and Tandridge seat.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Guido linking to a Bloomberg article saying the German Foreign Ministry is proposing a comprehensive free trade deal with Brexit Britain. That sounds like good news, no?
Why wouldn’t they want one? They are not our enemies, they are our friends. The challenge is getting to a point where such a deal can be discussed. That requires movement on money, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland, and the British government to work out precisely what relationship it wants with the EU.
To take those in turn. 1. Money. The EU side have yet to implementation of the border.
To summarise, we’ve gone as far as we can on these three issues, and it now looks purely like the EU side are finding ways to add to British business uncertainty by delaying the trade talks.
We don’t knowill a long way from that. Money is a question of Tory party politics.
We are legislating on citizens rights, but the EU want their own court to continue to rule on this well into the future.
Money is a case of them presenting a bill and taking it from there. The problem is that they know there’s no legal basis for any bill at all, bar minor items like the pensions of UK employees.
I agree there’s no legal basis for a big bill. But that’s not really the point. The sum required seems to be about £40bn to £50bn. It’s much less than the cost of a No Deal would be. But it’s impossible for the Tories agree because it would tear them even further apart. That’s not the EU’s fault.
Never mind
Yep, it’s all about the politics, not what’s best for the country.
What is best for the country is surely what the country wants? The country voted to leave the EU to restore sovereignty and control immigration from the EU and the country does not want to pay £50 billion to the EU.
It is all very well you getting on your high horse and saying what is best for the country is, short of
The country wants to nationalise the railways and public utilities. I would have a modicum of sympathy for your argument if you supported doing those things, too.
I don't but if Corbyn wins the general election I accept he has a mandate to nationalise the railways and public utilities just as I would hope you can accept the government has a mandate to implement the Brexit the country wants.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
It is the need to punish to prevent any other countries leaving. If Scotland left there really isn't an existential threat to England. The EU believes (mistakenly I believe) that allowing one state to leave on good terms will cause others to want to do the same.
It does strike me that the EU is incredibly insecure if they believe this to be the case. Each country joins the EU for its own reasons and the reasons the UK want to leave are not those which would necessarily be repeated anywhere else in the EU.
It is their own insecurity that has led the EU to behave in this way and to do harm to themselves because of a false belief we are the tip of the iceberg.
Vindicates my decision to Leave, to be honest.
I would never want to stay in an organisation like that.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
It is the need to punish to prevent any other countries leaving. If Scotland left there really isn't an existential threat to England. The EU believes (mistakenly I believe) that allowing one state to leave on good terms will cause others to want to do the same.
It does strike me that the EU is incredibly insecure if they believe this to be the case. Each country joins the EU for its own reasons and the reasons the UK want to leave are not those which would necessarily be repeated anywhere else in the EU.
It is their own insecurity that has led the EU to behave in this way and to do harm to themselves because of a false belief we are the tip of the iceberg.
I absolutely agree. Britain has been offensive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been abrasive. The negotiating strategy has been abject.
What is so infuriating is that in the very first few days after she took over May (who I detest anyway as an authoritarian statist) actually persuaded me to say something nice about her on here because she gave the impression that she was going to do exactly that. Make an unconditional statement that all existing EU citizens would be guaranteed their rights in this country.
Then she didn't And the next time we hear about this she was saying it was all the EU's fault for not immediately agreeing to reciprocate.
Teach me to go against my better judgement.
Unilaterally guaranteeing a right to reside here is fair. Unilaterally guaranteeing rights to be subject to the ECJ or immigration for spouses from outside the EU is not.
I agree. But if we had done the first (made the legally binding assurances) then the EU would really not have had a leg to stand on regarding the second (ECJ oversight).
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Dear God. What rot.
William really does live in his own little world divorced from reality.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
Article 50 is there if you need it. The problem is that we don't need to leave - we want to leave, or at least we think we do, but when it comes down to the detail we don't want to give anything up.
Hmm, well next door to us in Tandridge (East Surrey), several such new towns ("garden villages") are proposed, and there are posters opposing them on virtually every street corner. With the Lib Dems leading the charge. John O might know more as he is (was?) a councillor in Surrey.
Tandridge politics is more complex as John O will tell you. There is a powerful well-funded residents group operating in Oxted and Limpsfield which is opposed to the Local Plan and is drumming up support elsewhere in the District.
The OLRP defeated the former Conservative Group leader in the 2016 local elections winning the Oxted North and Tandridge seat.
Yep, very fair summary.
But OT. Way OT. You can't even see the T from there. Too much information. Way too much. Despite my brother's restaurant being in Tandridge, seriously, who needs to know this?
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
What is making Brexit hard is that those who demanded it are utterly clueless about what they want from it. They know what they hate but have no place in their heart for a positive vision.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
Hmm, well next door to us in Tandridge (East Surrey), several such new towns ("garden villages") are proposed, and there are posters opposing them on virtually every street corner. With the Lib Dems leading the charge. John O might know more as he is (was?) a councillor in Surrey.
Tandridge politics is more complex as John O will tell you. There is a powerful well-funded residents group operating in Oxted and Limpsfield which is opposed to the Local Plan and is drumming up support elsewhere in the District.
The OLRP defeated the former Conservative Group leader in the 2016 local elections winning the Oxted North and Tandridge seat.
Yep, very fair summary.
But OT. Way OT. You can't even see the T from there. Too much information. Way too much. Despite my brother's restaurant being in Tandridge, seriously, who needs to know this?
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
That is the essential paradox of our current situation - just as the EU demonstrates its failings, simultaneously our government demonstrates why the Brexit vote was a huge mistake.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
Article 50 is there if you need it. The problem is that we don't need to leave - we want to leave, or at least we think we do, but when it comes down to the detail we don't want to give anything up.
Well, I do. I want to give up EU citizenship. It's not something I ever asked for. I want to give up the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I want to give up the Four Freedoms.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
Article 50 is there if you need it. The problem is that we don't need to leave - we want to leave, or at least we think we do, but when it comes down to the detail we don't want to give anything up.
Well, I do. I want to give up EU citizenship. It's not something I ever asked for. I want to give up the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I want to give up the Four Freedoms.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
What you think are the potential wins and losses for the EU aren't what they think they are. Their big loss is us rejecting EU membership. That's already happened and priced in. The other stuff matters less to them than us. Interestingly there really are bad deals for the EU that are worse than no deals, unlike us. Maybe we shouldn't have come out with that rhetoric because it plays against us. These are deals involving cakes.
It's silly. They should recognise that the EU was going to a place the UK couldn't but, we would have been happy in an outer tier of associate membership, and the threat of the UK's veto over ever closer union would also have been removed.
I see we're getting another bout tonight of Leavers complaining how unreasonable the EU is being by not doing exactly what Leavers want them to do.
Is that different to Remainers complaining that our government is not doing what the EU wants? There's plenty of that on here, see SO's latest post in reply to mine.
Leavers told everyone else that it was all going to be trivially easy. It turns out that they expected their supervillain of choice to be defeated by willingly handing over the keys to the volcano lair on request.
Genuinely funniest thing you've written on here for a while.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
So it would be a lot easier to leave the EU once the EU has achieved its objective of becoming a single state?
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
Well the main thing is the difference between the EU and the rest of Britain.
The rest of Britain aren't a bunch of wankers.
“It’s SHITE being British! We’re the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the Europeans. I don’t. They’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are subject to REGULATIONS written by wankers. Can’t even find a decent Political Elite to be colonized BY. We’re ruled by effete assholes. It’s a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tessie, and ALL the fresh air in the world won’t make any fucking difference!”
The EU's refusal to talk trade now is a clear indicator that they have no desire to come to an agreed deal. If they had such desire they'd talk trade. May will be right to walk if the EU continues in similar vein and the tragedy is there will be no winners, including the EU and especially ROI.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
The most unbelievable word you use I’m afraid is “we”. Sorry not feeling charitable tonight.
Urged by whom is the $64000 question, I do hate this sort of thing. It's not like it's difficult to up the res so the paper is actually legible.
I wouldn't blame her for walking out. This feels like the UK making repeated applications for early release to a prison parole board and being rejected for not having demonstrated the appropriate level of remorse.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
The trick, William Glenn, is not minding that it hurts!
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
What you think are the potential wins and losses for the EU aren't what they think they are. Their big loss is us rejecting EU membership. That's already happened and priced in. The other stuff matters less to them than us. Interestingly there really are bad deals for the EU that are worse than no deals, unlike us. Maybe we shouldn't have come out with that rhetoric because it plays against us. These are deals involving cakes.
It's silly. They should recognise that the EU was going to a place the UK couldn't but, we would have been happy in an outer tier of associate membership, and the threat of the UK's veto over ever closer union would also have been removed.
Total lack of imaginative thinking on both sides.
I think you'll find that arrangement was colloquially known as 'Dave's Deal'.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
Humiliation would be going back into the EU with our tails between our legs never to be listened to again.
Now we have voted out we stay out, at most we could eventually return to EFTA and the single market after a few years of falling immigration but never the full EU now.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
So far we've had on here tonight (from some British Remainers, as far as I can tell) that the UK is an ungrateful misbehaving child, that you can never leave the KGB, some sort of analogy to Stockholm syndrome, and a simile that many a victim of domestic violence could relate to.
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Ever wonder why your motives and loyalties are questioned?
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
I fully expect the British government to gain popularity for something that you consider to have humiliated Britain.
Because I've never discussed politics with someone less in touch with the common ground of British politics.
I see that Leavers tonight are frotting themselves into an ever-increasing frenzy over the EU's refusal to do as they wish. The almost total lack of introspection as to why the EU might feel so disinclined to offer olive branches is more informative than the actual chauvinism being spouted.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
So it would be a lot easier to leave the EU once the EU has achieved its objective of becoming a single state?
Quite. So leaving EFTA is near impossible ( though several have), or maybe the USA leaving NAFTA is more difficult than Nebraska seceding from the USA?
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
I fully expect the British government to gain popularity for something that you consider to have humiliated Britain.
Because I've never discussed politics with someone less in touch with the common ground of British politics.
I see that Leavers tonight are frotting themselves into an ever-increasing frenzy over the EU's refusal to do as they wish. The almost total lack of introspection as to why the EU might feel so disinclined to offer olive branches is more informative than the actual chauvinism being spouted.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
What you think are the potential wins and losses for the EU aren't what they think they are. Their big loss is us rejecting EU membership. That's already happened and priced in. The other stuff matters less to them than us. Interestingly there really are bad deals for the EU that are worse than no deals, unlike us. Maybe we shouldn't have come out with that rhetoric because it plays against us. These are deals involving cakes.
It's silly. They should recognise that the EU was going to a place the UK couldn't but, we would have been happy in an outer tier of associate membership, and the threat of the UK's veto over ever closer union would also have been removed.
Total lack of imaginative thinking on both sides.
I think you'll find that arrangement was colloquially known as 'Dave's Deal'.
Funny how much that is talked about now, after the referendum campaign.
But, as I've said before, sensible Remainers actually wanting a political settlement (that would stick) for the UK Remaining in the EU in the medium-term would be arguing for this to be put back on the table now, with some extra qualifications on free movement.
The EU's refusal to talk trade now is a clear indicator that they have no desire to come to an agreed deal. If they had such desire they'd talk trade. May will be right to walk if the EU continues in similar vein and the tragedy is there will be no winners, including the EU and especially ROI.
She has to walk. Nothing can be achieved between now and December.
If she did, the Conservatives would be up 6 points in the polls before she even got home. People are fed up with the UK being humiliated.
Amazing how everyone quotes polls around here, but ignore the ones that say that the UK public don't want to submit to EU blackmail and are happy with no deal. They must all be rogue polls.
I see that Leavers tonight are frotting themselves into an ever-increasing frenzy over the EU's refusal to do as they wish. The almost total lack of introspection as to why the EU might feel so disinclined to offer olive branches is more informative than the actual chauvinism being spouted.
What I've found really interesting is that the EU 27 are more united than our cabinet.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
They don't want to be seen to be rewarding a recalcitrant child. One can criticise this mindset, but it was always going to happen and was well rehearsed during the referendum campaign. Shame you weren't paying attention.
So far we've had on here tonight (from some British Remainers, as far as I can tell) that the UK is an ungrateful misbehaving child, that you can never leave the KGB, some sort of analogy to Stockholm syndrome, and a simile that many a victim of domestic violence could relate to.
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Ever wonder why your motives and loyalties are questioned?
I'm just saying how the EU would see it and how they would act accordingly. Am I wrong?
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
Article 50 is there if you need it. The problem is that we don't need to leave - we want to leave, or at least we think we do, but when it comes down to the detail we don't want to give anything up.
Well, I do. I want to give up EU citizenship. It's not something I ever asked for. I want to give up the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I want to give up the Four Freedoms.
You must be suffering from false consciousness, Sean.
Out of genuine curiosity, and wishing to understand this better from those posters more knowledgeable than me, why is leaving the EU proving more difficult than seceding as a newly independent country from a sovereign state?
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
If you imagine the country as a building, carving out a new sovereign state is like dividing it into apartments, whereas leaving a multilateral treaty organisation is like removing a floor without any visible means of support for the upper storeys.
Multilateral treaty organisations have come and gone over 2,500 years.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
Yup.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
No, we won the Falklands war.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
I fully expect the British government to gain popularity for something that you consider to have humiliated Britain.
Because I've never discussed politics with someone less in touch with the common ground of British politics.
Don't you want to privatise the NHS?
God no.
It would clog up the private hospitals something rotten.
(Yes, this is a joke. No, I don't want to privatise the NHS).
I see that Leavers tonight are frotting themselves into an ever-increasing frenzy over the EU's refusal to do as they wish. The almost total lack of introspection as to why the EU might feel so disinclined to offer olive branches is more informative than the actual chauvinism being spouted.
What I've found really interesting is that the EU 27 are more united than our cabinet.
So we keep being told. We'll see just how united they are if no deal starts to look likely.
I've always said there is only one deal which is what the EU want. While we argue amongst ourselves they are re-engineering their supply chains to minimise impact. You take what's on offer or piss off
A sensible EU would be looking upon Brexit as a win-win for both them and the UK.
What you think are the potential wins and losses for the EU aren't what they think they are. Their big loss is us rejecting EU membership. That's already happened and priced in. The other stuff matters less to them than us. Interestingly there really are bad deals for the EU that are worse than no deals, unlike us. Maybe we shouldn't have come out with that rhetoric because it plays against us. These are deals involving cakes.
It's silly. They should recognise that the EU was going to a place the UK couldn't but, we would have been happy in an outer tier of associate membership, and the threat of the UK's veto over ever closer union would also have been removed.
Total lack of imaginative thinking on both sides.
I think you can make that argument to the EU's self interest and it is probably one that we need to make at some point. But it is a second order concern for them. The EU is a membership organisation and, completely rationally, they will prioritise the integrity of their institution and the interests of members over third parties.
It is useful to understand where the other side is coming from in a negotiation, but ultimately we need to act in our interests, as they do theirs. I don't see any successful pathway for us that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU,which will be on their terms. They are a multilateral organisation representing most of the important countries in Europe. It's not a peer-to-peer relationship.
Amazing how everyone quotes polls around here, but ignore the ones that say that the UK public don't want to submit to EU blackmail and are happy with no deal.
Unless they work out what no deal means.
I don't believe it is true that most of the UK public will be happy if the planes stop flying.
I voted remain but I must admit that the EU approach this far is beginning to anger me. I think a big political reaction is possible if the UK government publishes a reasonable offer on payments that is refused. In domestic terms it would be similar to the Falklands war.
That is the essential paradox of our current situation - just as the EU demonstrates its failings, simultaneously our government demonstrates why the Brexit vote was a huge mistake.
The vote was not the mistake. The way it is being handled by the Government is the mistake.
Comments
It will eventually fall apart of course but not because of anything we do. Its breakup is inevitable because of the incredible stresses that are inherent in its construction. The UK leaving will probably ease those stresses and delay that breakup for a while. So in that way you should be grateful to us.
It's an entirely rational line of thought. You just don't like it.
We are currently at the stage where Bond is tied down with the laser moving up to his groin. Shortly the supervillain will start to spill the beans and then we will escape miraculously at the last minute and end up with the pretty girl.
Then she didn't And the next time we hear about this she was saying it was all the EU's fault for not immediately agreeing to reciprocate.
Teach me to go against my better judgement.
I mean I know we were told Scottish independence would be very disruptive, but nobody foresaw this (or if they did I didn't see it). Nobody suggested that planes would be grounded at Dalcross and Prestwick.
Is it just those competencies the EU had taken that make his so so complicated, or is something else going on?
The rest of Britain aren't a bunch of wankers.
It does strike me that the EU is incredibly insecure if they believe this to be the case. Each country joins the EU for its own reasons and the reasons the UK want to leave are not those which would necessarily be repeated anywhere else in the EU.
It is their own insecurity that has led the EU to behave in this way and to do harm to themselves because of a false belief we are the tip of the iceberg.
I doubt I am any more knowledgeable than you. But anyway.
Scotland didn't actually vote to leave the UK. That is the main difference.
If I remember correctly, the plan in Indyref was that there would be a two year negotiation on a deal with the UK which would then be put to a second rederendum. The Scottish government had also spent three years preparing their case for independence.
It would probably be even more complicated and consuming than Brexit, but there were no cliff edges.
Lots of Irish and French and other EU citizens in the UK (who may also be UK citizens) who may only have built up state pension rights here and nowhere else. If they retire to Spain or Portugal in the future using their FOM rights who pays for their health care and benefits (via the current S1 form) - the UK or the Irish/French governments or no one?
Welcome to the Hotel Europa. Such a lovely place ...
One reason is the EU has a monopoly on relations with the main European countries. On the one hand the EU provides a useful service in herding the nation state cats in a fractured continent, which saves us having to try doing the same thing; on the other there is no alternative way of dealing with those countries except through the EU.
The second reason is that the EU operates a complex and deep system of rules and relationships not just within the EU27 but also with third parties. Access to that system is valuable.
Edit. I agree with HYUFD above, that seceding from a nation state is difficult as well, which is why it doesn't normally happen except following a crisis. I would also disagree that the complications weren't known about. I knew about them and wasn't an expert. I think it was a case of people not paying attention or not being receptive to a view different from the one they already had.
But, I reiterate. If membership of the EU is intended to irrevocable, why include A. 50?
Just say that leaving the EU is treason, and can never be permitted.
I would never want to stay in an organisation like that.
No British government has even lost popularity by standing up to the EU.
This means that any attempt to set up a coherent relationship between post-Brexit Britain and the rest of the EU that respects the architecture of the EU is denounced as a betrayal.
No British government has ever gained popularity by being humiliated.
Total lack of imaginative thinking on both sides.
I wouldn't blame her for walking out. This feels like the UK making repeated applications for early release to a prison parole board and being rejected for not having demonstrated the appropriate level of remorse.
Seriously though, it's important Corbyn & Starmer are able to hit the ground running when the time comes.
Now we have voted out we stay out, at most we could eventually return to EFTA and the single market after a few years of falling immigration but never the full EU now.
Says it all really, doesn't it?
Ever wonder why your motives and loyalties are questioned?
Because I've never discussed politics with someone less in touch with the common ground of British politics.
But, as I've said before, sensible Remainers actually wanting a political settlement (that would stick) for the UK Remaining in the EU in the medium-term would be arguing for this to be put back on the table now, with some extra qualifications on free movement.
If she did, the Conservatives would be up 6 points in the polls before she even got home. People are fed up with the UK being humiliated.
Amazing how everyone quotes polls around here, but ignore the ones that say that the UK public don't want to submit to EU blackmail and are happy with no deal. They must all be rogue polls.
I can't get in a lather (groan) about this Tory MP having a bath for an hour a day and costing £50 a month in water charges.
I mean... that's quite normal for water costs isn't it??
It would clog up the private hospitals something rotten.
(Yes, this is a joke. No, I don't want to privatise the NHS).
It is useful to understand where the other side is coming from in a negotiation, but ultimately we need to act in our interests, as they do theirs. I don't see any successful pathway for us that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU,which will be on their terms. They are a multilateral organisation representing most of the important countries in Europe. It's not a peer-to-peer relationship.
I don't believe it is true that most of the UK public will be happy if the planes stop flying.