The UK blaming the EU on something shocker. That's new. I wonder what would happen if that ever happens.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The UK blaming the EU on something shocker. That's new. I wonder what would happen if that ever happens.
The point was if you guys really wanted that you would not have accepted an extension. We should have been out tomorrow, yet we are not because you approved an extension.
There's nothing wrong in giving Westminster a small extension. I was in favour of that extension myself. What I am saying is that such extensions can't become the norm and an excuse to keep kicking the can till kingdom come
That is a banger of an article.
Absolutely. It really shouldn't, yet I hear the EU are prepared to give a LONG extension after this short extension again. The EU's actions do not match their words.
That's what I am criticising.
I don't mind if the EU gives the UK a temporary EEA like membership which keeps frictionless trade and respect the GFA agreement. However I am against a long extension as it means that the UK keeps its veto and a meaningful say in the EU. You can't allow a member who wants to leaving to be able to shape the future of the very union he's seeking of leaving.
Fair enough. To be honest I think you'd be doing everyone a favour by sticking to the 12th April date and not dangling a carrot for a long extension.
When there is a real threat of no deal, you can be sure our shower of shit in Westminster will find a compromise.
Sounds good to me.
The backstop cannot be removed until there is an adequate replacement that allows for frictionless movement of goods across the border. The backstop is indefinite because we do not know how long it will take before a new trade treaty that makes the backstop obsolete to be agreed. The only way of removing the backstop is by capitulating on freedom of movement, to allow for a customs union. In which event, why leave the EU at all?
How did you vote, out of curiosity? I don't want to sneer at a leaver, I have sympathy for you believing the lies (if you voted leave).
Basically the PM has now split the agreement into two parts. The part they are voting on tomorrow is just to leave as per her agreement and they will sort out the specific details after. Basically it’s a blind Brexit and it’s bullshit.
The dim one, Leadsom, started off being extremely vague regarding what the actual vote will be about. Seems like the Brexiteers in cabinet have come up with this bs, which suits them perfectly.
Good point. We all really know that A50 was never intended to be actually used as it was not envisaged that any country would want to leave the EU.
It may seem a reasonable time frame but based on a sample of one, it is not, given the divisive nature.
Perfectly correct.
A better idea would have been to have a plan, firstly before the referendum was held and secondly before A50 was triggered. Three years further on no-one has the slightest idea what they want or how they could possibly get what they want.
If 50 years was given to the UK they still wouldn't know.
Two years is too long.
I don't think it's possible to do that in the country that votes to leave, though. The electorate would be worse than the leavers have been here because there would be no end in sight.
Part of why it's so divisive is there was a win percentage of 1.89 and on such a fine margin, they decided to carry on with it anyway.
Two years is a reasonable timeframe for a withdrawal agreements when the leaving member state has a clear idea about where he wants to go. That's why after the referendum I said that the UK should only trigger art.50 when they are ready, it was going to upset some people in the UK and other EU countries but it was the sensible move to prepare a foolproof plan and then trigger art.50 which would have made the transition period simple and boring.
Instead they decided to improvise and gamble on the idea that EU officials/governments would lose their collective minds and either turn against each others or make ridiculous mistakes, that idea is probably the fruit of decades of belief that EU bureaucrats are mugs.
I actually kind of agree with Devilish here, maybe not the way he words it but the sentiment behind what he's saying.
At the end of the day, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden do not give a feck about the GFA, or have any need to care about it. It isn't their problem, it's a problem that exists between the UK and Ireland. Nor should they be required to pander to us, because we didn't sort it out properly. It's not their issue that we as a country decided to do something that puts the GFA in jeopardy. Nor should we be able to hold someone hostage because of our own internal issues.
Ireland didn't ask for this, nor did any other EU country. We're the ones who decided to go ahead with something that we knew well in advance would put it in jeopardy and as such it's our sole responsibility to sort the issue out. The fact that we haven't is testament to how fecking useless our government is and as much as I agree with you about the importance of the issue and that it absolutely has to be handled because nobody wants that history dragged up again, and nobody wants anyone to start shooting at a border, the fact remains that 26 other countries shouldn't be required to endure a tedious will-they, won't-they for years from a country throwing their toys out of the pram about a multitude of issues not just the GFA that they should have thought about and found a solution for before they decided to go full steam towards Brexit.
I'm pro-remain all the way, and I welcome absolutely any delay to the Brexit process with the hopes that it gets cancelled fully but I think it's a valid point of view from the majority of the EU that this isn't their problem to deal with, and that how delicate this issue is is just testament to how much we should have thought about this before we decided to cut our nose off to spite our face and that their patience for our stupidity can only stretch so far before they have every right to say 'you know what, feck it you've had way more than long enough to sort your shit out and we are all collectively tired of enduring this saga whilst you do absolutely nothing as a government to sort out the troubles that you need to avoid.'
We knew at the time we were voting for Brexit that the GFA was at risk, it should have been the government's main objective from day one post referendum and not left so late. All blame here should be directed at our government, and not anybody in 26 other EU countries who are getting tired of us.
Last edited:
Brexit is not just about the customs union though. There are multitudes of reasons why people wanted to leave and it is not always about immigration or free movement.
I voted Leave, but under no illusions about it at all from an economic standpoint. I expected economic hardship from no deal from day one (that was pretty obvious to me), and I am ready.
For me, as I mentioned before. The 'half-in, half-out' option doesn't work for me, and probably won't work for a good future relationship with the EU even if we remain. Picking and choosing things to be in or out of just seeds distrust and suspicion.
We need to leave in the cleanest way possible (yes that would be a no deal, but I accept that is difficult for a lot of issues), or we need to start opting in, join the Euro and start being a bit more European as part of the 'ever closer union' and maybe we would stop getting viewed as 'the spoilt child' of Europe. If we need to bail out Greece, we bail out Greece. If we need to take more refugees, we do it. If we need to join the Euro, we do it.
The EU and the UK are half-fecked and always seem to be resisting each other and I tire of that sort of relationship.
I don't think the PM's deal is bad, it is 90% there and I suspect a lot of MPs have that view. It's just that final 10% which she refuses to do anything about.
Pretty damning from Keir Starmer:
'First, the Article 50 process explicitly states that the EU and member state must negotiate an agreement “setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
Second, in their letter of 14 January Presidents Tusk and Juncker said: “As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration….it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package.”
Third, the PM has said the two documents should be treated as one.
On 14 January she said “the link between [the two documents] means that the commitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other. The EU has been clear that they come as a package.”
Fourth, following the PM’s commitment yesterday to resign before the next phase of negotiations begin, if the withdrawal agreement passes without a credible plan for what happens next then Brexit is going to be determined by the outcome of the next Tory leadership contest.
What the Government is doing is not in the national interest and that’s why we will not support it tomorrow.'
'First, the Article 50 process explicitly states that the EU and member state must negotiate an agreement “setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union”.
Second, in their letter of 14 January Presidents Tusk and Juncker said: “As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration….it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package.”
Third, the PM has said the two documents should be treated as one.
On 14 January she said “the link between [the two documents] means that the commitments of one cannot be banked without the commitments of the other. The EU has been clear that they come as a package.”
Fourth, following the PM’s commitment yesterday to resign before the next phase of negotiations begin, if the withdrawal agreement passes without a credible plan for what happens next then Brexit is going to be determined by the outcome of the next Tory leadership contest.
What the Government is doing is not in the national interest and that’s why we will not support it tomorrow.'
Considering the manner in which we leave the EU was discussed at no point during the referendum campaign, I somehow doubt that. And given your ignorance on the subject of the backstop and ignorance of the eventuality of a unilateral revocation of Article 50 and how the EU veto works, I am somewhat skeptical you understand what you have actually voted for beyond "leaving the EU", whatever that entails.
I am glad you are prepared for a no deal Brexit, however. My wife and I can't afford to stockpile food and medicine unfortunately and we struggle to make ends meet as is, let alone when food prices hike up.
Wow okay. Now this is where it really riles me up. Where those who voted leave are immediately branded ignorant and 'blinded' by an illegal campaign. Remain is the only sensible option for the educated masses who wash and clean and the filthy stinking Leavers deserve no water. The only opinion allowed is your opinion. Is that it?
I completely understand the need for a backstop because of May's red lines on the custom union. All I saying is she should at least try to see what needs to be done to get that backstop removed. Maybe she did, it's not clear but I can only surmise she is sticking to her redlines.
I get the unilateral revocation of Article 50 will leave us back when we were before we voted to go. But I am not sure it will last. The current setup does not facilitate good future relationships with the EU.
May's red line is on the freedom of movement, not the customs union and single market. Pretty sure she'd have us in those still if the EU would allow it, but the EU says they cannot be separated and if you want rid of one, you want rid of them all and the EU has not budged on that stance in the negotiations since December 2017 when the divorce bill was agreed.
Absolutely not, the only opinion allowed is my opinion. I work and have worked with multiple leave voters, all capable of articulating why they want to leave the EU in a reasonable manner and I certainly understand where they are coming from. I am only calling you ignorant because you demonstrated on at least three separate occasions your ignorance on various details of the subject, so far as to even make things up completely (the EU demanding British territory).
I don't really understand where you are coming from when you say the current setup does not facilitate good future relationships with the EU: David Cameron told the EU the UK is unhappy with its current lot in the EU (which I think you have previously pointed out?) and they even sat around the table and discussed what could make the relationship better for us!
Your a better man than me. I've had countless conversations with leavers and none have come up with any logical or coherent reason for wanting to leave. All the things they ever say they hope would improve once leaving the EU has nothing to do with the EU. What they hate is a capitalised society. The issues they face are regardless of the EU and actually alot of the time the EU are the ones defending their rights yet they don't know who to blame since the government never takes responsibility.
The argument well they don't give a feck, its not their problem is useless and hardly a justification. Its pretty much the justification for letting brown kids drown in the mediterranean or in fact the brexit argument for having a hard border in Ireland. Not giving a shit isn't great reasoning.
And again we are talking about international diplomacy and not how to parent a child. Ireland is a member of the European Union, if the EU cares about protecting its members then a delay in the process is perfectly reasonable(And has feck all to do with Trump or Putin
). Plus I really don't want a border in the north of Ireland because of some self hating english liberals who want the EU to punish their fellow countrymen stupid decision.May has several red lines, not just one. I actually think she has too many. Not everyone who votes Leave is a hardcore Brexiteer, but those who did in 2016 should have been prepared for a no deal in the event of a negotiation failure. Th
I also work with multiple ARDENT remain voters (in academia actually, funding in science and whatnot. Yes, I am a scientist and I voted Leave. Shocked?) and they can also understand where I am coming from. So if all you want to take from me is what you want to hear, then I am sorry for that. As far as the territory comment goes, Gibraltar has been a contentious point for ages now between us and Spain, there is always a chance that it may be lost if we fell out with the EU. I'm just being realistic there.
I don't agree that Cameron's 'special agreement' made things better, I thought it further misaligned us with the rest of Europe actually. My opinion there is that you may as well leave if you keep opting out of agreements.
The argument well they don't give a feck, its not their problem is useless and hardly a justification. Its pretty much the justification for letting brown kids drown in the mediterranean or in fact the brexit argument for having a hard border in Ireland. Not giving a shit isn't great reasoning.
And again we are talking about international diplomacy and not how to parent a child. Ireland is a member of the European Union, if the EU cares about protecting its members then a delay in the process is perfectly reasonable(And has feck all to do with Trump or Putin
It is an argument when our issues impact on them, for something that we decided to do and they didn't call for or ask for. We can't make our problems somebody else's problems for no reason other than we decided to drag them into it. That's just a basic principle that should apply to any example you can think of.
A delay in the process would be reasonable only if we were able to show them that we're doing anything whatsoever to address the issue and work hard on it and the simple fact is we aren't. We're asking for an extension because we haven't bothered to address the issue at all for 2 years. Asking your tutor for an extension because you only started work on your essay the day before it was due in isn't a good enough reason for an extension.
Not sure this will work
That's literally irrelevant. Analogies are used to show how basic principles apply to different subjects including ones that are exaggerated or not on the same scale. In the analogy I used, the reason the tutor would say no, is not because they're dealing with a child and so what you posted is not relevant. The reason they would say no is because not starting something until the last minute provides a clear indication to the person being asked for said extension, that they have no clear desire to do the work in the first place, that they can't motivate themselves to do it and that nothing is likely to change.
As such, there is no reason why the EU should give an extension to somebody who asked for it only because in the two years they had to come up with something, they did absolutely nothing. There is no incentive there, no reason to believe that they're going to do anything different because we haven't given them any reason to believe so, however it does come at a potential downside of impacting them and their elections.
Like I said, I would love an extension, I would love the entire thing to be cancelled. But we're suffering from the same delusion here that the leavers suffered from before the referendum which is that we are so important that 26 countries are going to bow to whatever issue we have when the reality is we're just incredibly lazy about fixing our own problems and not as important as we thought we were. Neither of those traits are favourable when trying to leverage something.
A border literally effects one of their members
Yeah we are just repeating ourselves.
That really doesn't mean much. They gave us two years and we did nothing. A request for an extension is a request of goodwill, and must offer something in return to show that the goodwill gesture is warranted. So long as we are able to offer nothing in return to satisfy why we need an extension other than our government have no idea what they're doing, then there comes a point where the EU are correct to think 'feck off, you've had long enough and you're not even trying to work on the thing you want the extension for'. That's just normal human behaviour to think like that. The UK expecting the EU to pander to them based on them needing to care about something that the UK didn't care about themselves for 2 years, is the height of arrogance.
While our government is a joke, the 2 year timeline has been plucked out of an arse somewhere. No point pretending we’ve taken too long to decide what we are going to do, as there’s no precedent for such an event
Genuinely what are your reasons for voting leave?
Please no arbitrary things like sovereignty or lies that are proven facts.
Is localisation of powers not a valid reason?
Not when it has been proven that we have always had control over our rules and regulations that relate to things that will actually impact people like boarder control etc. We have always had full control sovereignty
So you voted to leave Europe, meaning they no longer have to remain neutral and will be far more likely to back Spain in any future disputes.