The Brexit aftermath thread

[caervek]

The thing I find so bizarre, is that the EU is fine with both RoI/UK being outside schengen, but not with only one of them being out, despite there being no real functional difference.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU was cool with that, the EU isn't even kicking it's heels.

Well it kind of is.

The EU knew when making deals with RoI/UK that there were pre-existing treaties in place that took precedence, hence the EU making special arrangements to avoid conflicts such as opt outs for UK/RoI on EU treaties, etc.

But now the EU isn't getting what it want's because of previous agreements it's trying to move the goalposts.

[Deleted]

See, the difference is, we solved our problems. We're everybody's darling now. So fuck your pinch of salt. :P

Not really a nice way to talk about the jews.

[Mayhem]

The thing I find so bizarre, is that the EU is fine with both RoI/UK being outside schengen, but not with only one of them being out, despite there being no real functional difference.

Out of what?

Well it kind of is.

The EU knew when making deals with RoI/UK that there were pre-existing treaties in place that took precedence, hence the EU making special arrangements to avoid conflicts such as opt outs for UK/RoI on EU treaties, etc.

But now the EU isn't getting what it want's because of previous agreements it's trying to move the goalposts.

You don't see a difference between members and non-members? If members want something that is not too much of a problem for everyone else, you can agree to it. However if a non-member want's something that is practically impossible to do without having to also renegotiate with other non-members it gets a bit difficult.

[Kiri]

The thing I find so bizarre, is that the EU is fine with both RoI/UK being outside schengen, but not with only one of them being out, despite there being no real functional difference.

- - - Updated - - -


Well it kind of is.

The EU knew when making deals with RoI/UK that there were pre-existing treaties in place that took precedence, hence the EU making special arrangements to avoid conflicts such as opt outs for UK/RoI on EU treaties, etc.

But now the EU isn't getting what it want's because of previous agreements it's trying to move the goalposts.

The goalposts have not been moved, they are still there. Remember that it is the UK that is wanting something and actively moving here. The UK knew when triggering the article that there were problems that needed to be solved, including the ones we are talking about right now. Those are neither new, unforeseen or surprising. Just because the UK did not take them seriously enough/bothered to resolve things before triggering Brexit does not mean the EU moved goalposts. The EU position was well known long before they did that.

[Deleted]

The thing I find so bizarre, is that the EU is fine with both RoI/UK being outside schengen, but not with only one of them being out, despite there being no real functional difference.

It's because EU citizens enjoy certain right in regards to Ireland, right's that Ireland cannot abrogate, even if this puts the UK in an awkward position.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody really cares about which treaty was there first, mate. That's all fun and jokes on this forum, but really EU legislation does supercede your regional agreement as far as EU members are concerned.

yes, but, Ireland and the UK enjoy exemptions in their EU accession treaties - They can maintain the CTA if they like, the problem is that Ireland must admit all EU citizens with a valid ID and not subject to travel restrictions - Even if the UK would rather they not be admitted.
Current CTA policy is that Ireland and the UK sufficiently co-ordinate their policy so as to maintain a common external border, however, Irelands ability to act is constrained in a way that the UK's soon won't be, this is liable to create problems.

[Noradin]

Just as additional information: http://www.ukpolitical.info/european...on-turnout.htm

The EU really needs to better invest in getting the people involved.

Cannot interfere with the sovereignty of its member states...

[Noradin]

Buying more ad time before the EU elections (and not just on rarely seen national television) and making statements reaffirming the significance of the EU Parliament, pushing reports that make clear how individual states treat the Parliament as a dumping ground for failed politicians or for relatives who need a comfy job, none of those impinges on anyone's sovereignty. We as citizens have a right to transparency and transparency is sadly not just making the information available (it is) but making sure it is heard as well.

You would think so, but I seem to remember some politicians didn't--and those adds cost money, too, something which said politicians would have had to approve of.

[Noradin]

I mean, yes, of course they do not want to empower a democratic organization that can censure them when they fuck up and that would actually be able to speak up when they try to scapegoat it. I just meant that IN PRINCIPLE it does not impinge on sovereignty of states.

Yes, in principle nobody should be able to use sovereignty of the member states as excuse to block this.
In practise, it was portrayed as getting involved in the election and appointment of MEPs sent by the members which is the responsibility of the member states and thus part of their "sovereign rights", or so the narrative went... the British were especially concerned, if I remember correctly. They complained that people criticised their voting system undeservedly, anyway, and didn't want further "meddling".

[Slant]

Not really a nice way to talk about the jews.

You're insinuating that Jews are a problem? Because I wasn't. That's quite telling, you should probably stop posting.

[Deleted]

You're insinuating that Jews are a problem? Because I wasn't. That's quite telling, you should probably stop posting.

Seems like the joke went totally over your head.

You are german, right? If not, then I can see how it kinda fell through

[Deleted]

Or rather, your joke was tasteless and you should have been infracted for it. Let's correct that.

It was a tasteless joke, but not exactly infraction worthy.

[Pann]

Suddenly, I have an Alanis Morissette song in my head!

[Pann]

And here was me thinking the whole purpose of this thread was to bash the Brits.

You got that impression as well?

[Deleted]

Suddenly, I have an Alanis Morissette song in my head!

This song?

[Pann]

This song?

I'm curious as to what you thought was the point of linking that article? Were you trying to be clever? Do you think that people in the UK have not already seen it or something?

[Pann]

A pay wall? Don’t worry I’m sure we’ll settle our bill.

The basic gist is that so far Brexit has caused a little short of £350million per week worth of damage to the UK economy.

[Pann]

I think maybe our euro cousins like few things better than a good gloat.

I have no issue with gloating, after all much of Brexit is pretty silly and even sillier with the likes of Davis in control, but it is the sheer hypocrisy to moan about nation bashing after one rather tasteless post towards Germany, when this whole thread has such a strong anti UK tone running throughout, that annoys me.

[Slant]

And here was me thinking the whole purpose of this thread was to bash the Brits.

Nah, not the Brits. The degenerates that support Brexit. If you feel like you're attacked, you probably don't read very well. Like the dude that thinks Britain's problem with NI isn't a clusterfuck of problems. He likes to pretend anyone still gives a fuck about something happening 80 years ago and that'll gloss over the historic idiocy that Brexiteers got the UK into.

Anyway, what comes around, gets around. Give me a decent argument, I'll have a pleasant conversation with you. Simply insulting someone without any particular creativity or remote humour attached to it is really just being a village idiot. It's amusing really, some people scream nazi at a German, wait for some reaction, any really... even a stoneface would be enough, and they crack up thinking they've just invented the concept of humour all by themselves. I actually feel embarrassed for them by now. It's like the world has moved on and they're still 50 years behind...

[Deleted]

Or rather, your joke was tasteless and you should have been infracted for it. Let's correct that.

Sorry, I should'nt make jokes here in your safe space. I apologize to all my sensitive friends on this forum.

[Floopa]

UK already said Canada deal isn't good enough, so looks like NO DEAL is on the menu