[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Deleted]

David Davis promises parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal.

He said the terms of the UK's exit, including any transition deal and agreement on citizen rights, would have to become law via new legislation.

And he said MPs would have the opportunity to reject or amend such legislation, saying "the agreement will only hold if Parliament approves it".

Labour could kill the Tories and cause another GE.

[Deleted]

Yes they have. There is no legal basis upon which the UK owes the EU anything.

And this would matter if there was a higher authority to adjudicate, but there isn't, so it isn't.

The EU have two weeks to answer the question of whether they want a free trade deal or not, after which the UK should announce they will trade on WTO terms and withdraw from the Brexit negotiations.

Absent a deal, UK drivers will literally not be allowed to drive in Europe, Aircraft will not be permitted to land, and cross border trade will grind to a halt.
- the UK will find itself under a virtual blockade.

- - - Updated - - -

In both cases, the armies are still owned by the respective countries each one having almost full control of it. By the looks of this, the intention seems to strip that power and force each nation to do as they are told.

I think you will find that the power to declare war is the most sovereign thing about a state (- that's a dig at NATO in case you need handholding).

- - - Updated - - -

David Davis promises parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal.

He said the terms of the UK's exit, including any transition deal and agreement on citizen rights, would have to become law via new legislation.

And he said MPs would have the opportunity to reject or amend such legislation, saying "the agreement will only hold if Parliament approves it".

Labour could kill the Tories and cause another GE.

It remains a null promise, if they vote down the agreement, there is no deal.
it's a hobsons choice.

[Mittens]

And this would matter if there was a higher authority to adjudicate, but there isn't, so it isn't.


Absent a deal, UK drivers will literally not be allowed to drive in Europe, Aircraft will not be permitted to land, and cross border trade will grind to a halt.
- the UK will find itself under a virtual blockade.

- - - Updated - - -



I think you will find that the power to declare war is the most sovereign thing about a state (- that's a dig at NATO in case you need handholding).

- - - Updated - - -



It remains a null promise, if they vote down the agreement, there is no deal.
it's a Hobson's choice.

If a country chooses not to participate in the military ventures of NATO they are free not to and if they do participate the amount of resources committed are also a decision they can make without suffering any repercusion. The only obligation they have is to uphold the mutual defense pledge.

Unlike European organizations, US-led organizations care about the sovereignty of its members.

[Slant]

The thing is the UK has no viable diplomatic, economic or political strategy to make a success of Brexit. And now has pretty much given itself no time to manage a negotiated brexit. So the ball is completely in the EU's court. And they will offer a take it or leave it deal in January 2019. The EU has decided it can take the hit of a no deal, and the UK really can't. So when they do offer the UK a deal so late they will have the power to make the deal whatever they want, and the UK will simply have to take it or fall off the cliff edge. Its sad that the Brexiteers have made our country so weak and now the EU will be able to impose a humiliating settlement on the UK.

To be fair, I do think that the EU's genuine intentions are to make it a halfway fair deal. The UK may not see it like that (naturally, since they are the "opposing" side at the negotiation table), but if such a deal-or-no-deal situation comes up, it won't be quite the same as if the EU struck such a deal with, say, Belarus.

[Deleted]

To be fair, I do think that the EU's genuine intentions are to make it a halfway fair deal. The UK may not see it like that (naturally, since they are the "opposing" side at the negotiation table), but if such a deal-or-no-deal situation comes up, it won't be quite the same as if the EU struck such a deal with, say, Belarus.

The EU has pretty much bent over backwards to help the UK, the UK power brokers are just living in a different reality. See dribbles.

[Deleted]

They care so much they'd overthrow your government if it doesn't want to be part of their organizations.

Maybe the EU should take some lessons from that instead, hm?

I do not see why you are responding to him. His whole arguement boils down to the EU is bad becauzse he says so. Most Americans probably could not tell you the difference between the European Council and European Parliament without googling.

[Mittens]

They care so much they'd overthrow your government if it doesn't want to be part of their organizations.

Maybe the EU should take some lessons from that instead, hm?

You already did. In fact, you perfected it and against your own member states. If you don't do as you are told the EU just financially cripples you and has you in a perpetual debt crisis, it's kinda genius tbh.

[Acidbaron]

You already did. In fact, you perfected it and against your own member states. If you don't do as you are told the EU just financially cripples you and has you in a perpetual debt crisis, it's kinda genius tbh.

Well people fear what they don't know, so i'm not surprised you are scared about most things in the world including painting of the EU as a bogeyman.

I'm surprised you are even on this forum, with all these scary opinions aren't you better of sitting in something like the donald?

[Deleted]

You already did. In fact, you perfected it and against your own member states. If you don't do as you are told the EU just financially cripples you and has you in a perpetual debt crisis, it's kinda genius tbh.

I wasn't aware that it was the EU that forced Greece to loan more and more money until they bankrupted themselves, you learn every day it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

If a country chooses not to participate in the military ventures of NATO they are free not to and if they do participate the amount of resources committed are also a decision they can make without suffering any repercusion. The only obligation they have is to uphold the mutual defense pledge.

Have you heard of article 5?

[Deleted]

To be fair, I do think that the EU's genuine intentions are to make it a halfway fair deal. The UK may not see it like that (naturally, since they are the "opposing" side at the negotiation table), but if such a deal-or-no-deal situation comes up, it won't be quite the same as if the EU struck such a deal with, say, Belarus.

You could offer the Brexiteers the same deal as a regular member gets and they'll think we've come off the poorer because they don't understand all the concessions we had previously.

[Noradin]

No I said there is no legal basis for the UK to pay the EU anything, furthermore you have failed to provide any either so you must agree. Or can you?

The legal basis are the treaties they signed that formed the EU and its budgets the agreed to.
Leaving the EU will mean they might (depending on the deal) not be party to any future monetary responsibilities, but it does not mean they can just go back on their word regarding the payment of anything they already enjoyed the benefits of.
For example: They employed officials who worked in their name as well as the name of other member states, thus they get to pay their pensions when the time comes as they promised to do. Unless of course they make a good offer for why someone else should assume that responsibility in their stead.

- - - Updated - - -

Nigel Farage worked for the benefit of the EU, therefore the EU should pay his pension.

While I disagree about the "benefit" part, yes, they will pay part of his pension.
(Part, only because I assume there were other things he did in his life that would count towards his pension.)
There is the possibility that someone else might agree to assume this responsibility in exchange for something (like money or paying for other persons' pensions on behalf of that someone else) in which case the EU will be out of that responsibility.

[Nigel Tufnel]

For example: They employed officials who worked in their name as well as the name of other member states, thus they get to pay their pensions when the time comes as they promised to do. Unless of course they make a good offer for why someone else should assume that responsibility in their stead.

@Noradin.... you keep banging on about pensions. You've mentioned this numerous times. Are you, in fact, an EU employee approaching retirement?

[dribbles]

Absent a deal, UK drivers will literally not be allowed to drive in Europe, Aircraft will not be permitted to land, and cross border trade will grind to a halt. - the UK will find itself under a virtual blockade.

The legal basis are the treaties they signed that formed the EU and its budgets the agreed to.
Leaving the EU will mean they might (depending on the deal) not be party to any future monetary responsibilities, but it does not mean they can just go back on their word regarding the payment of anything they already enjoyed the benefits of.
For example: They employed officials who worked in their name as well as the name of other member states, thus they get to pay their pensions when the time comes as they promised to do. Unless of course they make a good offer for why someone else should assume that responsibility in their stead.

There is no legal obligation and frankly no moral requirement either for continuing payments to the EU. If following exit UK drivers are not allowed on the continents roads and planes will no longer fly any talk of morals are out of the window. Oh btw have the Spanish hoteliers who expect 20 million British tourists to fully book out their hotels in 2019 been told they will now be empty due to the grounded aircraft?

Good job the Spanish economy is in such super strength and able to cope with that loss of revenue....oh wait

The only way the EU will get any more money out of UK is if they accept our very generous offer of £18bn for a free trade deal, that is the offer on the table - take it or leave it. Tick Tock less than two weeks for the EU to decide if they will crash off the cliff without a deal, or accept it.

[Mittens]

I wasn't aware that it was the EU that forced Greece to loan more and more money until they bankrupted themselves, you learn every day it seems.

Replace Greece with any developing nation and the EU with the IMF and I hope you can see how bad that argument is. Yes, Greece took loans it could not pay, that, however, does not justify the state of perpetual debt crisis and the following reforms the EU forced on it, like even the IMF eventually forgave a good chunk of its debtors.

Have you heard of article 5?

The only obligation they have is to uphold the mutual defense pledge.

Mmmkay. As a side note, I think its funny that you complain about article 5 when the one time it was invoked everyone agreed to it.

As I said, this is another classic example of a European international organization eroding the sovereignty of its member states.

[Kiri]

Replace Greece with any developing nation and the EU with the IMF and I hope you can see how bad that argument is. Yes, Greece took loans it could not pay, that, however, does not justify the state of perpetual debt crisis and the following reforms the EU forced on it, like even the IMF eventually forgave a good chunk of its debtors.






Mmmkay. As a side note, I think its funny that you complain about article 5 when the one time it was invoked everyone agreed to it.

As I said, this is another classic example of a European international organization eroding the sovereignty of its member states.

He did not complain about article 5, though. You are here deriding the EU common defence pact as eroding sovereignty and claimed that NATO does not do such a thing. Article 5, however, is about common defence.

Regarding Greece, your argument was that the EU would use it's power to 'financially cripple' states who 'do not do as told'. It financially crippled itself, the EU spent a lot of money bailing them out but eventually urged them to make reforms that would help it back on its feet. There are some valid criticisms to the reforms proposed, yes, but calling 'giving out millions in bailouts, but with a condition' a malicious act to 'cripple a nation financially into compliance' is just wrong.

[Mittens]

He did not complain about article 5, though. You are here deriding the EU common defence pact as eroding sovereignty and claimed that NATO does not do such a thing. Article 5, however, is about common defence.

Regarding Greece, your argument was that the EU would use it's power to 'financially cripple' states who 'do not do as told'. It financially crippled itself, the EU spent a lot of money bailing them out but eventually urged them to make reforms that would help it back on its feet. There are some valid criticisms to the reforms proposed, yes, but calling 'giving out millions in bailouts, but with a condition' a malicious act to 'cripple a nation financially into compliance' is just wrong.

Because the EU common defence pact does more than mutual defense. It's an attempt to strip the control a nation has over its foreign policy and military. NATO doesn't do that under NATO the nation owns its military and is free to devote whatever amount of resources it wants (one of the reasons Trump's 2% complaint is nonsense, since its not legally binding).

Regarding Greece: Bailing them out with a condition is an understatement on how horrible the whole thing was and still is.

They forced austerity measures in times of depression without letting them default (which would have been better than the "help" provided) , undermine budgets that fail to meet their arbitrary deficit limit set by the EU and still refuse to forgive Greece's debt even after it became obvious that they are in no condition to pay. Greece is crippled as a result of these actions and has to do as the EU says or else.....

Call it what you want, to me its just another form of imperialism.

[Kiri]

Because the EU common defence pact does more than mutual defense. It's an attempt to strip the control a nation has over its foreign policy and military. NATO doesn't do that under NATO the nation owns its military and is free to devote whatever amount of resources it wants (one of the reasons Trump's 2% complaint is nonsense, since its not legally binding).

Regarding Greece: Bailing them out with a condition is an understatement on how horrible the whole thing was and still is.

They forced austerity measures in times of depression without letting them default (which would have been better than the "help" provided) , undermine budgets that fail to meet their arbitrary deficit limit set by the EU and still refuse to forgive Greece's debt even after it became obvious that they are in no condition to pay. Greece is crippled as a result of these actions and has to do as the EU says or else.....

Call it what you want, to me its just another form of imperialism.

It is not imperialism when they chose to adopt the Euro without fully being ready to do so. No one forced them to. Just like no one forces the defence pact on any nations. Five member states did not sign and that is fine. The EU is not forcing anyone there. If you don't join, you don't have any obligations and keep more sovereignty. If you do, you give up some and gain obligations. I know you think that the EU is some sort of draconian superstate, but from beginning to end it simply an organization driven by its members.

[Noradin]

@Noradin.... you keep banging on about pensions. You've mentioned this numerous times. Are you, in fact, an EU employee approaching retirement?

No, I'm just using this example because it is one of the easiest to understand.
Pensions are essentially delayed payment for services already rendered in the past.
If a state does not keep its word to the people it assumed responsibility for, then it is worth nothing, because it is supposed to be for the people, not for political parties, nor for corporations, but for the people--and not the other way around.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not imperialism when they chose to adopt the Euro without fully being ready to do so. No one forced them to. Just like no one forces the defence pact on any nations. Five member states did not sign and that is fine. The EU is not forcing anyone there. If you don't join, you don't have any obligations and keep more sovereignty. If you do, you give up some and gain obligations. I know you think that the EU is some sort of draconian superstate, but from beginning to end it simply an organization driven by its members.

They do not give up any sovereignty by signing either, they are just temporarily delegating parts of their responsibilities.

[Mittens]

It is not imperialism when they chose to adopt the Euro without fully being ready to do so. No one forced them to. Just like no one forces the defence pact on any nations. Five member states did not sign and that is fine. The EU is not forcing anyone there. If you don't join, you don't have any obligations and keep more sovereignty. If you do, you give up some and gain obligations. I know you think that the EU is some sort of draconian superstate, but from beginning to end it simply an organization driven by its members.

If taking advantage of the weak state of a nation and beating them into submission with austerity policies is not imperialism, then I'm really curious to see how you define imperialism.

[Dhrizzle]

The British will not create a hard border on the island of Ireland, nor will the Irish due to political sensitivities or lack of manpower so your post is correct in that it boils down to what the EU are prepared to do.

I take it from this you don't want the UK to take control of its borders and are quite happy to let the free movement of goods and people continue, presumably complying with EU laws and regulations?