Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

flatty

I suspect its ignorance.

Kermit.de.frog

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Seems like this bus we're meant to be thrown under will never materialise.

Yes, but hidden in all this are warning shots.

There will be a price for this solidarity and it's likely to take multiple forms.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1054732132021608450

Watch taxation as well.

jm08

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes, but hidden in all this are warning shots.

There will be a price for this solidarity and it's likely to take multiple forms.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1054732132021608450

Watch taxation as well.

When Sarkozy didn't manage it during the financial crisis, I can't see anyone managing it.


Just wonder anyway, what could the EU force, bearing in mind the different economies in Europe. One size tax regime just would not suit all and even if there was a one size fits all tax regime, why would any FDI company want to leave or why would Ireland not be able to compete with other EU countries for FDI if there were common taxes within the EU.

zapitastas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes, but hidden in all this are warning shots.

There will be a price for this solidarity and it's likely to take multiple forms.

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1054732132021608450

Watch taxation as well.

He specified in foreign affairs there, and he is right. A common European voice in foreign affairs is badly needed

Hurrache

Poor Nigel and all the other UK MEPs. The dumb tit wanted out of the EU, and therefore out of his job, yet he's getting compensated.
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1055143504131878914

Enzokk

Hurrache wrote: »

Poor Nigel and all the other UK MEPs. The dumb tit wanted out of the EU, and therefore out of his job, yet he's getting compensated.
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1055143504131878914

I think James O'Brien says it best with regards to this,

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1055157466793684992

Hurrache

Saw that, quite a good response.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1055040645482627073

It seems that each day brings with it new levels of stupidity.

This gammon thinks that the ROI will leave the EU once it sees NI (the land of milk and honey) doing so well.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: GIF tweet deleted.

Frank Bullitt

Could this be Mays whole plan, saying "we got so close to a deal but the EU wouldn't budge on the boarder", and then play the narrative that the EU were just bullies in all of this?

prawnsambo

Gintonious wrote: »

Could this be Mays whole plan, saying "we got so close to a deal but the EU wouldn't budge on the boarder", and then play the narrative that the EU were just bullies in all of this?

The bully narrative is already out there. It was inevitable once the EU wouldn't cave as broadcast by the likes of Davis et al. Don't think anyone would care too much since there's been worse said all along and most recently today with the Nazi comparison.

Imreoir2

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/1055040645482627073

It seems that each day brings with it new levels of stupidity.

This gammon thinks that the ROI will leave the EU once it sees NI (the land of milk and honey) doing so well.

And we wonder how they could be doing this to themselves. This guy convinced thousands of people that voting for him would be a good idea.

Water John

No ambush of TM by the Tories. We were being told she'd be gone in 48 hours.
ERG full of bull.

Imreoir2

Gintonious wrote: »

Could this be Mays whole plan, saying "we got so close to a deal but the EU wouldn't budge on the boarder", and then play the narrative that the EU were just bullies in all of this?

May does not have a plan.

What about this whole situation suggests that there has been a plan? There is no plan, that is what the lack of a plan looks like!

First Up

Gintonious wrote:

Could this be Mays whole plan, saying "we got so close to a deal but the EU wouldn't budge on the boarder", and then play the narrative that the EU were just bullies in all of this?

So what? This isn't a debating society where the audience votes for a winner.

It doesn't matter who they blame and nobody in the EU cares. It is May's, the government's and parliament's problem (and responsibilty) to deliver what they can from this shambles.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

So what? This isn't a debating society where the audience votes for a winner.

It doesn't matter who they blame and nobody in the EU cares. It is May's, the government's and parliament's problem (and responsibilty) to deliver what they can from this shambles.

In the context of politics it's a very relevant point. She needs to bring people with her so she needs a persuasive narrative.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

In the context of politics it's a very relevant point. She needs to bring people with her so she needs a persuasive narrative.

Bring them where? The UK is powerless in this; May has no say in where they end up. The final "deal" will be a cave in by the UK. How their political system deals with the humiliation is their own problem.

prinzeugen

zapitastas wrote: »

He specified in foreign affairs there, and he is right. A common European voice in foreign affairs is badly needed

It will never happen though. Not while France has its nukes pointed at Poland. One thing Europe will never agree on is foreign policy and defence.

Capt'n Midnight

lawred2 wrote: »

that entire thread is simply depressing

One supermarket reckons flying fresh food into the UK from outside the EU isn't really practical.

Because "There simply isn't the capacity at a moment when every other industry will be trying to do the same thing."

prinzeugen

Hurrache wrote: »

Poor Nigel and all the other UK MEPs. The dumb tit wanted out of the EU, and therefore out of his job, yet he's getting compensated.
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1055143504131878914

As will all UK MEPs. What will the others be doing??

I thought there was a rule here about calling politicians names.

Seems to work one way only.

Hurrache

prinzeugen wrote: »

As will all UK MEPs. What will the others be doing??

I thought there was a rule here about calling politicians names.

Seems to work one way only.

So he's a clever tit then? You actually quoted my post in which I say all other UK MEPs so I don't quite get what you're trying to clarify.

What's the deal with France aiming their nukes at Poland?

prinzeugen

Hurrache wrote: »

So he's a clever tit then? You actually quoted my post in which I say all other UK MEPs so I don't quite get what you're trying to clarify.

What's the deal with France aiming their nukes at Poland?

France will aim its nukes at "Any force that threatens French soil".

If that is Poland once Russia invades, or Germany, they will kill the forces regardless of which country they are in.

That is why France has been doing the in, out, shake it about relationship with NATO.

Lemming

prinzeugen wrote: »

France will aim its nukes at "Any force that threatens French soil".

If that is Poland once Russia invades, or Germany, they will kill the forces regardless of which country they are in.

That is why France has been doing the in, out, shake it about relationship with NATO.

Just like the UK and USA ["pointing" nukes, such a facile term that it is]. In any case, what you fail to appreciate is that if an uncontained Russian break-out occurs and escalates to the point of nuclear exchanges, it will all be moot. Nothing will matter any more except how quickly you wish to die

prinzeugen

Lemming wrote: »

Just like the UK and USA ["pointing" nukes, such a facile term that it is]. In any case, what you fail to appreciate is that if an uncontained Russian break-out occurs and escalates to the point of nuclear exchanges, it will all be moot. Nothing will matter any more except how quickly you wish to die

That is option 2 in the UK/US plan.

France is up there with China as far as nuke states go. And Germany are saying yes.

joeysoap

Preston was good tonight. And Seb Coe saying it as it is.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

France will aim its nukes at "Any force that threatens French soil".

If that is Poland once Russia invades, or Germany, they will kill the forces regardless of which country they are in.

Gotta point out that that was, and still is, also NATO policy.

prinzeugen wrote: »

That is why France has been doing the in, out, shake it about relationship with NATO.

Nothing to do with it. France withdrew from the integrated command structure in 1966 because it was not willing to let other states base nuclear weapons on French soil which were not under French control, and because it wanted to preserve the option of coming to a separate peace with any aggressor.

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote:

In the context of politics it's a very relevant point. She needs to bring people with her so she needs a persuasive narrative.

Bring them where? The UK is powerless in this; May has no say in where they end up. The final "deal" will be a cave in by the UK. How their political system deals with the humiliation is their own problem.

I don't think the EU is trying to "humiliate"anyone but is trying to ensure the UK doesn't have an easy time leaving as this may encourage other counties to do the same which would probably result in the collapse of the EU-the spectre of a "no deal"would hurt the UK and would hurt the EU if the "divorce" settlement was withheld.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the EU is trying to "humiliate"anyone but is trying to ensure the UK doesn't have an easy time leaving as this may encourage other counties to do the same which would probably result in the collapse of the EU-the spectre of a "no deal"would hurt the UK and would hurt the EU if the "divorce" settlement was withheld.

The divorce settlement is not a huge deal for the EU. Yeah, the money is nice, but it's not decisive; they did the sums ages ago and worked out that the loss of that money would be painful, but easily survivable. The main significance to the EU of the divorce settlement is not in fact the cash; it's what it says about the attitude of post-Brexit UK. If the UK weren't willing to settle its financial obligations on leaving, that would signal an attitude that would make it extremely unwise for the EU (or indeed anyone else) to enter into any kind of relationship with the UK involving mutual trust and reciprocal goodwill.

As for whether the UK has an "easy time" of Brexit, the EU doesn't hugely care about this one way or the other. From the perspective of Brexiters and UK commentators generally, Brexit is all about the UK, but of course from the EU's perspective it's all about the EU. They are really not concerned with whether the UK does very well or very badly after Brexit; their concern is to minimise the harm that Brexit does to the EU.

From that point of view, they are not going to go out of their way to relieve the UK from the consequences of Brexit, except where there is a substantial advantage to the EU from doing so. The EU expects that that the natural and unforced outcome of Brexit for the UK will be bad, and in so far as that matters to them at all it suits them, since observing that outcome will discourage other member states from considering the same course. But, crucially, the EU doesn't need to maneouvre or engineer or plan for a bad outcome; the bad outcome will happen and the only question for the EU is whether and to what extent they should intervene so as to alleviate it. And the answer is, not very much, except where this delivers even greater benefits to the EU than it does to the UK.

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the EU is trying to "humiliate"anyone but is trying to ensure the UK doesn't have an easy time leaving as this may encourage other counties to do the same which would probably result in the collapse of the EU-the spectre of a "no deal"would hurt the UK and would hurt the EU if the "divorce" settlement was withheld.

The divorce settlement is not a huge deal for the EU. Yeah, the money is nice, but it's not decisive; they did the sums ages ago and worked out that the loss of that money would be painful, but easily survivable. The main significance to the EU of the divorce settlement is not in fact the cash; it's what it says about the attitude of post-Brexit UK. If the UK weren't willing to settle its financial obligations on leaving, that would signal an attitude that would make it extremely unwise for the EU (or indeed anyone else) to enter into any kind of relationship with the UK involving mutual trust and reciprocal goodwill.

As for whether the UK has an "easy time" of Brexit, the EU doesn't hugely care about this one way or the other. From the perspective of Brexiters and UK commentators generally, Brexit is all about the UK, but of course from the EU's perspective it's all about the EU. They are really not concerned with whether the UK does very well or very badly after Brexit; their concern is to minimise the harm that Brexit does to the EU.

From that point of view, they are not going to go out of their way to relieve the UK from the consequences of Brexit, except where there is a substantial advantage to the EU from doing so. The EU expects that that the natural and unforced outcome of Brexit for the UK will be bad, and in so far as that matters to them at all it suits them, since observing that outcome will discourage other member states from considering the same course. But, crucially, the EU doesn't need to maneouvre or engineer or plan for a bad outcome; the bad outcome will happen and the only question for the EU is whether and to what extent they should intervene so as to alleviate it. And the answer is, not very much, except where this delivers even greater benefits to the EU than it does to the UK.

I personally disagree with brexit but if you're suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will only adversally affect the UK without any affect on Europe,I think you're wrong-why do you think Macron and Merkel have said they hope Britain remains?

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't think the EU is trying to "humiliate"anyone but is trying to ensure the UK doesn't have an easy time leaving as this may encourage other counties to do the same which would probably result in the collapse of the EU-the spectre of a "no deal"would hurt the UK and would hurt the EU if the "divorce" settlement was withheld.

The divorce settlement is not a huge deal for the EU. Yeah, the money is nice, but it's not decisive; they did the sums ages ago and worked out that the loss of that money would be painful, but easily survivable. The main significance to the EU of the divorce settlement is not in fact the cash; it's what it says about the attitude of post-Brexit UK. If the UK weren't willing to settle its financial obligations on leaving, that would signal an attitude that would make it extremely unwise for the EU (or indeed anyone else) to enter into any kind of relationship with the UK involving mutual trust and reciprocal goodwill.

As for whether the UK has an "easy time" of Brexit, the EU doesn't hugely care about this one way or the other. From the perspective of Brexiters and UK commentators generally, Brexit is all about the UK, but of course from the EU's perspective it's all about the EU. They are really not concerned with whether the UK does very well or very badly after Brexit; their concern is to minimise the harm that Brexit does to the EU.

From that point of view, they are not going to go out of their way to relieve the UK from the consequences of Brexit, except where there is a substantial advantage to the EU from doing so. The EU expects that that the natural and unforced outcome of Brexit for the UK will be bad, and in so far as that matters to them at all it suits them, since observing that outcome will discourage other member states from considering the same course. But, crucially, the EU doesn't need to maneouvre or engineer or plan for a bad outcome; the bad outcome will happen and the only question for the EU is whether and to what extent they should intervene so as to alleviate it. And the answer is, not very much, except where this delivers even greater benefits to the EU than it does to the UK.

I personally disagree with brexit but if you're suggesting that the UK leaving the EU will only adversally affect the UK without any affect on Europe,I think you're wrong-why do you think Macron and Merkel have said they hope Britain remains?

The poster has not said that. The EU's objective is to mitigate the effects of Brexit on the EU. If the UK benefits to some extent from some of those mitigation actions, grand, but protecting the UK from itself is not the objective here. The EU's interests are what matters to the EU.

The EU acknowledges that by Brexit both parties lose. That is why they are open to Brexit not happening.

Many on the UK side do not want to acknowledge that Brexit is a costly exercise to the UK. This is why they create the narrative of the EU trying to punish the UK.

The EU accepts that Brexit adversely affects both parties. The UK does not.