UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**jhe90**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Optio wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Optio

The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.

I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.

That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.

Agreed. Greece needs to leave EU currency block if ever stands a chance at recovery. The debts unpayable, thr country is in a right state and they seriously need to admit they fethed up badly.

However the present situation will not help them have a exit plant from trouble.

**Optio**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Optio wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Optio

The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.

I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.

That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.

The people voted along that path, then the government decided to just ignore the result they had campaigned for and accept the bailout.

**Vaktathi**

Well, the problem with Greece was that it never should have been let into the Euro in the first place in the state it was in. There was fraud on all sides and the big players aren't accepting their culpability in that. There were other concerns that drove that decision which in hindsight were probably not particularly wise. However, at this point there are ways to fix that within the Euro framework, but the big players that allowed the Greek entry to happen need to do their part and not just punt little Greece all over the place just because they can. Unfortunately that doesn't look terribly likely, but at the same time, if Greece was at the mercy of the IMF alone without the Euro, while she may have more room to maneuver she also wouldn't have the leverage she does in negotiations with many of these entities that share the Euro currency so I'm not sure she'd be much better off.

Greece needs to get its gak together and the Euro nations need to accept their part in enabling some of the Greek issues.

**Future War Cultist**

As we're talking we've just demonstrated the huge democratic deficit that plagues the EU. If the voters of Europe where asked if they want Greece in the Euro, or to keep bailing it out, or if they want to cut them loose from it (for the sake of everyone) then I think things would have turned out differently. But they weren't asked were they? Instead the little cabal at the heart of the EU made all these decisions themselves, and they can get away with it too because they're unaccountable. They make up their stupid schemes and we can't stop them. This is why I voted to leave.

**Vaktathi**

Future War Cultist wrote:
As we're talking we've just demonstrated the huge democratic deficit that plagues the EU. If the voters of Europe where asked if they want Greece in the Euro, or to keep bailing it out, or if they want to cut them loose from it (for the sake of everyone) then I think things would have turned out differently. But they weren't asked were they? Instead the little cabal at the heart of the EU made all these decisions themselves, and they can get away with it too because they're unaccountable. They make up their stupid schemes and we can't stop them. This is why I voted to leave.

One would have to ask then, how is that different from Westminster doing what it does relative to local UK issues? Surely the Scottish nationalists looking to leave the EU would have nearly identical arguments, and in fact advanced just such arguments (and I thought the Indyref was a poor idea then too just as I thought Brexit was). That kind of thing exists everywhere. It's not an EU specific thing. It happens at all levels of government. It's a facet of representative government. Ultimately, the EU has democratically elected representatives to vote for these kinds of issues on their behalf, it goes back to being a representative democracy, as putting every crisis to a direct plebiscite just isn't practical. It would paralyze any attempt to do anything, and quite frankly most people don't understand complex finance & monetary issues, which is why we have elected officials with advisors and experts and commissions and inquiries and the like.

When people don't understand those issues, that's how we end up with people thinking that Brexit would bring hundreds of millions of pounds of funding to the NHS every week that weren't really there.

Direct plebiscites have their place. They are absolutely necessary in some instances. However, we also have representatives for a reason, and every EU member state has democratically elected EU representatives to carry their voice to that assembly.

**Optio**

Future War Cultist wrote:
As we're talking we've just demonstrated the huge democratic deficit that plagues the EU. If the voters of Europe wehre asked if they want Greece in the Euro, or to keep bailing it out, or if they want to cut them loose from it (for the sake of everyone) then I think things would have turned out differently. But they weren't asked were they? Instead the little cabal at the heart of the EU made all these decisions themselves, and they can get away with it too because they're unaccountable. They make up their stupid schemes and we can't stop them. This is why I voted to leave.

This little 'cabal' are the 28 democratically elected government leaders of the member states. If you want to stop them then vote them out of their own offices. Sounds to me you realistically have an issue with the national governments! I return to my earlier statement, find the route of the issue. The german government was most keen for the bailout, they fronted the cash and knowing their banks would do well from it. If the German people resent this, they can vote that government out - fact is, the German people in the long run will probably benefit, even if it's at the expense of Greece. We then return to the example of Greece, the elected government were given a mandate they campaigned for, then caved in. These are issues with national governments - not the EU! Yes the EU failed to properly implement the Euro for a number of reasons, ones which we now have the foresight they did not have to spot the definite issues. It is national governments that are playing the system though.

**welshhoppo**

Except you try voting out a member from another nation?

You can't because of the way the system works.

On the issue of Germany bailing out Greece, will they do so again? How about if Italy falls? Or Spain? Will they also bail them out too?

**jouso**

welshhoppo wrote:
Except you try voting out a member from another nation?

Can you vote out the SNP in Scotland?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
welshhoppo wrote:
I had no problem with the EEC, but we ending up joining a new superstate that is trying extremely hard to be the United States of Europe.

A little correction:

We did not join a Superstate.

We joined a Common Market which was morphed over time into a political union and nascent Superstate little by little in successive treaties by successive governments salami slicing away our national sovereignty and independence without our direct democratic consent.

It was its stated goal from day one. So much that the UK and other nations with similar interests pushed the EFTA.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

welshhoppo wrote:
Except you try voting out a member from another nation?

You can't because of the way the system works.

On the issue of Germany bailing out Greece, will they do so again? How about if Italy falls? Or Spain? Will they also bail them out too?

Why should Westminster distribute funds from UK tax income to anywhere not London?

**r_squared**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
R Squared
Then why are you all complaining about how unfair and undemocratic Brexit is? The Tories won the last election fair and square, and according to you they have the prerogative as elected representatives to enact Article 50.

Hell, they even have direct consent with over 50% of the electorate (those who could be bothered to vote that is) voting for Leave.

Can you point out the post where I said Brexit was unfair and undemocratic?

I've said that I think that Brexit is a stupid idea, that the referendum was poorly executed and implemented, and I've criticised the Tories a fair bit, but I've not said that it was unfair ahd undemocratic. I think you may be confusing me with someone else, although I'm not sure who on here that might be.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

Tories didn't win the last election 'fair and square'.

They're being investigated for Electoral Fraud in various marginal seats....

That's cheating in layman's terms.

**r_squared**

welshhoppo wrote:
Except the USA doesn't have to worry about that because it started out as a much smaller nation which then systematically removed the Native Population as the nation moved Westward.

The issue with the EU is that it is trying to do it in reverse. They have the nation's and they need to beat them into line. Except there is still too much bad blood here, we've been killing each other for thousands of years here.

Possibly the best argument for the EU there could be, and it's worked so far too.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I also disagree there's 'too much bad blood'.

The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.

**wuestenfux**

The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

This is the big point!
But remember the war in Yugoslavia more than 20 years ago. Now the separated countries are in the EU or will try to get there.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also disagree there's 'too much bad blood'.

The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.

With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.

NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.

German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.

These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.

The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:
The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

This is the big point!
But remember the war in Yugoslavia more than 20 years ago. Now the separated countries are in the EU or will try to get there.

The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.

**jouso**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.

Which started before the EU was even the EU and in any case was a lesson learned. CFSP as a main pillar, Berlin agreements, etc.

That was the point when the EU recognized the need to act a group and not rely on individual voices within NATO.

**SeanDrake**

Future War Cultist wrote:
Optio wrote:
Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Optio

The bailouts should never have been needed. The EU should have had the sense to either pull them on it before the crash or even better, denied them the Euro until they could handle it. They let them in because it looked good on paper for them. They put politics before economic sense.

I am not denying that politics came before sense - its normally does (I study International Politics as a degree and I spend 90% of my time wanting to find a door to put my head through). I am trying to stress the point though that ultimately, Greece needs to step up and take its share of the blame, rather then pinning it onto the EU.

That's fair enough, but I think it's about time the EU gets real and stops bailing them out. It's a sticky plaster that only makes things worse in the long run. If they regained their own currency they might actually be able to do something about it.

Not really if they drop out there toast the contry would be beyond bankrupt, the fact nobody seemed to have bothered paying any tax for a decade saw to that.

**Vaktathi**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also disagree there's 'too much bad blood'.

The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.

With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.

NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.

German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.

These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.

The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.

While in many ways true, the EU would not have stopped 300 soviet divisions (mostly because, largely by design, it does not have a major military component currently), there is a compelling case that the EU/EEC has provided much of the economic, social, and political framework to mitigate or remove the underlying tensions that create conflict and to remove the spectres that drive nations to militarism and sabre-rattling through the latter 20th and into the 21st century.

The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.

Nobody handled that well, not the EU, not the US, not Russia, and absolutely not the various former Yugoslav factions.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Vaktathi wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also disagree there's 'too much bad blood'.

The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.

With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.

NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.

German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.

These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.

The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.

While in many ways true, the EU would not have stopped 300 soviet divisions (mostly because, largely by design, it does not have a major military component currently), there is a compelling case that the EU/EEC has provided much of the economic, social, and political framework to mitigate or remove the underlying tensions that create conflict and to remove the spectres that drive nations to militarism and sabre-rattling through the latter 20th and into the 21st century.

The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.
Nobody handled that well, not the EU, not the US, not Russia, and absolutely not the various former Yugoslav factions.

True, to an extent, but many of the factors leading to war between France and Germany such as: colonial tension, ultra nationalism, German militarism etc etc

died in the ruins of Berlin 1945. Plus, like I said, France lost its great power status, plus your nation would have stepped in and put an end to any future wars...again!

The truth is, Europe started two world wars, but Europe is no longer the centre of the world when it comes to power.

**Optio**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I also disagree there's 'too much bad blood'.

The EU has lead to an era of unprecedented peace within Europe. Sounds like a colossal success to me.

I'm really starting to think people who objected to the EU more have an issue with representative democracy.

With all due respect, the myth about the EU preserving peace in Europe is just that - a myth.

NATO was the preserver of peace, backed up by the might of the US military.

German militarism had been well and truly smashed, France had lost great power status, and Britain had lost its role of global superpower.

These factors combined, plus the threat of the USSR and the Warsaw pact, united Western Europe.

The EU could barely handle a refugee crisis 2 years ago. I doubt if it could handle 300 Soviet divisions rumbling through Europe.

While in many ways true, the EU would not have stopped 300 soviet divisions (mostly because, largely by design, it does not have a major military component currently), there is a compelling case that the EU/EEC has provided much of the economic, social, and political framework to mitigate or remove the underlying tensions that create conflict and to remove the spectres that drive nations to militarism and sabre-rattling through the latter 20th and into the 21st century.

The EU's handling of the Yugoslav civil war was a shambles.
Nobody handled that well, not the EU, not the US, not Russia, and absolutely not the various former Yugoslav factions.

True, to an extent, but many of the factors leading to war between France and Germany such as: colonial tension, ultra nationalism, German militarism etc etc

died in the ruins of Berlin 1945. Plus, like I said, France lost its great power status, plus your nation would have stepped in and put an end to any future wars...again!

The truth is, Europe started two world wars, but Europe is no longer the center of the world when it comes to power.

Power is not absolute but relative. And to try and place any part of the world as the center is a bit of a folly when its a sphere wonky shape (I get what you mean I just could not resist the opportunity

).
Yugoslavia was a perfect example of the tensions the EU is trying to avoid amongst it's member states. Ethno-nationalism, power vacuums and concerns of being swallowed up by relatively larger powers. The whole aim of freedom of movement is to diffuse populations and over TIME, decrease the tensions between various ethnic/nationalist and religious groups. The problem with politics is everyone forgets the time part and get impatient when it does not happen overnight, or just cannot except some processes take generations. Unfortunately those forces are starting to return in force, ironically, it is the outside influence of ethnic groups from outside the EU that have brought the whole debate forward (Hungary I am looking at you and your complete overreaction).

**r_squared**

So, the Washington Post claims Brits are clinging to delusions of Empire;

Brexit and Britains delusions of Empire

I don't agree to be honest, but its not great that this is how some people see us.

Future of Gibraltar at stake.

“The union will stick up for its members, and that means Spain now,” a senior EU official said.

Not much of a surprise there. I wonder how the Govt is going to deal with this particular "thorn".

**reds8n**

..and that was unforeseen.... 1111

meanwhile :

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201703311052152875-crimea-discrimination-lack/

it's kinda cute/funny seeing Russia try and big up two pretty obscure UKIP members -- really tries to make them sound like they're Mps doesn't it ?

.. Of course one might well wonder exactly what business they do have there ?

They hold no position in the/for the State.
...

.. it;d be hard to imagine , say, people trying to take money from Russia in return for things right ?

ref :

http://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FullText.pdf

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/03/31/week-in-review-a-cold-dose-of-reality-for-team-may

If you put a frog in boiling water, it jumps out. If you put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, it will sit there and boil to death without noticing. Looking at the reality of Britain's EU predicament now, just a couple days into Article 50, everything feels a million miles away from where we were even a few weeks ago. It bears no comparison whatsoever with the fevered optimism of the referendum campaign.

Back then, the Brexiters promised free unicorns to everyone and a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. There'd be more money for the NHS, more control for the British people, everyone would know their neighbours again and a friendly bobby would stroll on every street. Today, the conversation is, at the very best, about minimising the negative repercussions of Brexit. It has gone from a solution to everything to a problem for everyone.

Once upon a time Boris Johnson implied Europe needed us more than we needed them. David Davis told us that we would go to individual member states to strike up trade agreements. Liam Fox told us he would finalise trade deals with non-EU countries while we were conducting Brexit negotiations.

All of that is false. Today's draft guidelines from Donald Tusk at the Council of the European Union showed that Europe is in complete control of the negotiation process. Britain is barred from holding bilateral talks with EU member states on Brexit during negotiations and it cannot negotiate trade deals with other countries at the same time either.
The balance of power is evident throughout. The British demand that talks on the divorce run in parallel with talks on the future trade relationship are dismissed. Instead, "the European Council will monitor progress closely and determine when sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase". The wording tells you everything about the dynamics of the negotiation. They are in control. They decide when they are ready to move to the next stage.

Davis' vision of a UK-German trade deal was always fantasy, but it's now clear even bilateral meetings on Brexit are ruled out. "So as not to undercut the position of the Union, there will be no separate negotiations between individual member states and the United Kingdom," the paper reads.

The attitude to the thorny budget issue, in which the EU is demanding around £50 billion for financial items and pensions, seems unchanged. "A single financial settlement should ensure that the Union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations undertaken before the date of withdrawal," it reads. This refers to promises in the current seven-year financial period, which lasts to the end of 2020. It therefore means we're on the hook for seven quarters after our March 2019 exit. Then it says: "The settlement should cover all legal and budgetary commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities." That seems to refer to pensions. No discernable movement on any of these issues.

May has been speaking for months about British firms ability to have "access to and operate within" the single market. We've heard it so much from her that it almost trips off the tongue. That gets very short shrift here.

"Preserving the integrity of the single market excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach," the draft guideline says. Any future free trade agreement could not "amount to participation in the single market or parts thereof". It is remarkable to see months of prime ministerial rhetoric dismissed with a flick of the pen in Brussels.

May spoke of agreeing the final terms of the free trade deal during the Article 50 window, then getting it ratified across the EU, before initiating an "implementation period" for it coming into force. That gets short shrift too.

The EU only envisages "preliminary and preparatory discussions" towards a trade deal. This second phase of negotiation, which starts when it is satisfied with the Budget issue, would only create an "overall understanding on the framework of the future relationship". The deal would only be "finalised and concluded" once the UK is out the EU. Transitional arrangements must be "clearly defined, limited in time, and subject to effective enforcement mechanisms". And when a future trade deal is signed, "it must ensure a level playing field in terms of competition and state aid, and must encompass safeguards against unfair competitive advantages through, inter alia, fiscal, social and environmental dumping". That suggests Britain will still not have control over its environmental standards, state aid rules and other issues, even outside the EU, despite having lost any voice in formulating them.

There are positives in the document. The EU commits to trying to avoid a chaotic no-deal scenario, although it says "it will prepare itself to be able to handle the situation also if the negotiations were to fail". It reiterates that it wants the UK as a close partner in future. It says it intends to "reduce uncertainty" and "minimise disruption". It commits to "flexible and imaginative solutions" to avoid a hard border in Ireland. And it wants a deal on EU citizens in the UK and British citizens in the EU as "a matter of priority".

But generally this is a cold splash of water in the face for the May team. It shows how quickly their rhetoric falls apart in the face of a stronger negotiating partner. All those optimistic promises from Brexit campaigners and government ministers disappear as soon as the European position emerges.

Britain is now the junior partner in a negotiation which will define its economic future. It is operating to a timetable set by the larger partner, according to rules imposed by them, with an end-result that they have decided without us and which contradicts the stated aims of the UK government. If people were asked whether they wanted this nine months ago their answer is unlikely to have been particularly encouraging. Put the frog in boiling water and it jumps out. But if you raise that temperature bit by bit, if you degrade expectations steadily, it hardly notices what is happening.

This is the reality of what taking back control entails. Two more years to go.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

My views and support of Scottish indy are well known on this forum, but in all honesty, if the EU want to play hardball, then the UK should play hard ball back.

If it were me in 10 Downing Street, I would:

Upgrade Gibraltar to having the same status as any other part of the UK.

Back Morocco's claims against Spanish enclaves in North Africa

Pull British troops out of Eastern Europe. See how Estonia and Latvia like that. Perhaps Tusk could pick up a rifle and defend Estonia

Pull the plug on Brexit talks and revert to WTO terms

Refuse security co-operation with the EU. The five eyes agreement includes no EU member anyway.

And if the Spanish get grouchy over Gibraltar, send in the Royal Navy and threaten to withdraw from NATO if need be. I'm sure that would focus minds in Brussels and Washington.

In no way am I advocating that the UK should actually do this, but if the EU continue their nonsense about Gibraltar, the UK may have to take the gloves off.

This belligerant tone from the EU is in nobody's interests. They really haven't thought this through.

A mature, grown up discussion was promised weeks ago, and yet, here we are with the EU trying to lay down the law.

They will only drive the UK into the arms of the USA...

**wuestenfux**

WTO terms are bad.
For instance 24% on car parts and the U.K. car companies need 60% (for some car 75%) of the car parts from abroad.
A large price increase would come in.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They will only drive the UK into the arms of the USA...

We'll be here to catch you buddy!

**wuestenfux**

Well, Trump wants good deals, no win win situations.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

When it comes to international relations, I've always suported a sensible, realpolitik approach.

A measured, mature deal on Brexit, with both sides having to give and take was never a problem for me.

That is the nature of these talks.

And yet, here we are, with the EU dropping the Gibraltar bombshell, knowing the UK won't budge an inch on this, with the end result of two NATO members locking horns, at a time when British troops are heading for Eastern Europe to support EU countries, and with a man in the White House who doesn't give two hoots for NATO.

Honest to God, what are they playing at?

The EU is talking about a European army, well it's a non-starter without the UK. France and Britain Western Europe's only two nuclear armed states.

And at a time when terrorist attacks are occuring across Europe, the EU wants to alienate the UK with GCHQ and its world class intelligience services...

Not for a minute was I expecting the EU to give Britain everything it wanted, but neither was I expecting this madness...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

wuestenfux wrote:
Well, Trump wants good deals, no win win situations.

As it stands, I'd take a Trump deal over any bullgak that seems to be coming out of Brussels.

Hopefully, The EU will see sense.

Gibraltar? Gibraltar? WTF

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

They will only drive the UK into the arms of the USA...

We'll be here to catch you buddy!

51st state here we come

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

I say we should we enacting an "Eye for an Eye, Quid Pro Quo" policy here.

Not for a minute was I expecting the EU to give Britain everything it wanted, but neither was I expecting this madness...

You underestimated the petty spitefulness and idealogical dogmatism of the EU. These people do not care about Real Politik, they do not care about pragmatism.

No, they care about preserving the European Project no matter the cost, and if that means they have to cut off their nose to spite their face by punishing and threatening Britain for daring to undermine that project by seceding, so be it. They want to contain and quarantine the contagion of Brexit, and deter other member states from also leaving.

I wouldn't be surprised if theres a push to repeal Article 50 at some point in the next decade or so. Article 50 was never supposed to be used, it was an afterthought invented to appease and assuage concerns over national sovereignty. "If you don't like ever closer union, you can always choose to leave". Well, a member state has chosen to leave. The EU will need to correct that oversight. One day, the EU will be so integrated, and the "Ever Closer Union" will become so great, that member states will no longer have the right or the power to leave, just like the USA.

**Future War Cultist**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I say we should we enacting an "Eye for an Eye, Quid Pro Quo" policy here.

Yes, absolutely. I'd be doing what DINLT says. Treat us like gak and we'll throw it right back at you.

**A Town Called Malus**

There's a pretty famous quotation about what "Eye for an eye" leads to. It isn't good.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
My views and support of Scottish indy are well known on this forum, but in all honesty, if the EU want to play hardball, then the UK should play hard ball back.

If it were me in 10 Downing Street, I would:

Upgrade Gibraltar to having the same status as any other part of the UK.

Back Morocco's claims against Spanish enclaves in North Africa

Pull British troops out of Eastern Europe. See how Estonia and Latvia like that. Perhaps Tusk could pick up a rifle and defend Estonia

Pull the plug on Brexit talks and revert to WTO terms

Refuse security co-operation with the EU. The five eyes agreement includes no EU member anyway.

And if the Spanish get grouchy over Gibraltar, send in the Royal Navy and threaten to withdraw from NATO if need be. I'm sure that would focus minds in Brussels and Washington.

In no way am I advocating that the UK should actually do this, but if the EU continue their nonsense about Gibraltar, the UK may have to take the gloves off.

This belligerant tone from the EU is in nobody's interests. They really haven't thought this through.

A mature, grown up discussion was promised weeks ago, and yet, here we are with the EU trying to lay down the law.

They will only drive the UK into the arms of the USA...

A mature, grown up discussion requires both sides to know where they stand. This statement makes that clear, in contrast to all the rubbish which has come from our national government.