[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Flarelaine]

I doubt it. Theresa May refused to do the right and obvious thing with respect to Brexit because doing so would have probably permanently split her beloved Conservative Party.

Most of her Cabinet have been competing for who is the most Brexity since long before she even hinted her exit, anticipating an eventual exit on her part. They've never taken Brexit seriously enough as to place it above the potentiality of them becoming PM above that.

Boris Johnson is one of those people, who sold a bunch of lies to achieve the Brexit vote, then sold a bunch of lies as to why he failed in the Cabinet.

He'll be the most likely to Hard Brexit, because he clearly doesn't think the act of "Brexiting" is something to be concerned with, especially at the expense of his own political aspirations.

This is the latest entry in a long running thread of "The Modern Western Political class has it so good and thinks they're willing to play games with life, safety and the public good because they don't think anything of consequence can truly befall them". You'd think the Financial Crisis would have taught them (the Western political class) a thing or two on that note, but that's a big fat nope.

Most broadly, this is evidenced by games involving immigration, while Western work forces will struggle to keep paying for the current public entitlement without growing the work force further (and thus the tax base) through immigration.

Oh, I doubt it as well, but I though I'd still toss it out there for discussion. It's an opinion piece, but I think the point is that Johnson is unprincipled enough to pull it off. So far he was for Brexit because it disrupted everything and that allowed him to gamble big. But if he can be the Man who Restored Order?

[Mayhem]

Yes, they are too focused on their approach being the only right one.

Because, really, all that UK wanted is to be able to set restrictions on freedom of movement from the very start. There wouldn't be referendum if that one would be available.

That EU is unable to solve this in amicable way and can only be dogmatic that "four freedoms are non-negotiable" is on EU.

You both deserve each other, you are both clueless about everything.

Damn why the fuck can't I ignore stupid?

[Slant]

You both deserve each other, you are both clueless about everything.

Damn why the fuck can't I ignore stupid?

Cos there's fuckall to talk about, really.

Unless we'd like to ride on the UK denying two million people their right to vote. Because apparently, that's how you democracy. No wonder the EU isn't democratic, it asks its member states to allow every citizen the right to vote. How dare they.

[Snorkles]

Regardless of what happens - no deal, revoke or whatever is in the middle - Brexit is going to dominate our politics for the foreseeable future.

Such a fucking huge waste of time for nothing.

[melpwurst]

You both deserve each other, you are both clueless about everything.

Damn why the fuck can't I ignore stupid?

You keep calling everyone else stupid, yet most of your posts are composed of a single sentence reflexively pushing the remain position with all the intellectual sophistication of an American cheerleader.

It would be better if you were just silent when you had nothing to say.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the latest entry in a long running thread of "The Modern Western Political class has it so good and thinks they're willing to play games with life, safety and the public good because they don't think anything of consequence can truly befall them". You'd think the Financial Crisis would have taught them (the Western political class) a thing or two on that note, but that's a big fat nope.

The problem with the conservative party is that they are composed of people not well educated enough to go into finance. We no longer get first-class people in politics because the corporations run the country, not the politicians, so parliament is filled with second or increasingly third-string public schoolboys. The same problem afflicts your country: your essential conservatism blinds you to this.

[Noradin]

Because, really, all that UK wanted is to be able to set restrictions on freedom of movement from the very start. There wouldn't be referendum if that one would be available.

They already had the ability to set restrictions, they chose not to use them.
Any additional restrictions aren't possible while staying inside the common market.

- - - Updated - - -

EU is clearly at fault for making obviously one-sided agreement that then failed to actually get required approval (and as result EU is likely going to lose a lot more then it would get with something actually agreeable).

Same pattern happened in Ukraine with Association Agreement.

The EU is not a dictatorship that can just freely break their laws, maybe that is different where you are from?

- - - Updated - - -

That EU is unable to solve this in amicable way and can only be dogmatic that "four freedoms are non-negotiable" is on EU.

Yes, the EU should just abolish itself to please the Brits.
Is that your view of democracy? 17 million dictating the fate of 500 million?

- - - Updated - - -

It would be better if you were just silent when you had nothing to say.

Why don't you take your own advise burner?

[Slant]

The agreement is better for the EU, absolutely. As I said, the UK was utterly unprepared, they were wrong to get into this mess without being serious. This is not at all an example of the EU being not slow and inept. This is the UK falling into all holes with the EU watching, that's it.

You must be joking. Or you haven't followed the negotiations at all. The EU was one step ahead every step of the way. While concluding its main task of concluding FTA negotiations with Japan, opening up negotiations with Australia, concluding CETA (including a regional controversy in Belgium), introducing revolutionary privacy data protection that practically the entire planet has adopted by now...

I could go on and on... thinking the EU is slow and inept is a very, very invalid point of view. You may want it to be slow and inept so you can continue hating on it, but it certainly isn't.

[rda]

They already had the ability to set restrictions, they chose not to use them.
Any additional restrictions aren't possible while staying inside the common market.

- - - Updated - - -

The EU is not a dictatorship that can just freely break their laws, maybe that is different where you are from?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the EU should just abolish itself to please the Brits.
Is that your view of democracy? 17 million dictating the fate of 500 million?

You are agreeing with Shalcker. (People in) the UK wanted to set restrictions onto the freedom of movement in a way that was stricter than what was possible if they stayed in the EU.

For the record, I think there were (and are) bigger reasons to leave the EU, but I agree the freedom of movement was a key one that triggered it all, and if it was not for that, nothing would have happened.

- - - Updated - - -

You must be joking. Or you haven't followed the negotiations at all. The EU was one step ahead every step of the way. While concluding its main task of concluding FTA negotiations with Japan, opening up negotiations with Australia, concluding CETA (including a regional controversy in Belgium), introducing revolutionary privacy data protection that practically the entire planet has adopted by now...

What you say does not contradict what I say in any way. You cannot use the example of UK-EU negotiations as an example of EU being "not slow" because in this example they are merely "faster" than the UK which are just "standing still" (being unprepared completely). This is a laughable bar.

Please wake me up when the EU do something proactive like, say, make China stop stealing / appropriating Western IP. Who does this? Right, the US. Always someone other than the EU.

[Noradin]

You are agreeing with Shalcker. (People in) the UK wanted to set restrictions onto the freedom of movement in a way that was stricter than what was possible if they stayed in the EU.

I'm not, I'm disagreeing with the both of you.
You are just too uninformed to understand what options UK politicans did have but choose not to implement.

[rda]

I'm not, I'm disagreeing with the both of you.

I am not seeing how, sorry.

Dammit, you edited your post and included the line of "you are just uninformed". Could you explain it then, maybe? It does not matter much with whom you are agreeing or disagreeing, this is all secondary. Just explain the point. Was the question of restrictions onto the freedom of movement instrumental or not?

[Noradin]

I am not seeing how, sorry.

Do you know what restrictions to freedom of movement were possible and what British citizens wanted changed?
Do you know whom freedom of movement applies to?

[rda]

Do you know what restrictions to freedom of movement were possible and what British citizens wanted changed?
Do you know whom freedom of movement applies to?

Yes, yes and yes.

[Shalcker]

They already had the ability to set restrictions, they chose not to use them.
Any additional restrictions aren't possible while staying inside the common market.

Exactly the dogmatism i'm talking about.

You don't have to bind everything to common market. Laws are there to serve people and their needs, not the other way around.

The EU is not a dictatorship that can just freely break their laws, maybe that is different where you are from?

That means often EU cannot change fast enough to deal with modern challenges.

Yes, the EU should just abolish itself to please the Brits.
Is that your view of democracy? 17 million dictating the fate of 500 million?

If the only two choices are "those representing 66 millions submitting to opinions of those representing 500 millions" and "Brexit", then why are you surprised Brexit wins?

Common market is big carrot, but not big enough for every challenge.

[Noradin]

Yes, yes and yes.

Go on then, present some details, give some examples of things the UK public wanted stopped...

Or name a restriction to freedom of movement... Who is excluded? Under what circumstances can someone be sent back whom it applies to?

- - - Updated - - -

Common market is big carrot, but not big enough for every challenge.

Then the better leave... why aren't they out yet?

- - - Updated - - -

That means often EU cannot change fast enough to deal with modern challenges.

And yet it means the EU is the only organisation in existance that can deal with some of those modern challenges at all.
And just te be clear, I disagree on the "not fast enough" part.

[Slant]

What you say does not contradict what I say in any way. You cannot use the example of UK-EU negotiations as an example of EU being "not slow" because in this example they are merely "faster" than the UK which are just "standing still" (being unprepared completely). This is a laughable bar.

Please wake me up when the EU do something proactive like, say, make China stop stealing / appropriating Western IP. Who does this? Right, the US. Always someone other than the EU.

The US is accomplishing jack shit with regards to China, mate. All Trump does is make a fool of himself. Rofl.

- - - Updated - - -

I am still beyond pissed at that. I have had several friends in the UK who could not vote because their forms were never processed, even though they did everything in time. There should be heavy censure over this.

Understandable. But it's not just EU citizens in the UK, UK citizens in EU countries faced the same problem. And this is exactly why the EU doesn't trust anything the UK says and wants it in dry ink and ratified before they move on, because this shit would become the new norm of UK/EU relations. And that's just not good enough.

[rda]

Go on then, present some details, give some examples of things the UK public wanted stopped...

Or name a restriction to freedom of movement... Who is excluded? Under what circumstances can someone be sent back whom it applies to?

Look, I think I know what your point here is. People who voted Leave felt the UK was being flooded with immigrants and felt that leaving the EU would allow the UK to impose stricter controls on that. You seem to want to say that the UK have already been given controls over that - referencing an emergency brake. But it's the entire thing that this does not close the issue, it's the entire thing that people who in the end voted Leave felt like this was just something added on top of the general too-free policy and that this was not enough. The EU argued all the time that the four freedoms of movement were inseparable from each other, that this is fundamental to the EU and that all kinds of brakes are just for super-special purposes, temporary, etc.

Now, is this what you wanted to say - that from your point of view, people voting Leave had no reason to vote Leave because they had things like an emergency brake? Or did you want to say something else?

In any case, this remains about restrictions onto the freedom of movement, and I don't see how you can deny that this was a key question, arguably the most important.

- - - Updated - - -

The US is accomplishing jack shit with regards to China, mate. All Trump does is make a fool of himself. Rofl.

Remember these words when the trade war ends with China altering their laws and / or making other concessions under pressure.

[Slant]

That means often EU cannot change fast enough to deal with modern challenges.

I'm sure you have an example to back it up? Like privacy laws on the internet, maybe. Or the acceptance of LGBT rights throughout the EU member states...

- - - Updated - - -

Remember these words when the trade war ends with China altering their laws and / or making other concessions under pressure.

You really aren't following the news, are you? Rofl. You're not winning that trade war, mate. You're losing it.

[rda]

You really aren't following the news, are you? Rofl. You're not winning that trade war, mate. You're losing it.

You created yourself a nice bubble. Read about the trade war, dear. Read what it is fought over, for example. I won't even ask why you are writing that "I" (meaning the US, although I am not the US, but fine) am "losing it", because I know what I am going to get - some stupid link from a clueless journalist that only now discovers that hey, there is that thing called the economy and hey, sometimes there are things there, and then quickly gets overwhelmed and goes back to his usual shtick of "yeah, let's talk about Trump now, he is an idiot, so his war is stupid too and he is losing it, I just know it". The reality is a little different, it just trickles down to you slowly because you choose to get to it through biased single-cell clueless media.

[dribbles]

I am still beyond pissed at that. I have had several friends in the UK who could not vote because their forms were never processed, even though they did everything in time. There should be heavy censure over this.

And I am beyond happy at that...

Just no. Foreigners from the EU shouldn't be able to vote in UK elections any more than people from Swaziland can.

They should vote in their own damn country.

[Noradin]

Now, is this what you wanted to say - that from your point of view, people voting Leave had no reason to vote Leave because they had things like an emergency brake? Or did you want to say something else?

What I wanted to say was that those things they voted to change were so by design by the UK government, which could have done something about them but instead pretended the EU wouldn't let them. Leaving the EU made their problems worse.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't even ask why you are writing that "I" (meaning the US, although I am not the US, but fine)

He wrote "you" not "I".
Do you need help finding a dictionary so you can look up the different meanings of "you"?