[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Teleros]

You realise that this is an issue with Ireland, not with the EU though?

Right, but who's behind it exactly?

[Gorsameth]

It's only an Act of Parliament. It can be amended or repealed as necessary.


Nice. Been pretty sceptical of this deal ever since Saint Nigel came out against it, so hopefully this gets some traction. Fingers crossed for a clean Brexit on the 31st.

If Boris's deal gets rejected leaving on the 31st is no longer in the UK's hands, its the EU that will decide.

[Teleros]

If Boris's deal gets rejected leaving on the 31st is no longer in the UK's hands, its the EU that will decide.

I know, but I'm hoping that the EU will not grant an extension. With any luck Macron or someone will veto it.

[dribbles]

I know, but I'm hoping that the EU will not grant an extension. With any luck Macron or someone will veto it.

I don't think they can afford to veto. The EU economy is in such a desperate mess and The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year

https://twitter.com/BrugesGroup/stat...45460379934722

[FluFF]

I don't think they can afford to veto. The EU economy is in such a desperate mess and The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year

https://twitter.com/BrugesGroup/stat...45460379934722

https://twitter.com/mxg87/status/1186368373309001735

But I guess you just forget about any UK downsides to leaving as long as you find garbage on the internet supporting YOUR way of thinking.

Also : ''LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s chaotic exit from the European Union has cost the economy about 600 million pounds per week since the 2016 referendum, Goldman Sachs said on Monday in a report that underscores how Brexit uncertainty has dented investment.''

But lets just ignore that and find more posts on the internet about how the EU needs the UK

[Huehuecoyotl]

Ahhh you highlight the EU's worst nightmare about our good deal, well done! Imagine the UK post EU and we are booming.

That's exactly what will happen and the 27 other EU nations will be very much thinking we want some of that, they won't want to miss out...

Once again dribbles reacts to a post explaining how gravity works by saying "Yes! You see! That's why things fall up!"

You're like the invincible balloon. There isn't a point you can't miss.

[Dhrizzle]

I don't think they can afford to veto. The EU economy is in such a desperate mess and The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year

https://twitter.com/BrugesGroup/stat...45460379934722

If you think it's bad for the EU as the UK accounts for somewhere between 8 and 18% of their exports you must find it pant-shittingly catastrophic for the UK which exports over 40% to the EU.

[Pann]

Depends on the media coverage of it, of course. All you have to do is slip in an amendment six months or so early, wait for the hubbub to die down, then when the proposed treaty changes come along, dutifully agree to it like a good like bought-and-paid-for bootlicker.

You think that the likes of Farage or the ERG would just let something like that go without a fight or even a comment?

But assuming the government of the time did somehow manage to revoke legislation that blocks closer EU integration without public consent - what exactly do you think would happen to them at the next election?

It simply doesn't make sense. I mean what's in it for them?

[Demolitia]

Depends on the media coverage of it, of course. All you have to do is slip in an amendment six months or so early, wait for the hubbub to die down, then when the proposed treaty changes come along, dutifully agree to it like a good like bought-and-paid-for bootlicker.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_...ion_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_F...ion_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_D...ion_referendum

So the EU just did it in through the "Treaty of Lisbon" instead.

The EU "constitution" was another clusterfuck which, like Brexit, should never have been put up for a public vote.
I've had lengthy discussions with constitutional lawyers and MEPs back in the days who admitted the text was way to complicated and exhaustive for a constitution.
I'm glad they went down the treaty route in the end.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think they can afford to veto. The EU economy is in such a desperate mess and The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year

https://twitter.com/BrugesGroup/stat...45460379934722

Incredible ... Germany's GDP alone is 4000 billions. The 27 will come begging on both knees.


edit: and here we go : https://publications.parliament.uk/p...0007/20007.pdf
Let's see how you take back control ...

- - - Updated - - -

Right, but who's behind it exactly?

The people of the RoI ?
France also rejected it in a referendum. The answer was to address the concerns that seemed genuine, and then pass it as a treaty because clearly people didn't understand what it was about. Nobody felt the need to pass an EU 2011 act afterwards, besides the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

dribbles reacts

This should be a youtube channel

[Dizzeeyooo]

Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty?

In the meeting of the European Council (the meeting of the heads of government of all twenty-seven European Union member states) in Brussels on 11–12 December 2008, Taoiseach Brian Cowen presented the concerns of the Irish people relating to taxation policy, family, social and ethical issues, and Ireland's policy of neutrality. Effectively Ireland's position was renegotiated, and the revised package was approved by the electorate in 2009.

Did you want to try again?

[Jessicka]

General Tusk was last spotted stuck in the mud in the Peak District but headed your way leading his EU army. Aren't you lucky he has your back!

Yeah, the EU certainly stepped up in rebuilding after the IRA bomb in '96 with their £21 million after Westminster barely coughed up £450k.

All this stuff about an EU army is irrelevant though, we could just veto it, as France probably would as well, I can't see them wanting to hand over their nuclear deterrent.

[caervek]

You have to love the absurdity, Boris Johnson trying all he can to avoid a customs union amendment, when his lies about leaving the EU not requiring us to leave the customs union were integral to the Leave victory xD

[Teleros]

I don't think they can afford to veto. The EU economy is in such a desperate mess and The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year

I dunno, a few countries have pretty based leaders who don't worship the almighty dollar. Plus it'd be pretty trivial for BoJo to, say, bribe Orban to veto it and then cut tariffs to particular goods that just so happen to be made in Hungary .

Also : ''LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s chaotic exit from the European Union has cost the economy about 600 million pounds per week since the 2016 referendum, Goldman Sachs said on Monday in a report that underscores how Brexit uncertainty has dented investment.''

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. There's a reason I don't care much for pro- or anti- Brexit arguments about economic statistics - because they're all bunkum. Oftentimes, the revisions to GDP figures etc are larger than the difference between the economy being in recession and not being in recession. In this case, we've got a suspect source using a computer model to predict all this. Garbage in, garbage out.

Having said all that... has Brexit hurt the UK economy a bit? Yeah, probably. Big deal. There are more important things than muh GDP.

You think that the likes of Farage or the ERG would just let something like that go without a fight or even a comment?

Oh they'd raise hell, but I doubt it'd be enough.

But assuming the government of the time did somehow manage to revoke legislation that blocks closer EU integration without public consent - what exactly do you think would happen to them at the next election?

It simply doesn't make sense. I mean what's in it for them?

Cosy sinecures as EU apparatchiks, peers, or - if they're in safe seats - a return to Parliament?

The EU "constitution" was another clusterfuck which, like Brexit, should never have been put up for a public vote.
I've had lengthy discussions with constitutional lawyers and MEPs back in the days who admitted the text was way to complicated and exhaustive for a constitution.
I'm glad they went down the treaty route in the end.

Well you got one bit right - it's certainly hella too long for a constitution.

The people of the RoI ?

The EU, obviously.

France also rejected it in a referendum. The answer was to address the concerns that seemed genuine, and then pass it as a treaty because clearly people didn't understand what it was about.

Ve know vat eez gut vor you, you zilly plebe, jah, stop zinking for yourzelves...

[caervek]

The EU27 countries made a profit of £95 BILLION selling goods to the UK last year

You phrase this like it's something that's going to stop. Even if we leave and their goods get taxed they will still be cheaper than importing from the US/Canada, and cheaper than making the goods in the UK. That "£95 BILLION" may take a little hit but it isn't going anywhere, it's not in any danger (like our EU/global exports are).

[Demolitia]

Well you got one bit right - it's certainly hella too long for a constitution.

The EU, obviously.

Ve know vat eez gut vor you, you zilly plebe, jah, stop zinking for yourzelves...

Have you even vaguely looked at the original text for the constitution? It's 484 pages. Can you realistically expect the average human to even look past the first 10 pages of "having regards to"
The first search on google the day after the referendum was "What is the EU" Why would this be hella too long.
The EU obviously? If anything the EU has been behind Ireland during the all process.
You can joke all you want about ze french, but ze brits have even less of an excuse. At least we read ze text. You relied on ze Sun.
You have wormz in your brain.

[Teleros]

Have you even vaguely looked at the original text for the constitution? It's 484 pages.

Don't need to. If a constitution is that long, it's not fit for purpose.

Can you realistically expect the average human to even look past the first 10 pages of "having regards to"

Then burn them and start over. If the Founding Fathers can put together a constitution for a republic with (including all the amendments) 4,400 words, why the dickens does the EU need 70,000 words - and such dreadful language? Even the UN managed to get in at under 9,000 words.

Well, we know the reason obviously - to dissuade ordinary people from reading or understanding it. "Oh it's all so complicated, what's on the telly?" is a great result if you're an EU apparatchik trying to get this through by hook or by crook.

Now sure, the EU Constitution has a lot more in it... but that's kind of the problem, no? Constitutions are generally meant to be the bare bones of the state. Worst case, you just say something like "piracy shall be defined and dealt with as per the Piracy Act 1698" or whatever and move on. I mean, you would if you were going about this honestly, of course.

The EU obviously? If anything the EU has been behind Ireland during the all process.

So... we agree? My point was that the Irish being pushed to voting until they "get it right" was due to the EU.

You can joke all you want about ze french, but ze brits have even less of an excuse. At least we read ze text. You relied on ze Sun.

Germans not French .

[Slant]

The EU "constitution" was another clusterfuck which, like Brexit, should never have been put up for a public vote.
I've had lengthy discussions with constitutional lawyers and MEPs back in the days who admitted the text was way to complicated and exhaustive for a constitution.
I'm glad they went down the treaty route in the end.

My professor was part of the team that drafted the "constitution". He said no such thing, obviously. He gave us the reason for it not being a constitution is largely a political one, that the people of the EU weren't ready to accept anything like a European state at this time. It wasn't too complicated or exhaustive, it was merely too ambitious. Way too ambitious.

- - - Updated - - -

All this stuff about an EU army is irrelevant though, we could just veto it, as France probably would as well, I can't see them wanting to hand over their nuclear deterrent.

France is the major player pushing for a EU defense force and more military cooperation than NATO offers. You've got your perspective backwards. Read the news outside England, otherwise you'll continue to be on the wrong track.

[Dizzeeyooo]

So... we agree? My point was that the Irish being pushed to voting until they "get it right" was due to the EU.

Because nothing says "voting until you get it right" like being asked what your issues are after a no vote, having those specific issues targeted and addressed by re-negotiation that is tailored to you, and then magically voting yes a second time, since your reasons for voting before no longer apply.

[Kallisto]

So... we agree? My point was that the Irish being pushed to voting until they "get it right" was due to the EU.

Or it was

Irish: We voted no.
EU: Ok tell us why.
Irish: We don't like XYZ
EU: OK we're taking out XYZ how does that sound.
Irish: We'll have to vote on it
EU: OK take your time.

Vote happens with new treaty

Irish: We voted yes.

[Demolitia]

My professor was part of the team that drafted the "constitution". He said no such thing, obviously. He gave us the reason for it not being a constitution is largely a political one, that the people of the EU weren't ready to accept anything like a European state at this time. It wasn't too complicated or exhaustive, it was merely too ambitious.

We'll just disagree again then. The french constitution is 40 pages of guiding principles and core values for the nation. The German one is 50 pages long. The US constitution is about the same.
The EU is 500 pages long, and includes provisions on social protection, tourism, border checks and more fun stuff.
I understand the text was needed, but it should not have been called a constitution, and never have been put up for a public vote.