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.
More than a little the same from what we've heard so far.
May's problem is that she won't be negotiating with the other heads of state on any of the divorce proceedings. She's going to be going through the bureaucratic beast.
You see that's the problem of the article. She will negotiate with the heads of state but through their negotiating beast. That's why Barnier made the round of the 27 member states, they have a now a common stance that will be presented by their men.
You made many good points in the white culture/poverty thread yesterday, but that is just too silly.
I'm talking economically, which is the major measure of power. Depending on which figures you use, the EU is either the largest GDP on earth, or a close second behind America. The political union intends to move closer towards integration, including militarily in the face of a resurgent and aggressive Russia. I can totally understand people resisting the idea of seeing the EU as a superpower or potential superpower as the countries within are still sovereign, and their militaries independent. It's certainly not laughable to be talking in those terms though. The wealth and potential power of Europe working as a union is considerable, and may prove an extremely important counterweight to US-Russian-Chinese power in future.
Greece had nothing to offer the EU whatsoever, except their democratic mandate.
The premise of the article is that May believes that a electoral mandate will strengthen her hand at the negotiating table. Do you really believe that she thinks that or that the Tories are using that line to win over working class Labour voters to win the domestic election?
Eh? I mean, that's the opening paragraph, but after that it's more his experience with trying to negotiate with the EU
As I said, it is an interesting article that gives some indication of the difficulties that lay ahead. The government have acknowledged that one of the biggest stumbling blocks will be dealing with the European parliament so I highly doubt that the content of that article is something they are not aware of.
My second point is that Greece's situation was completely different. The balance of power is with the EU in our negotiations but no trade deal means not insignificant harm to EU nations economically.
What were Greece offering to give any encouragement to being listened to, apart from a democratic mandate?
Last edited:
Greece was also hamstrung by the unwillingness of its people to make the ultimate break. When it came down to it, Brussels could be safe in the belief that Grexit wouldn't occur. Britain, on the other hand, has already voted to leave. I also happen to think that a No Deal is a possibility, as undesirable as it may seem. An insistence that we pay 100bn will certainly limit the scope and pogress of any agreement.
Economically, sure, although it's a rather patchy and relatively stagnant one in recent years. Militarily it is still quite a way distant, as such would require a significant cultural and political shift in numerous continental nations. Diplomatically there exist the potential, yet it often depends on the issue at hand.
Economically, sure, although it's a rather patchy and relatively stagnant one in recent years. Militarily it is still quite a way distant, as such would require a significant cultural and political shift in numerous continental nations. Diplomatically there exist the potential, yet it often depends on the issue at hand.
Indeed. I think those that said, we should not use Article 50, but instead negotiate for a new treaty, were very wise
I am starting to think that no deal is a real possibility now. The tactics employed by the EU so far is making it politically possible in the UK too which is worrying. The Tories might be able to survive a hard Brexit.
The EU's growth is slow and steady, without the big fluctuations you see elsewhere. In the last two years for example the EU growth rate has moved between 1.8 and 2.2%. In the US that rate has fluctuated between 0.7 and 3.5%. People throw out terms like 'stagnant' all the time, as part of an anti-EU narrative. Europe is an economic powerhouse, and one of the two biggest on the planet.
One of the biggest obstacles was the UK. Guess what..
Indeed. For a deal to take place, someone is going to have to move a long way from their current position.
On social care for EU citizens, we are closer than the recent news coverage suggests.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speec...ating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech
But - on the exit fee, we are a long way off, and possibly that the EU courts will still have some sway over certain maters, also.
https://www.ft.com/content/bd6f33c8-3e69-3476-8940-79a2b982afc4
I read recently that there's actually an absolute chasm between the two positions on citizens rights. The EU means one thing, and the UK another. So whilst they're both saying the same thing, it's far from being easy to resolve.
From the FAZ report over the weekend:
“For May it is no problem – EU citizens should be treated simply according to British law as other third-country nationals,” FAZ said, adding this was “a big problem for Juncker”.
The article said: “After all, they now enjoy many special rights which should be maintained as far as possible. There are tricky questions to be solved, not just on the right of residence. Health insurance, for example.”
Yes. This is why I mentioned the reporting over the last week. I am not sure what to make of this at all...
Premise One - It is true, Theresa May said EU Citizens could have the same rights as every non-EU country.
If this is the case, most likely she did it as an opening gambit, or has completely lost her mind. Or perhaps misspoke. Or maybe she doesn't understand the position she is meant to be taking.
Premise Two - It is not true.
Either the EU are playing silly buggers, or perhaps they simply misunderstood (lost in translation).
After initially believing that the first premise was more likely, I now think the second one is. The government knows this is a big issue; it's right there in black and white on the government page.
I would side with the option that May has a boner about immigration and doesn't know what she's doing. So I guess that puts me in Premise One. I guess we'll see once she's won the election.
If she actually believes number one then she is utterly out of her fecking mind.
But patchy for all that (geographically and age wise), and possessing of serious structural issues surrounding the Euro.
Britain has little to do with the spending priorities of other nations, or the inherent political will to undertake risky military operations. It also requires a greater unity with regard to foreign policy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/21/leaked-documents-eu-tough-line-brexit-negotiations
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...itizens-living-uk-should-remain-jurisdiction/
So it could also be the case that she was attempting to see off plans for the widespread continued involvement of the ECJ-law.
Bills and judges aside, allaying the fears of existing residents really ought to be possibly within a matter of months.
Last edited:
They could reach an agreement in principle maybe, but I don't see how platitudes will help. And given that:
Even if this issue is agreed in principle a no-deal Brexit would scupper it.
Yet Germany who are not only in the Euro but one of the big backers of the project have a significantly lower debt to gdp than we do, and better growth. As for the geographical disparity, that's kind of the whole point of the EU. It lifts the poorer countries to create not only better opportunities for those citizens, but also a wealthier trading bloc for everyone else. You're naturally going to have disparities between different parts of the union just like you have geographical patchiness in the UK and the US. Compare the south east to the north west, are they comparable economically?
There have been significant efforts on the continent to move towards closer union, and the UK have been one of the countries most obstructing that progress. Now the UK are out, it will be much easier to move forward on cooperation in a number of different fields, including the military. Most European countries don't have the same nationalistic love affair with the armed forces that the UK do, and the idea of international military cooperation isn't a huge propaganda issue like in Britain.
I don't know why an 'inherent political will to undertake risky military operations' would be relevant incidentally, you can have a superpower level of military defence without needing to become highly interventionist at the same time. Look at China if you need an example.
The next 10 pages will be solely debating this paragraph
Ah the hallmark of the internet know-it-all.
Put the question the other way, does the UK or the EU have the stronger bargaining position? Answers on a postcard to Boris Johnson c/o Walthamstow Chocolate Cake Company (Gü), Cloud Cuckoo Land
The EU is a union of 27 truly independent countries. Its not some bogus group with 1 big country and some minor regions tagged to it which simply moan and obey. Its very difficult to bring forward a reform although things are indeed changing (ex CETA)
That's not concern anymore isn't it? You voted out of Europe and you made it quite clear you won't be paying those 250m something a week (it was far less but oh well) who will now go to the NHS or something of the kind.
Exactly. The UK sells 47% of its products and services to Europe. Now imagine if that is slapped with tariffs. Sure there's a trade deficit in favour of the UK when compared to the EU as a whole. However thats a wrong way to see it. As said its a union of 27 truly independent countries all armed with a veto. Why would (lets say) Austria care if Italy had a trade deficit with the UK? You'll have to appease 27 nations mate.
It depends which war. In WW1 it was the US. In WW2 the war was won by the Russians on Russian soil. The US helped the UK (and us, other countries under British colonial rule) to peek out of our blankets and try and hit back. Prior to operation Barbarossa Europe was getting a hammering. The UK is lucky that its troops fled from Dunkirk in an orderly fashion (and Hitler was an idiot) else things would be way more humiliating for us (and I repeat us as Europe ie including the UK).
and I am certain they will do the same. Trade deals are a different matter altogether.
Both Obama and Trump reached the same conclusion. The UK was useful as a bridge between Europe and the US. Once out of the EU you lost your influence in Europe and became, well, not as important anymore
You trying to say he's the only one on here ??
Takes one to know one, as they used to say.....
Right, so we should expect terrible service sector figures then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39802976
Wait a minute that can't be right a man from the internet who reckons he knows everything told me different.
And if in the near future the Euro crashes........?
Wooooaah a gigantic 0,6%. Not that's in any better in the rest of Europe mind. But it's far too early to be able to judge the effect of Brexit. That will become apparent in years from now.
Or if Europe is hit by a massive asteroid?
Listening to these Brexiteer EU experts you'd think the EU's been collapsing since it was created. Bunch of deluded nonsense.
It's a real possibility that there is no deal, it's going to be attritional for years.
Typical labor wank with no substance
£100bn feck off, and £60bn feck off....
Yeah, whoever heard of people paying the obligations they've commited to legally. Such a new concept to Brexiteers.
These were posted by the same person, 1 minute apart.
There any chance we could just do a complete U-turn and forget this nonesense. This shit even in the best of circumstances leaves us significantly weaker
Boris will find a way to fix it all. Don't you worry, the country's fate is in safe hands... (That was sarcasm).
Been asking myself the same question for years about another country. The answer is no, and it'll continue to get worse as you continue to get more desperate.
It would require a huge shift in public opinion and the anti-EU propaganda machine is working overtime at the moment. A financial settlement for outstanding liabilities becomes the EU trying to extort or punish us. The EU pointing out that Britain cannot have its cake and eat it becomes the EU trying to punish us.
In theory, when Brexit goes tits up the public opinion should shift. But the narrative is being set now so that instead of blaming themselves for making a stupid decision the public are going to blame the EU, the foreign enemy, for not allowing Brexit to be a success. I'm not optimistic.
Have we though? May has claimed there's no legal agreement to pay anything. I thought we were paying 13.1 billion a year and getting subsidies back of 4billion a year, so around 9billion net. Getting that upto 60 or even 100billion and we're talking 7-12 years of net contributions. And that alongside 'no parallel trade talks' makes zero sense. I can understand continuing to pay 9 billion a year membership fee for a free tade agreement inclusive of financial services. That's ultimately what I think we should be doing after Brexit and could be a deal that could get done.
And I'm a remainer btw.