[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Slant]

Having a president is in a way not democratic, in a real democracy the ministers should be made up of representatives of all parties that managed to get seats in parliament not just from a group that managed to form a majority. This isn't the case in france and thus certain groups of people have been overrepresented in french politics for decades now. Demonstrations are a necessary evil to combat democracies that lose touch with their mandate.

That isn't the case in any democracy. At some point you need to be able to make decisions. That is what governing ultimately is about. Democracy is just a tool, a flawed tool, but the best we came up with so far. Parties that do not take part in the Government have to take the equally important role of opposition. If they had minister seats, they wouldn't get anything done.

- - - Updated - - -

I also think he used to. A few years ago.

He did change, didn't he? I wonder what happened in his life. I used to think of him as a very sensible Dutch person. Now he's turned into a weird caricature of himself. If I was paranoid, I'd say someone took over his account...

[Flarelaine]

He did change, didn't he? I wonder what happened in his life. I used to think of him as a very sensible Dutch person. Now he's turned into a weird caricature of himself. If I was paranoid, I'd say someone took over his account...

Eh, much of what we used to think was turned on its head in '16.

[Demolitia]

I don't think it is applicable in a real situation but the situation as it is leaves much to be desired too.

The protesters are a minority but in a perfect democracy the majority governs in a way that protects all citizen and doesn't just work for the ones that voted for them. The reality of the situation is that the minority and majority have a lot of things in common and therefore it rarely happens that a governments can outright ignore the needs of the minority. Yet for decades now their government has cut social programs and demanded workers to work longer (and businesses demand more productivity) without extra rewards. Over time the standard of living has decreased for both groups but for the poor get affected by these changes much earlier then the middle class.

For the middle class majority this should be a warning signal, if things continue the way they're going now in time they'll end up in the same position the poor are at now. In a way the middle class majority has grown complacent due to the relative ease and luxury of their lives. This is one reason why demonstrations are a positive thing; they're a tool to shake up the majority and open their eyes. If they ignore it eventually the amount of dissatisfied poor reaches a critical mass and shit will hit the fan and a lot of people will die regardless of the eventual outcome.

Only very few protesters are right wing extremists; yet they enjoy demonstrations like these because they provide them with the ultimate camouflage for them to lash out against the system. They like to target the police and because solidarity is strong among these thugs they'll rarely leave one of their own behind to get beaten up by cops. In return the cops get frustrated and pumped and will eventually lash out against the more peaceful protesters. This creates a very unhealthy cycle of violence.

There are of course a lot of legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. Protests and strikes are common in France but they usually stick to a narrow topic, a certain demand or target a specific planned law.
The problem with this one is that it started as a protest against a proposed diesel price increase, and then other things grafted themselves to the movement. It has been going on for what? 3 months now and I don't know what people exactly expect anymore. For Macron to resign? for overnight radical changes in all policy areas (from labour law to the environment)? For a sudden salary increase for the lower and middle class?
Waking up the ruling class is a good thing, but it has been going on for so long that it might backfire.

edit: back on topic. Is there still a vote planned on the 27th on the deal with slightly improved political declaration?

[Demolitia]

On topic, I think so? But this is all there will be; a slightly different political declaration.
I will repeat that I find it very interesting how much the EU is now talking with Corbyn though. By all accounts the political weight of the Commission is backing Corbyn against May.

I wonder what they hope to achieve. They are maybe trying to get him on board since Theresa has not been very good at marketing her own deal and the backstop she asked for? Interesting indeed.

[Crispin]

That isn't the case in any democracy. At some point you need to be able to make decisions. That is what governing ultimately is about. Democracy is just a tool, a flawed tool, but the best we came up with so far. Parties that do not take part in the Government have to take the equally important role of opposition. If they had minister seats, they wouldn't get anything done.

- - - Updated - - -



He did change, didn't he? I wonder what happened in his life. I used to think of him as a very sensible Dutch person. Now he's turned into a weird caricature of himself. If I was paranoid, I'd say someone took over his account...

I think alot of "them" were genuinly dissapointed, when they realised that the EU was not about to crash and dissolve itself.

OT: This is going to be a hard brexit. May is an absolute disaster imho, she she's acting like workers from a certain country I wont name, who blindly follows orders even if she knows it means a complete shitshow.

[AeneasBK]

Enjoy the ban.

*gigglesnort*

[Mehrunes]

And you can't really blame anyone who is in favour of Brexit.
The way the EU has been treating the UK lately is disgusting. This is like a guy beating up his girlfriend for leaving him.

Ah, yes, EU being willing to give UK pretty much a soft Brexit that would be the best case for UK is totally like a guy beating up his girlfriend for leaving him. Yeah, no. It's not EU's fault May couldn't pass the best deal she could possibly get in the UK parliament. Because UK parliament is kinda out of EU's sphere of influence. It's also not EU's fault UK did pretty much nothing to legislatively prepare for the case of hard Brexit or that they wasted the first year of negotiations first not knowing what they even want and then asking for the moon, when their negotiation position was that of the (much) weaker party.

And the worst part of it: Does the EU re-evaluate their behaviour and their internal systems to meet the eurosceptics? No, not a single fucking improvement has been offered by the EU. They simply do not give a damn because they know that the people won't rise up.. And they know that if they rise up, as in France, that the police will beat them down.

Or perhaps because eurosceptics keep peddling the same myths they've been peddling since before EU was even created. There can be no improvement made by kow-towing to eurosceptics because they have no clue what they are talking about.

Also, kinda hypocritical of you to use France suppressing their riots when you'd excuse the same thing for your glorious motherland of China.

What do you think needs improvement, be as specific as you can.

It doesn't have the same political pluralism as China, for one

That's fucking cute.
Euroscepticism is broader than just some far right nationalist retards.

True, there are indeed other types of retards than far right nationalist ones.

Euroscepticism comes from people who hate the undemocratic regime the EU has become.
And those ideas have been a long running thing among left-winged parties before you guys started to support the far right.

You forgot to mention the "far" (or "fringe" even) when describing the type of left parties that peddle this nonsense, for some reason. Because EU institutions are modeled after national systems typically in use in member states. Are EU nations also not democratic according to you now? I mean, they probably don't meet the rigorous criteria of political pluralism of your beloved China, but calling them undemocratic would be a stretch.

"Bitch had it coming"
I've worked with victims of spousal abuse, so I've heard your kind of talk before. There is nothing new and its just as abusive.
I sure hope you are single.

And other than your vivid imagination, which part of @Slant's post that you quoted here contains the phrase "Bitch had it coming"?

No, it's not happening and you know it.
And instead of accepting this reality you go full Tucker and start raging and insulting people for disagreeing.
The EU is no just unwilling to change, it simply doesn't care because like every dictator they know they have the police and military on their side.

Wait just a minute... Chinese government has the police and military on their side too... Are you calling China a dictatorship now? Weird, you just recently denied that being the case.

Victim abuse? The UK likes to spin this as a victim story, but it is THEM that started this, them that proposed the things they now whinge about. The only analogy coming to my mind is him standing somewhere on the pavement and her running against him only to later complain he didn't move out of the way. And you coming by saying "yeah, clearly that's abusing her... he should've gone out of the way when she ran at him."

Let's be honest. UK acted in the exact same manner long before Brexit. EU law is unpopular in UK? Ermahgerd, what a victim UK is. Never mind that their MEPs, chosen by British people, most likely voted for that law because they had the highest in-favor voting rate out of all MEPs (at ~95%). And never mind that UK often went way beyond the minimum required by EU when implementing EU law and it's the additions from UK itself that the UK citizens were complaining about. UK's history with EU is a few decades of UK using EU as a convenient scapegoat and the people buying it line, hook and sinker.

Saying that people who supported Brexit will go to hell is totally fine, nothing wrong with that /s

Not only are you once again seeing things that don't actually exist in the post you replied to, but this has nothing to do with your claim that EU is brutally oppressing the UK with Brexit.

It's not a collective decision, that would requite the EU to be a democratic institution in the first place. Which it is not.

So what you're saying is is that you don't even know how EU works? Shocking, I tell you.

[Shalcker]

Let's be honest. UK acted in the exact same manner long before Brexit. EU law is unpopular in UK? Ermahgerd, what a victim UK is. Never mind that their MEPs, chosen by British people, most likely voted for that law because they had the highest in-favor voting rate out of all MEPs (at ~95%). And never mind that UK often went way beyond the minimum required by EU when implementing EU law and it's the additions from UK itself that the UK citizens were complaining about. UK's history with EU is a few decades of UK using EU as a convenient scapegoat and the people buying it line, hook and sinker.

A ploy that perhaps worked a bit too well.

Hoist with their own petard as the saying goes.

Perhaps EU should stop being such a convenient scapegoat? Drop some of their power back to national level so that blame couldn't be shifted so easily?

[Mehrunes]

Nobody big, just the president of the EC.

And him saying that proves EU is oppressing UK how? It's a statement of the natural outcome of UK's own decision (and their utter incompetence when it came to the deal).

"directly elected parliament"
No, really no.
You're either blind to the problems people have with the EU or you are willingly ignoring it because you don't care.
If you don't have support of the people, of the majority, then you're undemocratic. It's simple as that.
Trying to circumvent that by stacking indirect elections upon indirect elections isn't going to change it.

Why are you crying about indirect elections here when the elections to the parliament are direct? You being clueless about the topic or putting directly elected parliament in quotation marks doesn't magically alter the treaties establishing how EU functions. And since you're clueless about what you're talking about, are you really sure you want to talk about how other people are blind to the "problem" here or how they are willingly ignoring it?

No, it's not a democratic institution. It's highly undemocratic and your arrogant behaviour isn't going to change that.
The United Kingdom is first, but other countries will follow.
And while you continue to be smug about it your precious EU is going to crumble around you.

You know what's going to change it even less? Your utter ignorance on how the EU works or what democracy is. So both the topics that you're trying to discuss here. Also, the sky is falling narrative in regards to EU pretty much predates the EU. Somehow all the people as enlightened as you that had been screaming doom about EU have been wrong for almost three decades so far. But you'll be the first one to shout the same nonsense and be right! All thanks to the power of belief in the glory of China, for sure.

Because it seems to look at what people want and then does the exact opposite.

Oh, it seems to do something? Welp, that's indeed a very strong argument here. But for some inexplicable reason I'm still inclined to ask you for actual evidence. Come on, the treaties are freely available to the public. Show in them the undemocratic mechanics of EU (you know, like I showed to you how Chinese constitution outright calls China a dictatorship despite your claims it's not one).

Ooh, everyone with a different opinion is a russian bot. I almost forget that talking point.
You guys are pathetic. And none of this will prevent people to vote in favour of the EU.

You used multiple sources from RT journalists in the thread about Uyghurs in China... Come on, at least try to be convincing.

[Acidbaron]

EU sceptics are often divided in two categories, one for more dismantling of the EU and again more power to the member states (while they already have a lot) these parties are often extreme right ones and they have questionable ties to the Kremlin as was seen in the war in Syria were they not just sided with Assad and Putin they also did photo-op's to legitimize Assads claims.

For example Le Penn's Front nationale is one of those parties. It goes far deeper as to why such extreme movements support Assad and actually an interesting read if you aren't easily offended if you sit on the right spectrum.

These parties also often claim that they are for the workers and opposed to the EU elites, anti-globalization ( something we can't undo without major economic losses so something you should always be careful about when someone peddles you that shit sandwhich) but if you look deep into their party programs they have no structural solutions, all their solutions are based on taking away money from immigrants and brown people and give that to "real nationalityhere", so again simply lies. Not to mention for it to become even remotely effective we need to re-introduced apartheid laws.

The other part of EU sceptics are people that actually want more EU but instead of empowering federal governments they want regions to get more power, Flanders independence movements, Basque ones and so forth.


Simply look at the EU coming elections in may and look how many groups there are, there's no real consensus among EU sceptics. They come in all shapes and flavours and they all don't want to be seen in the same category as the other group.

It is no surprise Americans and people from the UK struggle with this as they have been raised and stuck in a two party system for so long they completely lack all the nuances we have between political movements.

[Mehrunes]

Send the EU police to beat me up? Totalitarian is the only language you people seem to speak.

Do you just spontaneously forget that you're repeatedly chilling for China depending on what thread you're posting in? Or that you championed the idea of forcible distribution of the wealth owned by the super rich?

Ridicule me all you want. It's only strengthening me and the group who wants the EU to burn.
So please, I plead you, I beg you.. Continue!

How does that even work? Are you minting ridicule tokens that you're going to use to pay glorious, politically plural, democratic and not in the slightest a dictatorship China to liberate the undemocratic EU?

[Acidbaron]

A ploy that perhaps worked a bit too well.

Hoist with their own petard as the saying goes.

Perhaps EU should stop being such a convenient scapegoat? Drop some of their power back to national level so that blame couldn't be shifted so easily?

What power exactly should they drop? Because people like you always tend to drop in and make these vague statements. What is easy since it creates an image that all the power about everything is located at the top of the EU but when asked what exactly you start eating your own fist since you can't produce any example.

[Mehrunes]

Now I understand why Trump-fanboys call you guys NPC's. No original thought whatsoever.

Said the guy directly repeating propaganda pieces written by literal Chinese apparatchiks.

The leadership told you that everyone with a different opinion must be a foreign agent and you accept it without even questioning.

Dude, you insinuated that someone with a different opinion than you is paid off by the CIA. It's right there in my sig. Do you seriously have no recollection of your own post history or are you just blatantly ignoring it, hoping no one will spot the irony in what you're just saying?

Continue please. You're only feeding into the anti-EU sentiment the population has.
At this pace the EU will be gone within the next decade.

How does @Slant do that, exactly? Are you by any chance the poster-child of the anti-EU sentiment for their remarks about you to feed into said sentiment? If so, sorry to burst your bubble, but you just made an argument of how extremely fringe - and consequently irrelevant - that sentiment is.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1KG1XF
http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/...beyond-brexit/

Please continue talking about fictional support for the EU.

Your own sources talk about at best 20% support for Eurosceptic parties. Meaning that 80% goes for the non-Euosceptic ones. You do realize that in a set of 80 and 20 voting distribution, it's 80% that's the majority, right? Or does Xi Jinping Thought state it's 20% and you, being totally not an NPC, instantly believed it?

Rofl, are you really using the European Commission as a source that people just love the EU?

Please let me show you this document from Erdogan claiming everyone loves him :')

I mean, if you're going to use an interview with a Chinese apparatchik responsible for security in Xinjiang province on highest level as evidence of how everything is fine and dandy with how the Uyghurs are treated, pretty much everything is fair game.

He failed to succeed at his chosen field and is now doing a low level education job. His emotional rants and fallacious arguments are driven by his inability to accept his flaws and projects the cause of his failure as a professional to the society he's living in. His radicalization into a frantic Marxist corresponds with how radical Islamist radicalize. Luckily most of them never turn violent and eventually come to therms with their shortcomings and return to being valuable members of society.

The funny thing about Kangodo's extremism is if he was actually right about how all countries of the world combat radicalization of the populace the same way the Chinese government combats the radicalization among Uyghurs, he wouldn't be able to post here, because he'd be locked up in a reeducation camp. So Kangodo himself is a case study in how his claims about the world are completely bogus.

Nope.

But to make an analogy:
I'd be the extremist organising the referendum for a free Catalonia.
Slant would be the police beating up elderly people for voting in the referendum.

Which meshes really well with your stance on Tibet.

A ploy that perhaps worked a bit too well.

Hoist with their own petard as the saying goes.

Perhaps EU should stop being such a convenient scapegoat? Drop some of their power back to national level so that blame couldn't be shifted so easily?

What power exactly does the EU have that'd prevent British politicians from saying things and/or British people from believing them? Neural chips? The EU law is available to the public. So is the information on how the MEPs voted on them. That the British population does not read that information despite it being freely available to them and instead just believe whatever new form of bitching the UK government conjures up is a them problem.

[Shalcker]

What power exactly should they drop? Because people like you always tend to drop in and make these vague statements. What is easy since it creates an image that all the power about everything is located at the top of the EU but when asked what exactly you start eating your own fist since you can't produce any example.

Like, for example, last Italian thing? Where they had budget changed to appease EU under threat of "Excessive Deficit Procedure" and 9 Bn fine? Is this economic harmonization truly necessary? Is it actually working to everyone's benefit?

Or perhaps that other thing that led to Brexit - allowing national governments to limit freedom of movement?

- - - Updated - - -

What power exactly does the EU have that'd prevent British politicians from saying things and/or British people from believing them?

So, they have no choice but to remain convenient scapegoats, is that what you're saying?

They cannot talk to same people and give their own version that would be convincing enough for same population?

...and yet in the same breath they expect their recommendations to be followed?

The EU law is available to the public. So is the information on how the MEPs voted on them. That the British population does not read that information despite it being freely available to them and instead just believe whatever new form of bitching the UK government conjures up is a them problem.

Perhaps EU regulations became to arcane for common comprehension and should be significantly simplified?

For example, let's take that "curved banana" example... where would i have to look to check full EU requirements for imported bananas?

[Acidbaron]

Like, for example, last Italian thing? Where they had budget changed to appease EU under threat of "Excessive Deficit Procedure" and 9 Bn fine? Is this economic harmonization truly necessary? Is it actually working to everyone's benefit?

Or perhaps that other thing that led to Brexit - allowing national governments to limit freedom of movement?

- - - Updated - - -

So, they have no choice but to remain convenient scapegoats, is that what you're saying?

They cannot talk to same people and give their own version that would be convincing enough for same population?

...and yet in the same breath they expect their recommendations to be followed?

Perhaps EU regulations became to arcane for common comprehension and should be significantly simplified?

If you want to come across that you know something it best to not refer to it as "that last italian thing" since it already states you know some parts of it but not the entire thing.

Why does the EU have certain guidelines and audits now for governments to put in budgets that are sustainable?
Do you know how those fines are determined?
Who has to bail them out if their budget plan goes south?

Also this committee was breath life into after the drama in Greece. This was again supported by a vast majority of member states since nobody wants to pay for another Greek tragedy. All member states have to follow this.

Limiting freedom of movement in what regard? The biggest complaint from the UK on that fronts comes from the concept called "social dumping". This is something that recently new agreements between nations was set. Including the UK approved this and one other thing that seems to be frequently reminded to "too fast" expansion into central to eastern Europe was initiated and supported by the full UK government under Tony Blair.

So right now your argument hinges on a committee that does oversight over national budgets. That was voted in to prevent further bank crisis.
And about the freedom of movement, something that was also vastly agreed upon using a nation that spearheaded the project and has been supportive of it every step of the way. But i know as putinista you wish to see a return back to border controls between EU states since that would introduce an economic down turn and that would mean Trade outside the EU becomes more attractive again what means Russia, sorry to say but that's not going to happen you're going to have to suffer under economic sanctions so long you continue to act aggressively towards the rest of the world.

[Shalcker]

If you want to come across that you know something it best to not refer to it as "that last italian thing" since it already states you know some parts of it but not the entire thing.

As opposed to you knowing the entire thing?

You wanted concrete examples, i provided them; i can dig deeper into them if necessary, but so far both look solid enough.

Why does the EU have certain guidelines and audits now for governments to put in budgets that are sustainable?
Do you know how those fines are determined?
Who has to bail them out if their budget plan goes south?

So, do you?
Or how else would you be able to assess if those requirements could or could not be dropped or relaxed?

Also this committee was breath life into after the drama in Greece. This was again supported by a vast majority of member states since nobody wants to pay for another Greek tragedy. All member states have to follow this.

They don't want to pay... but why shouldn't they? Isn't EU about solidarity?

If they didn't want to pay, wouldn't it actually be better in principle for Greeks to default, for banks that lend them to fail, and for financial system to be purged of this debt, rather then bailing them out? That feels quite selective.

Limiting freedom of movement in what regard? The biggest complaint from the UK on that fronts comes from the concept called "social dumping". This is something that recently new agreements between nations was set. Including the UK approved this and one other thing that seems to be frequently reminded to "too fast" expansion into central to eastern Europe was initiated and supported by the full UK government under Tony Blair.

Governments change, problems change too. If they were for expanding too fast, why shouldn't they be first to acknowledge when expansion should be stopped and gains re-assessed?

Why should they be stuck at positions supported by previous governments?

*checks google* For example, Cameron proposed quotas/caps on unskilled migrant workers as early as 2014 - motion that Merkel strongly rejected. And kept rejecting.

Why wasn't it sensible? What is the argument against it other then "not wanting to touch that can of worms"?

Now it would seem this cap is going to be implemented as British politicians wanted.

So right now your argument hinges on a committee that does oversight over national budgets. That was voted in to prevent further bank crisis.

So?

And about the freedom of movement, something that was also vastly agreed upon using a nation that spearheaded the project and has been supportive of it every step of the way.

They changed. Is changing opinions not allowed in EU?

[Acidbaron]

As opposed to you knowing the entire thing?

You wanted concrete examples, i provided them; i can dig deeper into them if necessary, but so far both look solid enough.

So, do you?
Or how else would you be able to assess if those requirements could or could not be dropped or relaxed?

They don't want to pay... but why shouldn't they? Isn't EU about solidarity?

If they didn't want to pay, wouldn't it actually be better in principle for Greeks to default, for banks that lend them to fail, and for financial system to be purged of this debt, rather then bailing them out? That feels quite selective.

Governments change, problems change too. If they were for expanding too fast, why shouldn't they be first to acknowledge when expansion should be stopped and gains re-assessed?

Why should they be stuck at positions supported by previous governments?

*checks google* For example, Cameron proposed quotas/caps on unskilled migrant workers as early as 2014 - motion that Merkel strongly rejected. And kept rejecting.

Why wasn't it sensible? What is the argument against it other then "not wanting to touch that can of worms"?

Now it would seem this cap is going to be implemented as British politicians wanted.


So?

They changed. Is changing opinions not allowed in EU?

One final reply since going into too deep on subjects with you is a waste of time to be honest, since this post of yours is already laced with plenty dishonesty that makes me not want to touch it in the first place.

You didn't provide concrete examples really, you put forward an example blaming it on "abuse of power" while it was introduce to create stability.
I know why, that's why i asked if you knew since you are hinting at more bogus claims. You also can't whine about the EU not being supportive enough of their member states while at the same time complaining there are check and balances in place you don't find lenient enough, that is assuming you even know what those requirements are, which you don't. So i'm not going to give you more ammunition, you want to make an argument about the Italian budget, go do your own research and then come back to me

Greece already struggles with their image to attract new investors, defaulting on their debts would have made their situation even worse long term. It also would not have dealt with the structural issues, what for a large part is fed by Russian money in Greece as those don't want to pay fair taxes. Giving Greece more money was never an issue it was an issue of structure of how the country got to this point.

The UK benefits from the freedom of travel, as to why Cameron couldn't get his deal home is that we are dealing in an Union. A Union means all member states have a say on it so the UK can't unilaterally decide what the outcome is. Opposition isn't an alien concept in the EU.
Also because the EU is democratic to deal with this concern a commission was raised under Marianne Thyssen, a Belgian politica with all ministers of Work from the whole EU and an agreement was reached i believe in 2018 or 2017 between all parties involved, surrounding this issue of social dumping.

I suggest next time bringing up an article from the 90's to create an even larger misinformation shock effect.

I'll see if your next post is more honest or i'll simply ignore it, thanks for playing

[Shalcker]

One final reply since going into too deep on subjects with you is a waste of time to be honest, since this post of yours is already laced with plenty dishonesty that makes me not want to touch it in the first place.

You should look in the mirror first.

You didn't provide concrete examples really, you put forward an example blaming it on "abuse of power" while it was introduce to create stability.

Nope. Your question was "What power exactly should they drop? Because people like you always tend to drop in and make these vague statements. What is easy since it creates an image that all the power about everything is located at the top of the EU but when asked what exactly you start eating your own fist since you can't produce any example."

Nothing about abuse of power in your question. Nothing about abuse of power in my message. It's all in your head.

I don't even think EU approach is necessarily net negative here; it's just that those things can be done on national level just as well - still are in most countries in the world, and they aren't suddenly plunging into crisis because of it.

Why EU has to hold hands for national governments and guide them as far away from crisis as possible? Couldn't they just shine light so that where precipice is would be crystal clear instead?

I know why, that's why i asked if you knew since you are hinting at more bogus claims. You also can't whine about the EU not being supportive enough of their member states while at the same time complaining there are check and balances in place you don't find lenient enough, that is assuming you even know what those requirements are, which you don't. So i'm not going to give you more ammunition, you want to make an argument about the Italian budget, go do your own research and then come back to me

I did, so what is your argument?

Greece already struggles with their image to attract new investors, defaulting on their debts would have made their situation even worse long term.

There is example of Iceland defaulting on their debts. No long-term losses there. Russia defaulted in 1998. Long-Term Capital Management fund folded, Russia was back to growth year later.

Most defaults are short-term, not long-term losses. Greece was never particularly great for investors, their borrowing spree was cooking books and riding on general strength of Eurozone, and they certainly shouldn't be considered great country for investment.

It also would not have dealt with the structural issues, what for a large part is fed by Russian money in Greece as those don't want to pay fair taxes. Giving Greece more money was never an issue it was an issue of structure of how the country got to this point.

Why do you have to decide their structural makeup?

The UK benefits from the freedom of travel, as to why Cameron couldn't get his deal home is that we are dealing in an Union. A Union means all member states have a say on it so the UK can't unilaterally decide what the outcome is. Opposition isn't an alien concept in the EU.
Also because the EU is democratic to deal with this concern a commission was raised under Marianne Thyssen, a Belgian politica with all ministers of Work from the whole EU and an agreement was reached i believe in 2018 or 2017 between all parties involved, surrounding this issue of social dumping.

Not social dumping. Quotas. I've checked, those low-skilled quotas for UK articles are quite recent.

Also, why couldn't that discussion happen before Brexit? Why couldn't it start in 2014 instead?

[Slant]

And him saying that proves EU is oppressing UK how? It's a statement of the natural outcome of UK's own decision (and their utter incompetence when it came to the deal).

Kangodo was also grossly and purposefully misquoting the bloke. Let's be clear about that. This is the type of misinformation Brexit is based upon.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Ummm...

Helllo...

Sorry, just an actual Brit here.

Quick interjection: with respect to myself and my interactions on MMO-Champion - if there are Russian and Chinese agitators attempting to sew the seeds of discord in an attempt to destabilise etc - I'm happy to confirm they've completely failed.

I started off voting Remain with a bit of a eurosceptic contrarian in me. I'm now very firmly a europhile. The eurosceptic contrarian has been beaten out of me.

So, you're not doing a very good job.

Carry on.