What do you mean? Sorry english not my first language
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
What do you mean? Sorry english not my first language
I said it before, but I will repeat it again. The states are to blame, but as EU controls several aspects of the states and they have to comply, EU should as well control what and who do you sell arms (for example). If not, as in other important and humanitarian matters, I don't know why we need the EU, for that reason, I only would like a EU as a economic union and would not need further integration if they are not above the standards of the states that forms the EU, there is no need to do exactly the same as the states but at a bigger scale. Why I would like to sustain economically a bunch of bureaucrats that they do not improve what my countries bureaucrats already do wrong?
I said that if you have the guts of military strike for your greedy and geostrategically purposes and destabilize a regime without knowing how the hundreds of clans works, have the guts to invade to bring humanitarian relieve. But is not the point, the point is that I would not even start. As when in Irak, international observers they were doing a good job controlling any weapons of mass destruction, but mr bushy went full force with lies and started all the mess (starting in Afghanistan with UK and less degree Spain and later on all the west) that we are in today. Instead of working from the inside with local forces to overthrown the regime, but is way more slow and of course, there is no money money money on it.
The lazy questions is because I already said not to sell arms to countries like finance Saudi Arabia and the likes, is reasonable if I did not say anything before hand. If you are lazy to read what I say I will be lazy to answer your questions too. Basically because I am at work. So at home I can extend myself
The reason its not a lazy question, is because you're suggesting long term solutions to short term problems. You're basically saying 'well I wouldn't have gotten us into this mess in the first place!'. On the question of refugees, the EU didn't get us into this mess, but its responsible for dealing with many of the results regardless. Like so many times in politics, there's events happening and they need to be responded to now, not with a long term strategy change.
So I ask again, if the EU are dealing with the Libyan refugee crisis badly, what should they be doing? Bearing in mind that the EU has no army and the member states are certainly not going to invade Libya in some ill advised attempt to impose a new regime.
The EU is not a state, it can't give itself the competence to control arms deals without the agreement of the member states.
The EU did allow their States to put us in this mess and the States through the EU is complaining about the results of that mess. The respond right now is what I said, I would organize a humanitarian invasion. I know that the states would not do it. I am not telling you what the states would not do. I am telling you what I would do. If the EU can sort of force to accept quotes, why can not force them to do that? Again is a matter of political Will, and there are other channels that the EU can act like the UN.
Don't tell me what I already know, that the states of the EU would not do that. I am telling you what I would do, and impossible is nothing, it is the interconnected private and public interests that makes it so difficult but at the end is political will. Realistic? absolutetly not, as it is not realistic that I would arrive at that position of power. And I am not apeaking of imposing any regime. Just organize humanitarian settlements and local investments. They can rule the country as they wish meanwhile.
I wrote a too much cocky attitude answer before. I deleted it. Sorry about that
I will just post a link:
https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/423/Sanctions policy
As the states are the ultimate responsible with them, the EU has guidance that goes towards a common policy. And that is discussed to a european level and the states agree or not. As we sanction Russia., north Korea and others, why they don't do the same for Saudi Arabia (for example)?
You're suggesting impossible solutions using powers that the EU don't have. The EU leaders unfortunately don't have that luxury.
How would you do that, where do you find the money and where do you find the men to execute that humanitarian invasion? Also what is a humanitarian invasion?
I will definetely will try to answer later, need to catch up at work. Of course expect a unicornish answer
I still think there is, both countries UK and Catalonia pay more into a larger union (EU, union of Spanish provinces) than they take out.
Both get outvoted in those power blocks.
That's how I see it.
What did the UK get outvoted about? Last I checked the UK won something like 98% of the votes in the EU.
It's not the eu fault( put on repeat )
It's the nation states( put on repeat )
Whats the eu made up of? Nation states( put on ignore, denial, whatever. )
It's the nation states( put on repeat )
Whats the eu made up of? Nation states( put on ignore, denial, whatever. )
This thread has been massively derailed. There should be a thread called "EU Immigration Policy Discussion". @Damien The last couple of pages have f all to do with Brexit...
To be fair if that is really the way you think I don't like you very much and you are now foreign so I guess you may be on to something.
But on the other hand, really, most British people are knowably worse than French people or Germans in this regard? I doubt you can substantiate that claim.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-41749270
Study of Brexit impact on Scotland won't be published.
Study of Brexit impact on Scotland won't be published.
Bullshit,
Settle the money before we talk about anything else. So how much is that? You can't say but in context of the post to which I responded and you are seemingly taking issue with, you are willfully uninformed if you don't know how much. Numbers or butt out.
Again the EU says pay or no further talks. My response, which you seem to take issue with is to a post which says if you can't put a figure on it you are willfully uninformed. So how much or butt out ?
More bullshit,
Again the EU says pay or no further talks. My response, which you seem to take issue with is to a post which says if you can't put a figure on it you are willfully uninformed. So how much or butt out?
Donald Tusk said:
The EU is still keeping the door half open.
Former British ambassador to the EU doesn't sound optimistic about a trade deal being agreed before the article 50 deadline.Sir Ivan Rogers said:
No, I'm just telling you that whether the UK leaves or no has nothing to with any financial settlement, the only thing needed was to trigger article 50 and you did. Now if you want to have a trade deal with the EU after the buffer of two years then you will have to find a financial agreement, fix the border and citizens problems.
Does not matter about if you pay more or not. UK can decide to pay or not. A EU state can decide to not pay and they go out of the union. They have the choice. Catalonia no. Brexit is an option that UK decided and no one could avoided. Brexit, being wrong or right, is so sovereign decision
I will not asnwer the question @Kentonio and @JPRouve . I don´t want to derail more the thread
Firstly you are crazy if you really believe that and the EU wouldn't have made it a prerequisite if that was true.
Secondly, the poster I responded to said you had to be willfully uninformed if you don't know the required amount.
So far in this thread, no one has answered that point, we are either all willfully uninformed including the poster I disagreed with or you can, as everyone else can, prove me wrong by posting the figure?
Otherwise, butt out because you can not add anything to this part of the debate.
The EU will butt out (or the UK will be kicked out, depending on how you see it) in 2019. Leaving is for free. However that doesn't come attached to a trade deal.
Regarding the figures, well, I am pretty sure that the UK negotiation team knows exactly what the figure is. They were the ones who wanted negotiations to be done under wraps and went ballistic whenever they spilled out to the public. In fact Davies had already said that he's got people checking line by line to make sure that its correct.
Not that it really matters though. The UK can decide to either pay and have some sort of a trade deal or leave with nothing.
Last edited:
I don't need to believe it, that's how the article 50 has been written. The second paragraph states that the treaties cease to apply from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification by the member state of his withdrawal.
So no I'm not crazy, it's not a matter of a belief but positive law. The absence of withdrawal agreement doesn't prevent the UK from leaving, they notified the EU and after two years the treaties will cease to apply.
For once you and I probably agree about something.
It will all be about money in the end, I suspect after Macron expressed his view that £20B is not enough, Merkel will come in with the final negotiation and a figure will be agreed, in part it will be a 'settlement bill', in part it will be to assure access to the EU markets. However Britain will, with one bound be 'free from the sinking ship' (if you are a brexiteer) or left hanging (if you are a remoaner.) Theresa as we all know is a reluctant brexiteer, so she will be pleading with Merkel and Macron to get a deal on trade, they know that and will demand as much as they can, but if those two decide they don't want one, then everyone goes over the cliff!
IMO Britain, because of the binary referendum result has only ever had one aim that is to leave the EU and because of Article 50, only two negotiation options and that is to leave without an agreement, or pay up to leave with one! I am one of those who think it will be around £80B (paid in instalments) and is a price worth paying, because the EU is now too big and too fractious, there are too many disparities across the economies of member states, for the Union to succeed unless it becomes one European super state, with a single (euro zone) currency, this is something Britain will never sign up to and hence it has to leave.
I don't think you like me very much so I'm probably right. Boo hoo hoo.
Just look around you, experience rather than living with one's head in the sand.
By the way because people haven't been personally informed of the figure that the UK have to pay doesn't mean the figures aren't there, remember May said they are currently going through it line by line. She won't tell the British people anything, she's already told you that.
Taking odds on when Davis will get the boot - before Xmas or will he survive into the New Year.
The Uk are expecting a deal to be finalised by March 2019 - yes the leaving deal, not the trade deal going forward, think someone should tell Davis.
That part was, of course, like the rest of article 50, also written by a British Judge, Lord Kerr, so they can't even blame foreigners for this one, this is ALL on us.
Only anti bias huh? Only digging for negative, typical Daily Mail. Scum of the newspaper world.
Did you know Cameron had to use the veto to stop the Tobin tax being implemented, the only time Britain has used the veto. So what happens once Britain comes out and those business move to the EU, will they have to pay it then?
Another thing I recall was us being forced to give prisoners the vote, not a major thing on its own yet why did we comply?
Yes, it is all rather absurd really. My new highlight is how Farage and co. now complain that the EU is making it all a bit hard and complicated.
Not like there had been a debate about that.
I'm not sure I remember anyone going ballistic, but I do recall Barnier saying that all negotiations would be out in the open with no secrets, which of course he knew full well did not suit May's position at the time, that her government was elected to negotiate and she did not need a parliamentary vote of approval for the results.
Which makes me wonder why Barnier then did a complete u-turn and decided every single detail of the EU's financial requirements for Brexit was a bigger secret than France's nuclear missile codes.
Perhaps Barnier just wanted to be nice to May for a bit? It does seem odd though that an awful lot of people in the EU team must have been working on these 'line by line' figures, yet there hasn't been a single leak. And the same on the British side, where let's face it everyone's pretty split down the middle by what to do, no leaks at all.
I'm not pretending to understand it, but something doesn't add up.
From wiki..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)
I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't give everyone the vote anyway. Committing any crime with a jail sentence shouldn't be automatic grounds for losing a fundamental right.
There had been 2 leaks one in May and one lately (the one were May is said to have begged for a deal). Both were criticised harshly by the UK government and at one point Merkel had to step in to avoid things from degenerating further. If the likes of Farage had their way, the EU would even speak to JC about Brexit let alone be public on negotiations and every minor detail. So I wont be surprised if this idea of hiding the details to the general public is backed by the UK as well.
There is no leak because there isn't a single figure, there isn't an actual bill. What the UK currently pays towards the EU is an addition of several agreements, in reality the EU can't hand a bill, both sides have to look at all the agreements and joint ventures, and see what will stay and what won't, some will lead to the EU buying out the UK others will lead to the UK still funding them and enjoying their benefits. Just think about something like Horizon 2020 will the UK stop their involvement or do they want to be part of it, do they stop paying their share in 2019 or at the end of the budget period in 2020, if they stop should the EU fund the current british research?
The EU can't decide for the UK and the UK can't be left unaware of every single research that would be impacted, that's partially why there isn't a single number because a bulk number wouldn't be relevant(I don't know if that's the correct word) at this point.
This is about as reliable as the Daily Star's latest transfer exclusive though, actually less so as you're looking at politically motivated spin.
But yeah, we all know May wants the details secret, my question was why has Barnier changed his mind?
I probably wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking why there hasn't been a leak of the bottom line, more why there hasn't been a leak of any detail at all. Zilch. I suppose all the civil servants and political advisors involved, and there must be many, must just be better controlled than I'd expect them to be, old cynic that I am.
Brexiters are experts in blaming everything on the EU. Their very political career depends on it as it will give them an excuse to justify a bad Brexit. I think that Barnier is trying to avoid making the EU look like the bad guy when possible.
Oh I see, that's a good point. Like you I always assume that someone will blab too much but the same thing happened with Macron this summer, no leaks were available and he gave the instruction to take every piece of paper after meetings, maybe that's what the EU/UK do?
Must be. Thanks