Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

I always believed that both sides need stability when this is finally over. Nobody is gaining anything if the UK signs a deal that the UK continues to question in the future and that might be up for adjustment or cancellation at every new election.And if you read the British press and look at the election results, it seems that they are actually willing to do a no deal scenario for their blue passports. Now the interest of the EU must be stability for the future and at the moment I tend to believe that this is best achieved in a no deal scenario. I have never seen something good coming out of an agreement to work together, when one side did not really want to sign it.

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

I would say that it is pretty high risk that UK falling out special while considering that financial services will not be part of the FTA.

seahawk wrote:

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

I always believed that both sides need stability when this is finally over. Nobody is gaining anything if the UK signs a deal that the UK continues to question in the future and that might be up for adjustment or cancellation at every new election..

If the deal isn´t load bearing investments in the UK will do what they do right now: Be non existent. The pain of breaking "free" is constantly shifting, at some point all leverage the UK has will just go "poof*.
With half of the UK Banking system under the bus and UK manufacturing sneaking over the channel they may soon be a smaller target market than the Netherlands.

best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

As we discussed before a few pages back the veto is an illusion

That's one fo the things your leaders have been lying to you about, even while they've been wielding that same veto to great effect, actually having made the UK one of the most influential member state, just while taking great pains to never tell the UK public about it because that would have disturbed the convenient narrative of the UK being the poor, helpless victing of the evil EU bureaucrats.

That you have chosen to actually believe those lies is on you, though, because they were actually quite easy to see through.

What the actual reality of the veto means could be seen with the massive influence Ireland had on the Brexit negotiations. By your bonkers beliefs Ireland should long have been shoved aside by the german government who in turn should have been puppeteered by the german car industry, but actually none of that happened, and Ireland has actually been the dominant factor in the negotiations, to the total surprise of brexiters.

So yes, the veto very much matters!

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Klaus wrote:

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

I always believed that both sides need stability when this is finally over. Nobody is gaining anything if the UK signs a deal that the UK continues to question in the future and that might be up for adjustment or cancellation at every new election..

If the deal isn´t load bearing investments in the UK will do what they do right now: Be non existent. The pain of breaking "free" is constantly shifting, at some point all leverage the UK has will just go "poof*.
With half of the UK Banking system under the bus and UK manufacturing sneaking over the channel they may soon be a smaller target market than the Netherlands.

best regards
Thomas

As the UK decided to leave, the EU must not care about the consequences for the UK, as they are now sovereign again. The EU needs to create stability for the EU.

seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I always believed that both sides need stability when this is finally over. Nobody is gaining anything if the UK signs a deal that the UK continues to question in the future and that might be up for adjustment or cancellation at every new election..

If the deal isn´t load bearing investments in the UK will do what they do right now: Be non existent. The pain of breaking "free" is constantly shifting, at some point all leverage the UK has will just go "poof*.
With half of the UK Banking system under the bus and UK manufacturing sneaking over the channel they may soon be a smaller target market than the Netherlands.

best regards
Thomas

As the UK decided to leave, the EU must not care about the consequences for the UK, as they are now sovereign again. The EU needs to create stability for the EU.

That would mean a deliberate, slow bloodletting of the UK economy to the benefit of the EUs. I mean turnaround is fair play, but that wouldn´t exactly be "fair trade".

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

If the deal isn´t load bearing investments in the UK will do what they do right now: Be non existent. The pain of breaking "free" is constantly shifting, at some point all leverage the UK has will just go "poof*.
With half of the UK Banking system under the bus and UK manufacturing sneaking over the channel they may soon be a smaller target market than the Netherlands.

best regards
Thomas

As the UK decided to leave, the EU must not care about the consequences for the UK, as they are now sovereign again. The EU needs to create stability for the EU.

That would mean a deliberate, slow bloodletting of the UK economy to the benefit of the EUs. I mean turnaround is fair play, but that wouldn´t exactly be "fair trade".

best regards
Thomas

It is not deliberate as the EU does offer other options, but the EU must not stop a sovereign country from being stupid.

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

Germany has a history of this doesn’t it.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

Germany has a history of this doesn’t it.

I thought you believe the Brexit and a no deal are good choices for the UK?

Seem Sajid Javid didn't want to take the Trump 'esque / Dominic Cummings way of running a govenment and has quit as Chancellor. At least he has some lines he won't cross. So now we have no 10 demanding all department heads have advisors assigned by them. Wonderful. What more could possibly go wrong?

Wonder if Javid also has a backbone to now perhaps have a few words about the insanity of the govenments current handling of things.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

Germany has a history of this doesn’t it.

Just trolling other countries and letting them hurt themselves? No, not really, if you actually know anything about history!

seahawk wrote:

I always believed that both sides need stability when this is finally over. Nobody is gaining anything if the UK signs a deal that the UK continues to question in the future and that might be up for adjustment or cancellation at every new election.And if you read the British press and look at the election results, it seems that they are actually willing to do a no deal scenario for their blue passports. Now the interest of the EU must be stability for the future and at the moment I tend to believe that this is best achieved in a no deal scenario. I have never seen something good coming out of an agreement to work together, when one side did not really want to sign it.

If the UK is getting into an isolationist spiral of self-harm that is not good for EU stability either but that would be an unstable situation and an unnecessary distraction.

The hardcore brexiters may only wake up if it really gets that bad, but they're in the process of dying off anyway so I don't think there's any benefit in letting it come to that.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

As we discussed before a few pages back the veto is an illusion

That's one fo the things your leaders have been lying to you about, even while they've been wielding that same veto to great effect, actually having made the UK one of the most influential member state, just while taking great pains to never tell the UK public about it because that would have disturbed the convenient narrative of the UK being the poor, helpless victing of the evil EU bureaucrats.

That you have chosen to actually believe those lies is on you, though, because they were actually quite easy to see through.

What the actual reality of the veto means could be seen with the massive influence Ireland had on the Brexit negotiations. By your bonkers beliefs Ireland should long have been shoved aside by the german government who in turn should have been puppeteered by the german car industry, but actually none of that happened, and Ireland has actually been the dominant factor in the negotiations, to the total surprise of brexiters.

So yes, the veto very much matters!

As I said the veto is an illusion when the UK have used it, the EU just finds a way around it. Your Irish analogy has no grounds here as if it was in the interests of the entire EU to play that hand not just the ROI.

Are you saying that UK, as EU member, was participating in finding ways against itself ?
You've been brainwashed by the "us vs them" rethoric, I'm afraid.

Reinhardt wrote:

Seem Sajid Javid didn't want to take the Trump 'esque / Dominic Cummings way of running a govenment and has quit as Chancellor. At least he has some lines he won't cross. So now we have no 10 demanding all department heads have advisors assigned by them. Wonderful. What more could possibly go wrong?

Wonder if Javid also has a backbone to now perhaps have a few words about the insanity of the govenments current handling of things.

What has this got to do with brexit?

The pound is rallying against the euro. The markets have confidence in brexit britain.

The pound is upon the news merely because the markets now price in even bigger UK budget deficits now as BoJo shakes the non-existing money tree, and thus a higher demand for British pounds.... it's not the economy that's driving the rally, it's the fiscal outlook and the likely profits to be pocketed for bankers.

Arion640 wrote:

What has this got to do with brexit?.

Cummings was the architect of vote leave. He is now to all intents and purposes running the country. Since all past history shows Boris is incabable of leading anything. Javid was a remainer, from a 2016 article:

One of the advantages of EU membership is that we get to negotiate wider and deeper trade deals from a position of strength.
If we leave, the boot will be on the other foot – and that will put Britain at a serious disadvantage.

I’m not about to vote for a decade of stagnation and doubt.

He's purging his cabinet of unbelievers and replacing them with people with zero experience and demanding advisory rules led from no10.

Arion640 wrote:

The pound is rallying against the euro. The markets have confidence in brexit britain.

Lovely. I'm sure they did in 2016 as well when the pound crashed. And I'm sure it will again if you get Boris's 'Australia' deal, which is WTO. Except nobody wants UK on WTO either.

I imagine the short positions are massive. Just like they were from Farage's buddies during the referendum.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Are you saying that UK, as EU member, was participating in finding ways against itself ?
You've been brainwashed by the "us vs them" rethoric, I'm afraid.

You are funny mate, Cameron used the Veto in 2011 and was subsequently gone around by the rest of the EU, as I said veto is an illusion

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Are you saying that UK, as EU member, was participating in finding ways against itself ?
You've been brainwashed by the "us vs them" rethoric, I'm afraid.

You are funny mate, Cameron used the Veto in 2011 and was subsequently gone around by the rest of the EU, as I said veto is an illusion

The primary use of the veto was and is in debates about joint decisions – it almost never actually needs to be declared, and the UK has many, many times prevented changes the government at the time did not like.

There was only a small number of cases such as when the UK with all its extra-special opt-outs tried to impose its own will on the other countries which actually had not opted out of things like Schengen and the Euro that those other countries then narrowed the applicability of new proposals to only those countries who were actually concerned by the changes and left the UK on the outside.

So the UK's veto did in fact succeed as far as itself was concerned, which was actually perfectly in line with the UK's national sovereignty.

Those other countries just chose to not let the UK infringe on their own sovereignty by having the UK from the outside forcing its will on them.

If you were really so attuned to the whole concept that should be completely self-evident and not even merit a mention.

Klaus wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I always believed that both sides need stability when this is finally over. Nobody is gaining anything if the UK signs a deal that the UK continues to question in the future and that might be up for adjustment or cancellation at every new election.And if you read the British press and look at the election results, it seems that they are actually willing to do a no deal scenario for their blue passports. Now the interest of the EU must be stability for the future and at the moment I tend to believe that this is best achieved in a no deal scenario. I have never seen something good coming out of an agreement to work together, when one side did not really want to sign it.

If the UK is getting into an isolationist spiral of self-harm that is not good for EU stability either but that would be an unstable situation and an unnecessary distraction.

The hardcore brexiters may only wake up if it really gets that bad, but they're in the process of dying off anyway so I don't think there's any benefit in letting it come to that.

The point is that, the EU has no control over what the UK does. But I am convinced, that all previous rules the EU followed, when dealing with third parties, should be applied exactly the same when it comes to the UK. A special deal and special status for the UK, would be more damaging than a no deal.

Reinhardt wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

What has this got to do with brexit?.

Cummings was the architect of vote leave. He is now to all intents and purposes running the country. Since all past history shows Boris is incabable of leading anything. Javid was a remainer, from a 2016 article:

One of the advantages of EU membership is that we get to negotiate wider and deeper trade deals from a position of strength.
If we leave, the boot will be on the other foot – and that will put Britain at a serious disadvantage.

I’m not about to vote for a decade of stagnation and doubt.

He's purging his cabinet of unbelievers and replacing them with people with zero experience and demanding advisory rules led from no10.

Arion640 wrote:

The pound is rallying against the euro. The markets have confidence in brexit britain.

Lovely. I'm sure they did in 2016 as well when the pound crashed. And I'm sure it will again if you get Boris's 'Australia' deal, which is WTO. Except nobody wants UK on WTO either.

I imagine the short positions are massive. Just like they were from Farage's buddies during the referendum.

There are short positions against all currencies. Not just the UK. The EUR/USD has dipped loads today. I imagine Verhofstadt/Junker/tusks’s financial advisors took full advantage, as probably did your pension fund.

A101 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s getting to the point that the EU might as well federalise with a central government basically that’s what you are advocating with the comment about the US.

Interesting point... Would you say that the US is worse off with a federal government than if it had remained a loose collection of Independent states?

No, federalism helps define a role at all levels of government, whereas the federal government role is mainly national affairs state government and then local government. Brussels is effectively try to do the role of federal government across a collective of nations which also have multi levels of government.

The European Union only deals with aspects of joint sovereignty which the nation states have voluntarily pooled for greater impact both EU-internally and internationally.

It is an additional layer of government, not a replacement for the national layer as you keep claiming incorrectly.

As I said it’s to the point where it either has to federalise or return to its origins of being a collective trade common market. It’s past the point of going back so either it’s federalism or bust within the next generation

No, there's only your confusion again because you don't get the whole functional principle.

For me as a german, there are these layers of government, each with mostly unique responsibilities but sometimes also shared ones:
• European Union
• nation state
• regional state
• county / local community

On each of these levels I have a vote and all decisions derive from election results (even the European Commission is just an executive organ shared among and jointly controlled by the elected national leaders). No decision is unaccountable on the european level and there are no decision-makers who aren't elected or aren't reporting to elected politicians.

In other member countries those layers below the nation state can be different.

But in a properly functioning structure the structure as such isn't an issue; Debates are generally just concerned with the best level to assign specific responsibilities to, and those debates are pretty much eternal but usually run at a relatively low priority in a well-structured system.

Your problem seems to be twofold:

Britain specifically with England and without an actual constitution is more a perpetually open wound than a well-structured system.

The pains originating from that domestic mess have been relatively easily diverted to the EU as a fictitious scapegoat given that many people in England have been misled and misinformed about the EU for decades, largely because that domestic mess happened to work well for at least a certain part of the UK political caste and Brexit was their preliminary salvation to divert attention away from their own domestic problems.

And here we are.

And as the UK government is now talking about the Australia model (which could be wrong in the future, as the EU and Australia are working on a FTA), my opinion is to let them go this route. The EU can not stop them anyway and at least it will provide clarity for the future and business and people can adjust.

Anyway, you just need to read the menu:
Negotiation mandate

You will notice that BoJo trying to be a smartass about the NI Protocol has not gone very well:

9. Expresses its concern at the UK Prime Minister’s interpretation of the provisions of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Withdrawal Agreement concerning border controls in the Irish Sea; considers that trust is an essential element of any negotiation, is of the opinion that the UK Prime Minister must immediately clarify in a satisfactory manner the UK’s intended approach to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland;

And just for the fun, look at the next point:

10. Supports the negotiating directives, which set out that Gibraltar will not be included in the territorial scope of the agreements to be concluded between the EU and the UK, and that any separate agreement will require the prior agreement of the Kingdom of Spain

After more than 3 years with the UK parliament trying to outplay the Comedia del'arte, the EU parliament decided to have some glorious time.

Olddog wrote:

After more than 3 years with the UK parliament trying to outplay the Comedia del'arte, the EU parliament decided to have some glorious time.

More like 2 1/2 years of a Remain parliament trying to shelve the 2016 vote, now that a leave parliament is in place, let's see how they do for the next 10 months then 3 to 4 years.
Time will tell.

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

After more than 3 years with the UK parliament trying to outplay the Comedia del'arte, the EU parliament decided to have some glorious time.

More like 2 1/2 years of a Remain parliament trying to shelve the 2016 vote, now that a leave parliament is in place, let's see how they do for the next 10 months then 3 to 4 years.
Time will tell.

I think parliament will be much more calmer. It’s whats going on in government that will hit the spotlight.

BAD news for the Eu:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.expr ... fstadt/amp

LoL, your link is so full of ****...

How many times do you need to see theses ridiculous titles before reality hits you ?

Arion640 wrote:

BAD news for the Eu:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.expr ... fstadt/amp

When has the budget not been a problem? It will take some overtime, night negotiations and very tired presidents and prime ministers

Arion640 wrote:

BAD news for the Eu:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.expr ... fstadt/amp

Yeah, your lying tabloids need to ratchet up their lying pressure now that they need to distract you from the consequences of what they've been pushing you into.

At the same time in the real world, it's the usual budget negotiations as in every cycle: Net recipients and net contributors wrangling over the volume and distribution of the funds, as usual.

Brexit shifts the issues somewhat, but overall the EU budget is still tiny compared to the national ones, so your fever dream about the EU being in mortal peril now without the UK is ludicrously absurd. It's simply the usual talk about priorities, as it's been in every cycle.

It wouldn't be any serious stretch for the 27 members to boost funding beyond what it had been before, it's just a political matter whether that will happen or if the priority will be on cuts.

Have you never wondered why what your tabloids had been telling you never actually comes to pass as they had predicted? No? Well, then don't be surprised about the bruises from stumbling around in the dark.

Klaus wrote:

The primary use of the veto was and is in debates about joint decisions – it almost never actually needs to be declared, and the UK has many, many times prevented changes the government at the time did not like.

There was only a small number of cases such as when the UK with all its extra-special opt-outs tried to impose its own will on the other countries which actually had not opted out of things like Schengen and the Euro that those other countries then narrowed the applicability of new proposals to only those countries who were actually concerned by the changes and left the UK on the outside.

So the UK's veto did in fact succeed as far as itself was concerned, which was actually perfectly in line with the UK's national sovereignty.

Those other countries just chose to not let the UK infringe on their own sovereignty by having the UK from the outside forcing its will on them.

If you were really so attuned to the whole concept that should be completely self-evident and not even merit a mention.

It does not diminish from the fact that the EU circumvented the veto by establishing a treaty within a treaty that not all members had a say in. As I said before the veto is an illusion as the EU will circumvent the established protocol if it’s in its own interest to do so irrespective if a member use the said veto.

Also it’s no secret that a number high ranking officials including Ms Von der Leyen would like to see the end of the veto in its entirety and go with a qualified majority voting instead.

The EU federalism or bust that is the future waiting for member states

A101 wrote:

It does not diminish from the fact that the EU circumvented the veto by establishing a treaty within a treaty that not all members had a say in.

There's nothing to "diminish" because that is just nonsense.

"The EU" did nothing at all there as administrative EU institutions are subordinate to the elected politicians and have no vote and no decision powers in political matters.

Instead, those EU member countries who were actually participating in the mechanisms in question decided that it would be unfair if the UK as non-participating country nevertheless had a say on those mechanisms, which would in fact infringe on the sovereignty of the participating countries and which would be an absurdity in view of the UK's explicit opt-outs from those mechanisms in the first place!

That should be quite obvious and easy to understand.

As I said before the veto is an illusion

Since your arguments are based on just false assumptions, that conclusion crumbles with them.

as the EU will circumvent the established protocol if it’s in its own interest to do so irrespective if a member use the said veto.

Again factually false, hence your conclusion fails with it.

Also it’s no secret that a number high ranking officials including Ms Von der Leyen would like to see the end of the veto in its entirety and go with a qualified majority voting instead.

Ursula von der Leyen is effectively just an employee to the Council of member nation governments, appointed by them and reporting to them and also confirmed by the elected MEPs, and she has no decision powers in such matters at all.

Any such matters require a decision by the elected national leaders and in many cases the consent of the elected Parliament as well.

The EU federalism or bust that is the future waiting for member states

The European Union only becomes what the elected heads of national governments plus the elected Parliament decide. No "unelected bureaucrat" has any decision power there (and as I had explained, all of them are subordinate to the elected politicians again).

"The EU" as you're imagining it simply doesn't exist outside of your misinformed imagination.

The entirety of your assumptions about how the EU works and how it makes its decisions is just factually incorrect as you could easily verify if you actually took the marginal effort. This is not a matter of opinions, it is a matter of hard, verifiable facts which can be checked and verified.

Unfortunately though, you've taken a historical, life-changing decision for your country based on that misinformation because you couldn't be bothered to check a few simple facts which are easily looked up and which you even got served on a silver platter in this forum, too, but which you chose to ignore because the misinformation felt more convenient to you.

Olle wrote:

This is exactly the point.both sides has red lines. If those cannot be metit will be the Australian model WTO.

Australia is now moving away from this and has a FTA with EU on the way.

That is what EU tells UK.

It’s interesting you bring this up as the negotiations with the Australians the EU is not demanding Australia sign up to regulatory alignment with the EU otherwise they will not get a FTA, unlike they are demanding with the UK

Olle wrote:

Until now UK has told EU we want a deal that does not change anything for UK export including services (financial etc).

Well actually he has said many time that the goal is CETA type arrangement, that’s not unlimited access

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

It does not diminish from the fact that the EU circumvented the veto by establishing a treaty within a treaty that not all members had a say in.

There's nothing to "diminish" because that is just nonsense.

"The EU" did nothing at all there as administrative EU institutions are subordinate to the elected politicians and have no vote and no decision powers in political matters.

Instead, those EU member countries who were actually participating in the mechanisms in question decided that it would be unfair if the UK as non-participating country nevertheless had a say on those mechanisms, which would in fact infringe on the sovereignty of the participating countries and which would be an absurdity in view of the UK's explicit opt-outs from those mechanisms in the first place!

That should be quite obvious and easy to understand.

As I said before the veto is an illusion

Since your arguments are based on just false assumptions, that conclusion crumbles with them.

as the EU will circumvent the established protocol if it’s in its own interest to do so irrespective if a member use the said veto.

Again factually false, hence your conclusion fails with it.

Also it’s no secret that a number high ranking officials including Ms Von der Leyen would like to see the end of the veto in its entirety and go with a qualified majority voting instead.

Ursula von der Leyen is effectively just an employee to the Council of member nation governments, appointed by them and reporting to them and also confirmed by the elected MEPs, and she has no decision powers in such matters at all.

Any such matters require a decision by the elected national leaders and in many cases the consent of the elected Parliament as well.

The EU federalism or bust that is the future waiting for member states

The European Union only becomes what the elected heads of national governments plus the elected Parliament decide. No "unelected bureaucrat" has any decision power there (and as I had explained, all of them are subordinate to the elected politicians again).

"The EU" as you're imagining it simply doesn't exist outside of your misinformed imagination.

The entirety of your assumptions about how the EU works and how it makes its decisions is just factually incorrect as you could easily verify if you actually took the marginal effort. This is not a matter of opinions, it is a matter of hard, verifiable facts which can be checked and verified.

Unfortunately though, you've taken a historical, life-changing decision for your country based on that misinformation because you couldn't be bothered to check a few simple facts which are easily looked up and which you even got served on a silver platter in this forum, too, but which you chose to ignore because the misinformation felt more convenient to you.

No matter how many ways you want to dress it up, it still a mechanism which the EU used to get around the veto because it could not get its own way, something not unusual for the EU.

You’re argument is putting lipstick on a pig.

A101 wrote:

No matter how many ways you want to dress it up, it still a mechanism which the EU used to get around the veto because it could not get its own way, something not unusual for the EU.

No you're still not getting it: "The EU" has no agency except for the one based on political decisions made by elected politicians, and specifically the decisions you're moaning about haven't been made by "the EU" but by the elected leaders of the other member nations who were actually part of the mechanisms those decisions were about, while the UK had explicitly demanded to be excluded from those mechanisms, so it was completely fair and even-handed for the other elected member governments to disregard the UK's voice on things the UK had declared it wanted nothing to do with.

It would be patently absurd for the UK to control the rules of the Schengen agreement or of the Euro after the UK explicitly opted out of both mechanisms!

What actually happened was perfectly in line with national sovereignty being respected, there was just not only the UK's sovereignty at stake there (which it used to opt out), but also that of 27 other member countries (most of whom opted in)!

Even considering a UK veto on matters the UK was not a part of was pretty uncouth and hardly fair in any way, so you'd have a hard time to blame the other member governments for their response.

You’re argument is putting lipstick on a pig.

No, your imaginary "pig" simply doesn't exist, and there is no lipstick needed nor even available in the first place.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No matter how many ways you want to dress it up, it still a mechanism which the EU used to get around the veto because it could not get its own way, something not unusual for the EU.

No you're still not getting it: "The EU" has no agency except for the one based on political decisions made by elected politicians, and specifically the decisions you're moaning about haven't been made by "the EU" but by the elected leaders of the other member nations who were actually part of the mechanisms those decisions were about, while the UK had explicitly demanded to be excluded from those mechanisms, so it was completely fair and even-handed for the other elected member governments to disregard the UK's voice on things the UK had declared it wanted nothing to do with.

It would be patently absurd for the UK to control the rules of the Schengen agreement or of the Euro after the UK explicitly opted out of both mechanisms!

What actually happened was perfectly in line with national sovereignty being respected, there was just not only the UK's sovereignty at stake there (which it used to opt out), but also that of 27 other member countries (most of whom opted in)!

Even considering a UK veto on matters the UK was not a part of was pretty uncouth and hardly fair in any way, so you'd have a hard time to blame the other member governments for their response.

You’re argument is putting lipstick on a pig.

No, your imaginary "pig" simply doesn't exist, and there is no lipstick needed nor even available in the first place.

At the end of the day It’s new treaty because you couldn’t get the treaty changed, irrespective of the outcome it still an example of veto being an illusion. Don’t like the outcome we will just make a new treaty be dammed of the about perception that the EU honours laws and legislation of the TEU. The perception is a big fail look for a way around it.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

No matter how many ways you want to dress it up, it still a mechanism which the EU used to get around the veto because it could not get its own way, something not unusual for the EU.

No you're still not getting it: "The EU" has no agency except for the one based on political decisions made by elected politicians, and specifically the decisions you're moaning about haven't been made by "the EU" but by the elected leaders of the other member nations who were actually part of the mechanisms those decisions were about, while the UK had explicitly demanded to be excluded from those mechanisms, so it was completely fair and even-handed for the other elected member governments to disregard the UK's voice on things the UK had declared it wanted nothing to do with.

It would be patently absurd for the UK to control the rules of the Schengen agreement or of the Euro after the UK explicitly opted out of both mechanisms!

What actually happened was perfectly in line with national sovereignty being respected, there was just not only the UK's sovereignty at stake there (which it used to opt out), but also that of 27 other member countries (most of whom opted in)!

Even considering a UK veto on matters the UK was not a part of was pretty uncouth and hardly fair in any way, so you'd have a hard time to blame the other member governments for their response.

You’re argument is putting lipstick on a pig.

No, your imaginary "pig" simply doesn't exist, and there is no lipstick needed nor even available in the first place.

At the end of the day It’s new treaty because you couldn’t get the treaty changed, irrespective of the outcome it still an example of veto being an illusion. Don’t like the outcome we will just make a new treaty be dammed of the about perception that the EU honours laws and legislation of the TEU. The perception is a big fail look for a way around it.

Are you opposed to the notion of a legislative body reworking a failed law so that it meets the needs of the people?

That's what a failed vote should do, get the legislators back to the drawing board and make whatever modifications are necessary to have it passed.

A very simple question: who elected Dominic Cummings, the de facto actual real PM ?

Olddog wrote:

A very simple question: who elected Dominic Cummings, the de facto actual real PM ?

All western governments are run by advisors and civil servants, catch on

The press take a particular liking to cummings as he ran vote leave.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

No you're still not getting it: "The EU" has no agency except for the one based on political decisions made by elected politicians, and specifically the decisions you're moaning about haven't been made by "the EU" but by the elected leaders of the other member nations who were actually part of the mechanisms those decisions were about, while the UK had explicitly demanded to be excluded from those mechanisms, so it was completely fair and even-handed for the other elected member governments to disregard the UK's voice on things the UK had declared it wanted nothing to do with.

It would be patently absurd for the UK to control the rules of the Schengen agreement or of the Euro after the UK explicitly opted out of both mechanisms!

What actually happened was perfectly in line with national sovereignty being respected, there was just not only the UK's sovereignty at stake there (which it used to opt out), but also that of 27 other member countries (most of whom opted in)!

Even considering a UK veto on matters the UK was not a part of was pretty uncouth and hardly fair in any way, so you'd have a hard time to blame the other member governments for their response.


No, your imaginary "pig" simply doesn't exist, and there is no lipstick needed nor even available in the first place.

At the end of the day It’s new treaty because you couldn’t get the treaty changed, irrespective of the outcome it still an example of veto being an illusion. Don’t like the outcome we will just make a new treaty be dammed of the about perception that the EU honours laws and legislation of the TEU. The perception is a big fail look for a way around it.

Are you opposed to the notion of a legislative body reworking a failed law so that it meets the needs of the people?

That's what a failed vote should do, get the legislators back to the drawing board and make whatever modifications are necessary to have it passed.

Reworking failed legislation and making compromises to achieve the result is a bit different from making a whole new treaty

Exactly, the whole Eu politics was anti-UK. When the UK vetoes a proposal no other country must be allowed to go ahead with it.

seahawk wrote:

Exactly, the whole Eu politics was anti-UK. When the UK vetoes a proposal no other country must be allowed to go ahead with it.

And that is exactly how things used to be, before the UK used its sovereign right to make decisions and agreed to changing that.

best regards
Thomas

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

A very simple question: who elected Dominic Cummings, the de facto actual real PM ?

All western governments are run by advisors and civil servants, catch on

The press take a particular liking to cummings as he ran vote leave.

No, it is just hilarious that hypocrisy while always talking about unelected eurocrats......

Olddog wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

A very simple question: who elected Dominic Cummings, the de facto actual real PM ?

All western governments are run by advisors and civil servants, catch on

The press take a particular liking to cummings as he ran vote leave.

No, it is just hilarious that hypocrisy while always talking about unelected eurocrats......

Oh yes. Well the eu has both, unelected eurocrats along with unelected advisors and unelected civil servants.

Well, I am not really surprised when your main source of knowledge seems to be the Express and other tabloids....

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

At the end of the day It’s new treaty because you couldn’t get the treaty changed, irrespective of the outcome it still an example of veto being an illusion. Don’t like the outcome we will just make a new treaty be dammed of the about perception that the EU honours laws and legislation of the TEU. The perception is a big fail look for a way around it.

Are you opposed to the notion of a legislative body reworking a failed law so that it meets the needs of the people?

That's what a failed vote should do, get the legislators back to the drawing board and make whatever modifications are necessary to have it passed.

Reworking failed legislation and making compromises to achieve the result is a bit different from making a whole new treaty

So when legislation X fails by a small margin would you rather start from scratch rather than try to win over part of the unconvinced?

You have a very weird approach to consensus.

UK passports starts to be checked more detailed. UK people start to be directed to non EU immigration,


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 35281.html

olle wrote:

UK passports starts to be checked more detailed. UK people start to be directed to non EU immigration,


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 35281.html

freaking brilliant:

A Brexiteer who was forced to wait in an immigration queue at an EU airport in Amsterdam has complained that "this isn’t the Brexit I voted for”.

... also Express and Daily Mail reader i guess. Because how deep was the hole he lived in for the last couple of years to not know that is one of the most obvious things that do happen after leaving the EU.

I am almost sure we here from him again.... when he complains that the NHS somehow doesn´t get 350 million more per week.

best regards
Thomas

Italian and French economic growth stagnant. The eurozone works wonders.

Arion640 wrote:

Italian and French economic growth stagnant. The eurozone works wonders.

Not the fault of the EU.Try again.