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.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Insert *obligatory explanation of how cultural racism is a term and that you really, really should know that by now, considering this isn't the first time this is brought up* here
A.k.a. the alternative definition that people bring up whenever the true definition doesn't quite suit their narrative.
Islam is an ideology. A set of ideas, values and beliefs, many of which I consider to be bad ideas.
Ideas should never be immune to criticism simply because you think its "culturally racist" to criticise and oppose them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/02 23:36:29
If anything from that German Newspaper is true then why is the fact that we apparently want ex-pats sorted by the end of June absurd? Ifs it's a matter of priority then it can easily be sorted in a few days. One side agrees to honour all rights of citizens currently living in X, other side then agrees to it and jobs a good one.
If the EU really cares about its citizens living aboard, it will guarantee their rights at the first possible chance, after all isn't one of the core tenants of the EU the protection of people's rights?
There was nothing stopping us granting the rights straight away to the EU citizens in this country that we need, after all, were the ones walking away. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens in the UK are productive, tax paying contributors usally in professions that we have significant shortages of. UK nationals in the EU are overwhelming retirees, they are also much much fewer in number.
It is in our interests to ensure that these EU nationals wish to stay here, we need them.
We could have had a huge moral advantage, which, politically is nothing to be sneezed at, secured vital jobs and probably garnered some support from those other countries in the EU who aren't interested in brinkmanship, but instead we've squandered it by playing to the lower level that Junker is advocating.
If you really think that having the moral high ground in politics actually means something then you have very littler experience of the real world.
You seem to fail to understand exactly how much doing that would weaken our position and make us seem exceedingly weak. Especially if we can't confirm the rights of UK citizens abroad. It doesn't matter if they are working, unemployed or retired. A citizen is a citizen.
However, if the EU refuses to guarantee our citizens rights then that only fuels the EU skeptisim across Europe.
But seriously, having the moral high ground is nice and all, but its no good for paying the bills.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Insert *obligatory explanation of how cultural racism is a term and that you really, really should know that by now, considering this isn't the first time this is brought up* here
A.k.a. the alternative definition that people bring up whenever the true definition doesn't quite suit their narrative.
How are you the arbiter of what is considered the "true" definition of something? "Race" is a social construct; replace it with any other social construct and the resulting ideology is still treating people differently because of a perceived inherent quality in people belonging to that social construct.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/02 23:40:47
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
You seem to fail to understand exactly how much doing that would weaken our position and make us seem exceedingly weak. Especially if we can't confirm the rights of UK citizens abroad. It doesn't matter if they are working, unemployed or retired. A citizen is a citizen.
However, if the EU refuses to guarantee our citizens rights then that only fuels the EU skeptisim across Europe.
But seriously, having the moral high ground is nice and all, but its no good for paying the bills.
How would it make us seem weak? It could just as easily be seen as an act of strength by a confident nation, secure in its position as it heads to the negotiating table.
And you have touched on the political capital that could be made at the EUs expense, playing up to the EU sceptics fears that it doesn't actually give a damn about the rights of its citizens, by making such a move.
And beyond the PR and political concerns, it's about not being a total bell end and instead actually doing the decent thing for its own sake.
If anything from that German Newspaper is true then why is the fact that we apparently want ex-pats sorted by the end of June absurd? Ifs it's a matter of priority then it can easily be sorted in a few days. One side agrees to honour all rights of citizens currently living in X, other side then agrees to it and jobs a good one.
If the EU really cares about its citizens living aboard, it will guarantee their rights at the first possible chance, after all isn't one of the core tenants of the EU the protection of people's rights?
There was nothing stopping us granting the rights straight away to the EU citizens in this country that we need, after all, were the ones walking away. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of EU citizens in the UK are productive, tax paying contributors usally in professions that we have significant shortages of. UK nationals in the EU are overwhelming retirees, they are also much much fewer in number.
It is in our interests to ensure that these EU nationals wish to stay here, we need them.
We could have had a huge moral advantage, which, politically is nothing to be sneezed at, secured vital jobs and probably garnered some support from those other countries in the EU who aren't interested in brinkmanship, but instead we've squandered it by playing to the lower level that Junker is advocating.
If you really think that having the moral high ground in politics actually means something then you have very littler experience of the real world.
You seem to fail to understand exactly how much doing that would weaken our position and make us seem exceedingly weak. Especially if we can't confirm the rights of UK citizens abroad. It doesn't matter if they are working, unemployed or retired. A citizen is a citizen.
However, if the EU refuses to guarantee our citizens rights then that only fuels the EU skeptisim across Europe.
But seriously, having the moral high ground is nice and all, but its no good for paying the bills.
Your last sentence is telling, if we are so desperate as to need to hold people to ransom to "pay the bills", we are not displaying strength, but weakness.
Having the moral high ground is everything in politics, it's what every politician aspires too. It's one of the things that wins elections, not economics or other concerns, but getting the "feels" right for the electorate.
The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/03 17:50:24
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I have to say I don't really get what May is accusing the EU of doing.
I don't understand what is supposed to have happened. AFAIK, there has been a supposedly leaked account of her dinner with Juncker last week, saying that things are going to be difficult, and suddenly she has gone all mediaeval on his arse.
I listen to the Radio 4 news and politlcal coverage for about an hour each day, driving to and from work, so I am pretty well informed about this stuff. It sounds like bs to me.
We always knew it was going to be hellish difficult getting out of the EU, that's the main reason a lot of us wanted to leave.
I don't see how all this disrupts the election. It seems more like May has grabbed an opportunity to declaim how tough she is and Korben would be crap.
Such stable!. Much strong!! Very leadership!! WOW!!!!!
The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.
I'd agree with this.
May has come out all guns blazing accusing the EU of trying alter the election and "threatening" the UK when they have done nothing of the sort. We all know papers spin articles to please which ever crowd they think they can earn the most money from (or the largest crowd the owners think they can influence). There have been plenty of sniping by UK papers of the EU now and in the past and that hasn't produced an announcement of the sort May made today. It could be argued that she is already setting up the EU to be blamed when things go south to try and divest herself and the government of responsibility. So she slams the EU on *newpaper* reports that have leaked information on the UK (and importantly UK invited) meeting but failed to make any criticism of UK papers that called UK judges "enemy of the state". It's very dangerous because having the press say something is completely different to a head of state saying others are manipulating the election and threatening the nation but not actually expanding on what these are because she is not allowing open and transparent review of the negotiation process.
The European Commission's negotiating stance has hardened. Threats against Britain have been issued by European politicians and officials.
At best it might just reinforce the EUs view that May is living on another galaxy and worse there could be people in the EU that might be sympathetic to having a good deal which might be seriously compromised when you tarnish the EU overall with such accusations without providing evidence (and a report in the paper is not even such). Even the Euro100billion is an estimated calculation by the financial times - the EU (last time I checked) had not provided an official figure because they don't yet know what the UK wants to continue to be involved with. May effectively could just be burning bridges before she has even started any real negotiations. It's a crazy strategy to pander to part of the electorate to ensure that they go out and vote yet at the same time potentially negatively effecting our overall standing with the EU and making them even more focussed on only getting something that works for the EU.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/05/03 19:41:29
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
The way the £60bn Brexit bill has ballooned to £100bn shows what a sham it is. There is no justification beyond whatever some in the EU think they can get away with demanding. It's not a rounding error, it's a vast sum, clearly this sum we owe them is very fluid and not pinned down, even to within tens of billions.
Initially the European Commission recommended that the UK's share of EU assets should be subtracted from a final bill, but that is no longer the case.
EU officials say this is because assets are owned by the EU as an entity, rather than by the individual member states.
There is no set amount or clear justification for these numbers, they're as guilty of making it up as any of our people, depending on what they decide counts as ours or not. Seems like they want the penny and the bun, us paying for our full share of commitments but no return on our share of assets invested because they now belong to all the EU. Heads I win, tails you lose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/03 22:12:49
I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Future War Cultist wrote: I enjoyed seeing whiny Tim getting taken to task by an Elvis personator. It's just a pity the guy wasn't in costume.
I guess we're going to have to wait for someone to get a chance to shout incoherent rubbish at May.
The old guy was just wanting to spout his bile before flouncing off without having to listen to any counter to his rubbish. I can see why you like him.
Tim handled it well, was unflustered and made a very good point. He can tolerate dissent, and will listen to people, even ignorant old gakkers who just want to spout off. May can't handle dissent, because she's a coward and a flip flopper.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.
r_squared, I question if you understand what you are saying.
EU citizens as any other foreign national legally in the country has decent civic rights. This is the UK, not Iran or North Korea.
What the EU wants is for us to guarantee EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. No sovereign state or body has the right to demand that its citizens are held by their laws and not the laws of the land they are residing in, and the only acceptable exceptions are for those peoples who are denied basic rights.
So for example if we take very powerful countries like the US, Russia or China, none of thse demand that their citizens operate under US, Russian or Chinese law while in the UK.
The EU is demanding that we maintain full EU rights, they are not offering to import UK laws or rights for Uk citizens in the EU, and we don need to ask.
You have to ask why the EU is asking this. The only logical answer is as a means of enforcing EU law on the UK by the back door. Because if EU citizens have full EU rights in the UK then we need to maintain full EU laws to accommodate this, or we are violating treaty. We can have our own laws thank you, and the Uk is not the sort of country where you need to worrit over how those laws are shaped. When Kin Jong Un or Assad gets elected into Downing Street we can be concerned until then dont sweat it.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.
r_squared, I question if you understand what you are saying.
EU citizens as any other foreign national legally in the country has decent civic rights. This is the UK, not Iran or North Korea.
What the EU wants is for us to guarantee EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. No sovereign state or body has the right to demand that its citizens are held by their laws and not the laws of the land they are residing in, and the only acceptable exceptions are for those peoples who are denied basic rights.
So for example if we take very powerful countries like the US, Russia or China, none of thse demand that their citizens operate under US, Russian or Chinese law while in the UK.
The EU is demanding that we maintain full EU rights, they are not offering to import UK laws or rights for Uk citizens in the EU, and we don need to ask.
You have to ask why the EU is asking this. The only logical answer is as a means of enforcing EU law on the UK by the back door. Because if EU citizens have full EU rights in the UK then we need to maintain full EU laws to accommodate this, or we are violating treaty. We can have our own laws thank you, and the Uk is not the sort of country where you need to worrit over how those laws are shaped. When Kin Jong Un or Assad gets elected into Downing Street we can be concerned until then dont sweat it.
No they are not. Either you don't understand at all or you are wilfully misrepresenting the situation. They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU. No one is asking for what you are claiming. So much of the leave campaign has been built on this kind of lack of understanding.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
Howard A Treesong wrote: The way the £60bn Brexit bill has ballooned to £100bn shows what a sham it is. There is no justification beyond whatever some in the EU think they can get away with demanding. It's not a rounding error, it's a vast sum, clearly this sum we owe them is very fluid and not pinned down, even to within tens of billions.
Initially the European Commission recommended that the UK's share of EU assets should be subtracted from a final bill, but that is no longer the case.
EU officials say this is because assets are owned by the EU as an entity, rather than by the individual member states.
There is no set amount or clear justification for these numbers, they're as guilty of making it up as any of our people, depending on what they decide counts as ours or not. Seems like they want the penny and the bun, us paying for our full share of commitments but no return on our share of assets invested because they now belong to all the EU. Heads I win, tails you lose.
I agree that I think this is a negotiating tactic but i believe the reason the numbers are fluctuating is because working it out is complicated and depends on a number of factors that are undecided.
So, at the moment it's hard to say what is going to happen. But, as the CBI has said, a one off payment of €60bn is peanuts to support their estimation of €600bn worth of trade between us.
The Govt have failed to capitalise on what could have been a huge coup. Had they granted rights to all EU citizens immediately, it would have had a profound influence domestically and abroad. The support and goodwill she could have garnered from the remain side alone would have been immense, but she's playing tit for tat, and it makes us look weak and petty.
r_squared, I question if you understand what you are saying.
EU citizens as any other foreign national legally in the country has decent civic rights. This is the UK, not Iran or North Korea.
What the EU wants is for us to guarantee EU rights for EU citizens in the UK. No sovereign state or body has the right to demand that its citizens are held by their laws and not the laws of the land they are residing in, and the only acceptable exceptions are for those peoples who are denied basic rights.
So for example if we take very powerful countries like the US, Russia or China, none of thse demand that their citizens operate under US, Russian or Chinese law while in the UK.
The EU is demanding that we maintain full EU rights, they are not offering to import UK laws or rights for Uk citizens in the EU, and we don need to ask.
You have to ask why the EU is asking this. The only logical answer is as a means of enforcing EU law on the UK by the back door. Because if EU citizens have full EU rights in the UK then we need to maintain full EU laws to accommodate this, or we are violating treaty. We can have our own laws thank you, and the Uk is not the sort of country where you need to worrit over how those laws are shaped. When Kin Jong Un or Assad gets elected into Downing Street we can be concerned until then dont sweat it.
I was writing a reply to challenge this weird assertion of yours that the EU wants to impose EU law on us by the back door in some way by pointing out where in their statement they said that we had to do this last night, but then the thread was locked.
Does the EU insist on this "back door" imposition on other countries where EU citizens may live, such as Chile, or Australia?
I think you've completely missed the point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/03 23:42:28
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU.
Continued residency is not an actual issue, however remainers like to drum up a good scare, by implying that a continually applicable right somehow doesn't exist despite assurances and evidence to the contrary.
12. The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus and recognise in that respect bilateral agreements and arrangements between the Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom which are compatible with EU law, in particular as regards the situation of those EU citizens resident or working in the Sovereign Base Areas.
13. Following the withdrawal, the Union with 27 Member States will continue to have the rights and obligations of the Union with 28 Member States in relation to international agreements.
15. Arrangements ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment should be found for all court procedures pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union upon the date of withdrawal that involve the United Kingdom or natural or legal persons in the United Kingdom. The Court of Justice of the European Union should remain competent to adjudicate in these procedures.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.
We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago. We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.
We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I was writing a reply to challenge this weird assertion of yours that the EU wants to impose EU law on us by the back door in some way by pointing out where in their statement they said that we had to do this last night, but then the thread was locked.
Does the EU insist on this "back door" imposition on other countries where EU citizens may live, such as Chile, or Australia?
I think you've completely missed the point.
When you say 'wierd assertion' you ought to mean backed by the evidence of EU written Brexit policy.
The EU doesn't insist on back door imposition on Chile or Australia because neither country was part of the EU. The EU wants us to be bound by EU law, partly to steal trade, partly to force us to pay funds into the EU and partly to make sure the Uk doesn't undercut them on international trade. The EU doesn't have influence on other countries like this. It does happen though, and its a form of subjugation when it does.
This is plain as day through the comments from Merkel, Tusk and Juncker, that this is the case. They want the UK to be tied heavily to EU law in return for any form of trade deal. This isnt misinformation of leaver voter scare, its evidence based on consistent pattern of comments by parties central to the negotiations.
20. Any future framework should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application.
Daily Telegraph added commentary:
This has been added, reportedly at the request of the French, and it implies that any deal on financial services will require the UK to be a ‘rule taker’ and not engage in a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This reflects France’s hawkish approach on financial services and EU fears that the UK could radically diverge from the EU standards in search of competitive advantage. The EU side will look to bind the UK’s hands in this, and other areas, as part of any future comprehensive trade deal. The UK side, by contrast, wants a dynamic regulatory arrangement in which the UK has some input into regulations as they evolve. How this issue is resolved will be fundamental to any future trade deal with the EU, determining how “deep” the trading relationship remains.
I didnt miss the point, because I read the documentation, and posted links and quotes. Documents signed by Donald Tusk are valid with regards to commenting on EU policy.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
They want the UK to garentee that EU citizens residing in the U.K. Will retain the right to remain in some form and not have to leave the UK when we leave the EU.
Continued residency is not an actual issue, however remainers like to drum up a good scare, by implying that a continually applicable right somehow doesn't exist despite assurances and evidence to the contrary.
12. The Union should agree with the United Kingdom on arrangements as regards the Sovereign Base Areas of the United Kingdom in Cyprus and recognise in that respect bilateral agreements and arrangements between the Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom which are compatible with EU law, in particular as regards the situation of those EU citizens resident or working in the Sovereign Base Areas.
13. Following the withdrawal, the Union with 27 Member States will continue to have the rights and obligations of the Union with 28 Member States in relation to international agreements.
15. Arrangements ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment should be found for all court procedures pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union upon the date of withdrawal that involve the United Kingdom or natural or legal persons in the United Kingdom. The Court of Justice of the European Union should remain competent to adjudicate in these procedures.
I've been to Akrotiri and Episkopi several times in my career and this is what you need to know about this...
Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matters.
In effect, the areas are just military bases, nothing more. There are no British colonists on the island, just serving personnel and expats. The SBA police are mostly Cypriot, and have primacy, even on base, and we are obliged to comply with SBA law, which aligns closely with The Republic of Cyprus' law, when serving there. Fortunately there's not much difference.
So, with that in mind, the specific demands from the EU here are perfectly acceptable, and in line with current orthodoxy, as long as Cyprus stays in the EU.
There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Well we are their cash cow after all, they need to milk us as much as possible while they still can.
We are one of their cash cows as a net contributor, that is true, and we should definitely use that in our negotiations. This is, after all, primarily a financial arrangement. They are standing to lose our contributions, and I believe we were the second biggest contributor? However, the benefits in trade are considerable, otherwise we'd have left ages ago.
We too have a great deal to lose, and we need to be careful not to burn our bridges on the altar of ignorant pride.
If we 'burn our bridges' it will be because the EU will only offer us specific and limiting trade deals. We will likely get free trade on agricultural products, but not on financial services. We cannot even see when deals we might get until we agree to agree fees up front.
It is very likely the EU's deal will be so unworkable that a hard Brexit may be preferably for economic reasons, not pride.
Brexit was a bad idea, but now it has happened a hard Brexit is likely better than accepting the any cost offer the EU gives us.
My main reason for replying to your comment was the idea that a hard Brexit is 'ignorant pride'. Really you have no idea:
Notably:
May was also told that any transitional or implementation period to ease the passage to a new relationship once Britain leaves the EU must be “limited in time” and would require the U.K. accepting "regulatory, budgetary, supervisory and enforcement instruments and structures.”
Any nation that has to accept laws imposed by a third party body but has no input on the legislative process is a vassal of said body.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I was writing a reply to challenge this weird assertion of yours that the EU wants to impose EU law on us by the back door in some way by pointing out where in their statement they said that we had to do this last night, but then the thread was locked.
Does the EU insist on this "back door" imposition on other countries where EU citizens may live, such as Chile, or Australia?
I think you've completely missed the point.
When you say 'wierd assertion' you ought to mean backed by the evidence of EU written Brexit policy.
The EU doesn't insist on back door imposition on Chile or Australia because neither country was part of the EU. The EU wants us to be bound by EU law, partly to steal trade, partly to force us to pay funds into the EU and partly to make sure the Uk doesn't undercut them on international trade. The EU doesn't have influence on other countries like this. It does happen though, and its a form of subjugation when it does.
This is plain as day through the comments from Merkel, Tusk and Juncker, that this is the case. They want the UK to be tied heavily to EU law in return for any form of trade deal. This isnt misinformation of leaver voter scare, its evidence based on consistent pattern of comments by parties central to the negotiations.
20. Any future framework should safeguard financial stability in the Union and respect its regulatory and supervisory regime and standards and their application.
Daily Telegraph added commentary:
This has been added, reportedly at the request of the French, and it implies that any deal on financial services will require the UK to be a ‘rule taker’ and not engage in a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This reflects France’s hawkish approach on financial services and EU fears that the UK could radically diverge from the EU standards in search of competitive advantage. The EU side will look to bind the UK’s hands in this, and other areas, as part of any future comprehensive trade deal. The UK side, by contrast, wants a dynamic regulatory arrangement in which the UK has some input into regulations as they evolve. How this issue is resolved will be fundamental to any future trade deal with the EU, determining how “deep” the trading relationship remains.
I didnt miss the point, because I read the documentation, and posted links and quotes. Documents signed by Donald Tusk are valid with regards to commenting on EU policy.
You have missed the point though, by quite a margin. For a start that quote about the French is opinion, not fact. That's immediately obvious by considering the source and language used.
It's also only demanding that the UK "respects" the EUs current regulations when dealing with the EU, not actually compelling us to comply. However, we can do what we like elsewhere when tra ding wit others. We knew that throughout the whole Brexit process, we would have to comply with EU law in order to trade with them. What's the surprise or big deal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth 724548 9341983 59b90e1005a220e2ebc542eb9d950b1e.jpg.. wrote:Any nation that has to accept laws imposed by a third party body but has no input on the legislative process is a vassal of said body.
Sigh. Firstly, we had our part in creating that legislative behemoth. Secondly, in order to trade with other nations, we have to comply with their laws. We are not a vassal state of Nicaragua by complying with their laws when we export whisky to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/04 00:28:37
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I've been to Akrotiri and Episkopi several times in my career and this is what you need to know about this...
Because the SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories, the Administration reports to the Ministry of Defence in London. It has no formal connection with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the British High Commission in Nicosia, although there are close informal links with both offices on policy matters.
In effect, the areas are just military bases, nothing more. There are no British colonists on the island, just serving personnel and expats. The SBA police are mostly Cypriot, and have primacy, even on base, and we are obliged to comply with SBA law, which aligns closely with The Republic of Cyprus' law, when serving there. Fortunately there's not much difference.
So, with that in mind, the specific demands from the EU here are perfectly acceptable, and in line with current orthodoxy, as long as Cyprus stays in the EU.
There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.
Having lived in Episkopi myself I already knew this, but thanks. What you are missing is that the relationship of the SBA to Cyprus predates the membership of the EU of both countries. We do not need EU legislation to dictate the operation of the SBA or its relationship with Greek cypriots. We certainly don't want the EU to leverage the SBA mandate, there is already claims that Gibraltar's rights will not be respected by the EU.
Donald Tusk is a clever man, far more subtle than Juncker, the Brexit guidelines are written in legalese and you have to read them carefully. There is a lot of thinly veiled nasty stuff in them
There is no way that the EU can impose EU law by the backdoor on the UK as you describe in mainland Britain.
Unless:
We have to accept EU law as part of a trade deal - and the EU has hinted it wants to do that, as have primary members Germany and France.
We have to accept EU law for EU citizens within the UK - this has been dselected as a negotiation goal in Donald Tusks guidelines.
We have to accept the primacy of the European Court of Justice in matters regarding EU citizens in the UK or in trade negotiations. - Likewise highlighted as a negotiation goal. This part is most important, as if there is a trade disagreement within the bounds of a trade deal there isn't an impasse instead it gets referred to the ECJ or European commission, who will find in favour of the EU members states against us.
You have missed the point though, by quite a margin. For a start that quote about the French is opinion, not fact. That's immediately obvious by considering the source and language used.
Yes its opinion, but its opinion base on evidence provided. It sees the problem rationally rather than remainer la la land where the EU are nice people who will offer us a fair trade deal in return for fair contribution.
Take a look at what these leaders are saying, powerful people in the EU with a very strong hand in the way the EU is run.
It's also only demanding that the UK "respects" the EUs current regulations when dealing with the EU, not actually compelling us to comply. However, we can do what we like elsewhere when tra ding wit others.
The EU has made comment that it wants binding legislation to prevent us from undercutting EU legislation. If they get their way we wont be in the EU or have any of the benefits, but still unable to undercut its labyrinthine complexity and inefficient bureaucracy. This is wanted especially with regards to financial institutions to prevent what the French claim to be a 'regulatory race to the bottom' which is a spun out way of saying that the UK can be more competitive than the EU by ditching its heavy legislative burdens.
Sigh. Firstly, we had our part in creating that legislative behemoth.
We did, but actually very little of it, and long campaigned unsuccessfully to reduce it. Remember we joined the EEC not the EU, The Uk has resisted federalisation at every turn.
No we are not responsible for the behemoth. The European Commission is unelected and meets behind closed doors. Policy is mostly dicatated by Germany and France, this is why the UK is seen as complaining a lot in chamber. Anything that the French or Germans don't want doesn't even get tabled to begin with. Take the common agricultural policy for example, its tailor made for the French, and nobody can shift it.
We are not a vassal state of Nicaragua by complying with their laws when we export whisky to them.
Ok, how to rewrite this even simpler so you will understand.
Nicaragua has everyright to consider how its laws are effected in a Nicarague-UK trade deal. However the EU also wants a say.
Its not only about EU wanting to negotiate for the EU with regards to post Brexit trade between EU and UK, they also want to have treaty legislation that binds how the UK trades with any country.
I can understand why. London is the EU' and Europes primary finance centre, and one of two globally. This accounts for about 16% of the UK economy. As London leaves the EU one of two things will happen, either London's financial power will flow to the EU, or EU financial power will stay where it is or even in part flow to London.
The French and the Germans want heavy legislation both in the EU and between the EU and UK to prevent the UK from undercutting financial services, and also to try and steal global business from London.
The UK wants to prevent an asset stripping of the city, which is very likely to be a condition of any Brexit trade deal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/05/04 00:57:07
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.
This, so much this. I couldn't believe May's statement the other day about being a "bloody difficult" woman; how can anyone think that being obstinate, petty and jingoistic is a good way to run a complex negotiation?!
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.
Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.
And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!
We need cool pragmatic heads in these negotiations, not sloganeering and politicking.
This, so much this. I couldn't believe May's statement the other day about being a "bloody difficult" woman; how can anyone think that being obstinate, petty and jingoistic is a good way to run a complex negotiation?!
It's for a domestic audience and according to John Curtice it's working as the UKIP vote is heading back to the Tories.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/04 07:53:26
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.
Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.
And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!
Unless thr ghosts of our grandfathers have returned with there ships, we may struggle to rouse a few battle wagons.
Are we that hard up we resorting to soul stone powered dreadnoughts pf thr past lol?
Next up... Load the Victory, Nelsons ghost. You have your spiritual reserve call up!
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Vaktathi wrote: I doubt the EU expects anything remotely near that when all is said and done. It's the EU trying their hand at "strong" negotiation, making outrageous demands, expecting it to get wayyyyy cut down, to ensure arrival at a center figure a bit more to their favor. SOP for many negotiations. Reading into it much more than that would probably be erroneous I would expect. Whatever one wants to accuse the EU of, they know theyre not going to get a sum like that out of the UK.
I've said from the beginning that we as a nation have a duty to honour our treaty obligations. So, if we're legally obliged to pay £30 billion, then we should pay it, but this 100 billion figure is pure nonsense and seems to have been plucked from thin air.
As we all know, it's election day, so get out there and vote. I'm heading off soon to do my civic duty.
Fill in every box. That's the conclusion I've drawn from reading up on the STV system.
And on another note, it's a bit rich for May to be banging on about the EU upsetting the General Election, when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish!
Unless thr ghosts of our grandfathers have returned with there ships, we may struggle to rouse a few battle wagons.
Are we that hard up we resorting to soul stone powered dreadnoughts pf thr past lol?
Next up... Load the Victory, Nelsons ghost. You have your spiritual reserve call up!
Nelson? If we're going up against the Spanish, then it's Drake's ghost we need
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/04 07:56:48
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
when a few weeks ago, there was talk of sending in battleships against the Spanish! 
