Off Topic UK / EU Future

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
superhorns said:
The EU had no reservation interfering with member states when they dared to vote against the eurocrats, they told them to vote again until they came up with the correct result. They also tried to force Ireland to remove it's successful generous tax incentives to attract foreign companies, something France is trying at the moment. The eurocrats intention is to harmonise tax rates across the EU. The UK could never agree to that.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this is absolute balderdash. Any member state could have stood by the referendum they had and forced the EU's hand. At no point were any of them told to do it again - blame the governments not the EU.
 
Dan Starkey 2 said:
Sorry but this is absolute balderdash. Any member state could have stood by the referendum they had and forced the EU's hand. At no point were any of them told to do it again - blame the governments not the EU.
Click to expand...

At least one of the member states was Ireland dependent on a bailout remember.
 
superhorns said:
At least one of the member states was Ireland dependent on a bailout remember.
Click to expand...
Have you got a link to a Council Directive that said Ireland had to have another referendum or an article in a treaty that says they have to have another referendum?
 
Dan Starkey 2 said:
Have you got a link to a Council Directive that said Ireland had to have another referendum or an article in a treaty that says they have to have another referendum?
Click to expand...

No, you know it just requires a reminder that the forthcoming bailout could be delayed or reduced.....
 
Doesn't look as if the divide and rule operation is going too well at present. So far the answer has been the same as last time it was tried. Why keep going back to something that is unacceptable?
 
Finally found something in the French news about the meeting today between Macron and May. It starts off by reminding the readers of the last meeting the two leaders had in January, when the problems at Calais were discussed. Most of those problems have been reduced to a reasonable level, but it was the UK that actually paid the money to sort it out. On today's talks it says that Macron will want to see the withdrawal agreement put into legal terms and signed before May bows to pressure from the small number of MPs who do not want a deal. After this has been put in place, meaning that the EU external border in N.Ireland has been sorted, then talks about the future relationship can begin. There will be no statement after the meeting as EU matters are addressed by Michel Barnier, not individual countries. "The lack of an agreement on the withdrawal is not a scenario that we, and our partners, wish," said the Elysee. Quite how the UK leaving by accident as suggested by Hunt, seems bizarre as governments should not let that sort of thing happen on such a serious matter.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
Most of those problems have been reduced to a reasonable level, but it was the UK that actually paid the money to sort it out.
Click to expand...
So the UK had to budge - the EU did not.
Macron will want to see the withdrawal agreement put into legal terms and signed. After this has been put in place, meaning that the EU external border in N.Ireland has been sorted, then talks about the future relationship can begin.
Click to expand...
So the EU want to secure something that they want without giving anything in return and only if they get it will they talk. That is not compromise or negotiation.
"The lack of an agreement on the withdrawal is not a scenario that we, and our partners, wish," said the Elysee. Quite how the UK leaving by accident as suggested by Hunt, seems bizarre as governments should not let that sort of thing happen on such a serious matter.
Click to expand...
It seems to be exactly what they wish. They want to secure a legal agreement covering things they want and only then will they discuss anything else. That is not negotiation or compromise. They have made it clear that the four pillars will not change.

This tells me that negotiations are a complete waste of time. I am not sure the EU can claim to have negotiated in good faith.
Instead they have not moved an inch - that is not how negotiations or compromises are reached.
In those circumstances I can see the UK agreeing that no deal is possible.

Would a fellow remainer please tell me what the EU have compromised on - if anything?
Would a fellow remainer tell me what sort of brexit the EU will agree to?

The answer is nothing. In those circumstances I cannot see why TM is wasting everybody's time. I said before the referendum the EU wouldnot negotiate and I am being proven correct. Brexit was always in reality a no deal scenario unless we signed up to everything we wished to "brexit"

As a remainer I think it is a shame but when there is no movement from one party there is no compromise to be had.
End it. Walk away and deal with the issues that come about.
 
The EU were prepared to set up a special deal for N. Ireland. This was agreed to by the UK government, until certain people within said it was unacceptable. 80% has been agreed, some of it has been give and take from both sides, but it is well known what the four freedoms mean to the EU and it is totally unreasonable to expect them to change them to suit one country that wants to pick and choose what it will abide by. If there had been a clear laid down plan from the UK a year ago maybe things would have proceeded more, but as we all know there is still not a plan that even the government can claim is supported by the whole party.

The EU will offer, only my opinion, a Norway type deal. There have already been signs that the UK will be prepared to pay to keep within numerous agencies, so just how it is packaged to be a similar deal but not called that remains to be seen.

Of course May is wasting time, but it was her who promised a bespoke deal, not a no deal. Unless she gets something she will have failed and likely replaced. She will not want to be removed, but it beginning to look that one side or the other will have a try. Why one tries to reach a compromise by constantly returning to something that you know is not acceptable is daft. You have to move to a different approach and offer something new or couched in different terms if you really want an agreement. So far I see plenty of suggestions that a giant fudge will come out of it. Some call it a blind Brexit, and I believe it to be bad for the EU, but will be grasped by the UK to save face.
 
As I see it the UK. has a number of choices. It can choose the France model = stuff Brexit, stay in and join the Euro and Schengen. The present model = stay in as we are, without Schengen or the Euro. The Norway model with everything that involves, and no deviation from it. The Russia model = A member of the Council of Europe, but nothing else. Or the Zaire model = nothing. The last would be what everyone is calling a hard Brexit but, once outside, Britain could negotiate freely (also with the EU. but from outside). However - there are no halfway solutions anywhere on that scale, which are going to be tailor made just to suit Britain's 'cherry picking' wishes.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
The EU were prepared to set up a special deal for N. Ireland. This was agreed to by the UK government, until certain people within said it was unacceptable. 80% has been agreed, some of it has been give and take from both sides, but it is well known what the four freedoms mean to the EU and it is totally unreasonable to expect them to change them to suit one country that wants to pick and choose what it will abide by. If there had been a clear laid down plan from the UK a year ago maybe things would have proceeded more, but as we all know there is still not a plan that even the government can claim is supported by the whole party.
The EU will offer, only my opinion, a Norway type deal. There have already been signs that the UK will be prepared to pay to keep within numerous agencies, so just how it is packaged to be a similar deal but not called that remains to be seen.
Of course May is wasting time, but it was her who promised a bespoke deal, not a no deal. Unless she gets something she will have failed and likely replaced. She will not want to be removed, but it beginning to look that one side or the other will have a try. Why one tries to reach a compromise by constantly returning to something that you know is not acceptable is daft. You have to move to a different approach and offer something new or couched in different terms if you really want an agreement. So far I see plenty of suggestions that a giant fudge will come out of it. Some call it a blind Brexit, and I believe it to be bad for the EU, but will be grasped by the UK to save face.
Click to expand...
Do not misunderstand me - I do not blame the EU. There is no reason why they should compromise on their "pillars". That said what are they prepared to compromise on? If nothing they should say so and stop this meaningless nonsense.
I am afraid the "special deal deal for NI" was effectively to remove NI from the UK. Not surprising that the unionist majority (not to mention many Brits) do not want that. It would cause as much trouble as would a new NI/I border. 80% of what has been agreed?
A clear laid down plan may have been helpful - except the EU refused to even discuss it until they thought they got their way in December - forgetting that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. Equally a clear statement from the EU that gave their red lines and areas that could be negotiated would have been helpful - but nothing has ever come from the EU. Fair enough it is not their problem - but in giving no clue what they would "talk" about has not helped the process. It takes two to tango.
I would be happy with a Norway deal - because I want Remain but in truth the Norway deal is really membership of the EU in all but name and with disadvantages. Why would anyone choose that over membership? I only support it if I cannot have Remain.
I would be happy with a giant fudge rather than no deal. But to get a giant fudge the EU have to tell us what ingredients they will accept.
 
The 80% figure has come from both sides, but Barnier the chief Brexit negotiator for the European Union has declared that " 80% of a deal with the UK has been agreed" and produced charts showing the multitude of areas that are sorted and the remaining ones that still have not. I think that with the huge amount of smaller things that had to be discussed, they tend to be overlooked for the big far more news worthy ones. These are the areas where there have been give and take.

It is pretty certain that the vast majority of politicians know that a long transition period is vital as we have been well informed that the country is nowhere near ready to leave without one. To have one a fallback situation on N. Ireland has to be found. The EU put one forward that was agreed until the DUP found out what it meant. I am not sure what majority they hold when you consider that the population voted to remain. The Chequers meeting produced another, but as we well know that doesn't command any support from the party or the EU, apart from the fact that it could be years away from being workable.

The UK should have known exactly where the EU stood as they were within and produced much of the legal regulation. To turn round and ask for it be stood on it's head makes little sense.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
The 80% figure has come from both sides, but Barnier the chief Brexit negotiator for the European Union has declared that " 80% of a deal with the UK has been agreed" and produced charts showing the multitude of areas that are sorted and the remaining ones that still have not. I think that with the huge amount of smaller things that had to be discussed, they tend to be overlooked for the big far more news worthy ones. These are the areas where there have been give and take.

It is pretty certain that the vast majority of politicians know that a long transition period is vital as we have been well informed that the country is nowhere near ready to leave without one. To have one a fallback situation on N. Ireland has to be found. The EU put one forward that was agreed until the DUP found out what it meant. I am not sure what majority they hold when you consider that the population voted to remain. The Chequers meeting produced another, but as we well know that doesn't command any support from the party or the EU, apart from the fact that it could be years away from being workable.

The UK should have known exactly where the EU stood as they were within and produced much of the legal regulation. To turn round and ask for it be stood on it's head makes little sense.
Click to expand...

The EU's fallback position was designed by The Republic of Ireland to simply further it's united Ireland policy. It was never going to be acceptable to many in the UK to create a potential trading barrier between parts of the UK. The Irish were just seeking to gain an advantage just as Spain is trying to over Gibraltar. The UK has seen the EU conclude trade deals with other countries without demanding free movement etc. It is the EU's intransigence that has so far delayed progress on reaching a deal.
 
superhorns said:
The EU's fallback position was designed by The Republic of Ireland to simply further it's united Ireland policy. It was never going to be acceptable to many in the UK to create a potential trading barrier between parts of the UK. The Irish were just seeking to gain an advantage just as Spain is trying to over Gibraltar. The UK has seen the EU conclude trade deals with other countries without demanding free movement etc. It is the EU's intransigence that has so far delayed progress on reaching a deal.
Click to expand...

The Republic of Ireland have no interest in uniting the county for the simple reason that they cannot afford to support the North. If you read what all their Ministers say, it is maybe one day, but not now. They have also said that they will not call a referendum on the matter which they would have to do.
No one is talking about trade deals at present, the current talks are about withdrawal and future relationship, e.g. customs. No trade deals can take place until after the UK has left. This argument about other trade deals is often used, but is just simply wrong. Nothing to do with the EU being intransigent, but the UK having no defined plan as to what it wants.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
The Republic of Ireland have no interest in uniting the county for the simple reason that they cannot afford to support the North. If you read what all their Ministers say, it is maybe one day, but not now. They have also said that they will not call a referendum on the matter which they would have to do.
No one is talking about trade deals at present, the current talks are about withdrawal and future relationship, e.g. customs. No trade deals can take place until after the UK has left. This argument about other trade deals is often used, but is just simply wrong. Nothing to do with the EU being intransigent, but the UK having no defined plan as to what it wants.
Click to expand...

The UK has made it perfectly clear payment of the ransom is dependent on a decent trade deal. Most understood the so called agreed backstop was only a ploy by the UK government to move the talks on trade. They knew it would never be accepted or actioned on because nothing is agreed until all is agreed, A free trade deal which would have solved the border problems. The border has been cynical used by the Irish and the EU to assist in adding pressure. All they have done is make a no deal more likely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back